HackerTubewatch
Surprise me
Frame from uBeam.flv Plays via YouTube's privacy-enhanced embed

uBeam.flv

Phạm Quốc Thiện
Demos
YouTube
Cited on HN 4 times, 2014–2017, never outright recommended score 0
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026

Cited mainly as a baseline showing uBeam had made little visible progress and as an example of a demo skeptics found unconvincing.

A two-minute 2011 clip of an early uBeam wireless power demo. It shows a short-range ultrasound charging demonstration.

1 citations · 3 critical · Demos · news from the time

4 Hacker News comments

From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.

@7Figures2Commas Nov 2014 Cites it
on HN thread Putting $10M into UBeam illustrates what is wrong with tech investing
Read more
From Arrington's blog: > In a year or so when this thing is productized you’ll be hearing a lot more about Mary. As you note, that was written on May 23, 2012, more than 2 years ago. According to this article[1], the company is now aiming to be selling "by 2016." This suggests there was either a misunderstanding about the time required to develop a commercial product, or developing a commercial product has taken a lot longer than anticipated. What's interesting to me is that the recent photo from the New York Times[2], which Mark Suster also included in his blog post[3], doesn't on the surface seem to show substantial progress from what was being demoed back in 2011[4][5]. Charging a single phone from a couple of feet away is not what's being promised. [1] [link] [2] [link] [3] [link] [4] [link] [5] [this video]
Shows the 2011 uBeam demo for comparison with later claims.
@Animats Nov 2015 Pushes back
on HN thread UBeam Declassifies Secrets to Try to Prove Wireless Power Is Possible
They had a working demo in 2012. Here it is.[1] You're looking at a single big ultrasonic transducer sending to a bunch of little ones. The little ones are the same ones RobotShop sells.[2] They're very vague about how much energy went in and how much came out. The big heat sinks on the sending side suggest that a few hundred watts are going in. The meter on the receive side is just showing voltage, so there's no indication of the actual energy transfer. There's no beam forming or steering. Anybody could reproduce that demo, but it doesn't prove much. [1] [this video] [2] [link]
@TeMPOraL Nov 2015 Pushes back
on HN thread Experts Still Think UBeam’s Through-The-Air Charging Tech Is Unlikely
Read more
Well, either it works or it doesn't. What's there to talk about? It's not that they're doing rocket science. > "But even amid a tidal wave of publicity, the company has never publicly demonstrated a fully functioning prototype of its system." This is what I don't get - how the hell did they manage to get investors? I mean, ultrasound charging isn't magic, anyone who knows their stuff around EE should be able to throw together in a month a simple prototype of the tech to show to the investors. That is, a prototype that actually charges a phone, not this[0] which a) doesn't really charge the phone, and b) seems to be geared towards confusing people clueless about electricity. The fact that they didn't, after 4 years, produce anything suggests that they don't even have anyone on board who knows this stuff, so why are they getting money? Seriously, I think I'm gonna plug my IRC bot to TTS and go raise money for my AGI startup. [0] - [this video]
@Animats Feb 2017 Pushes back
on HN thread UBeam finally shows off its wireless charging tech
Read more
Perry first stood a couple of yards from a large white box emitting ultrasound waves, and used a device that glowed red when it was in the waves' path. She then grabbed an Android smartphone in a large and bulky black case, and held it up in that path. When she did so, a large battery charge counter on the screen showed that it was indeed charging. Of course you can transmit some power that way. But how much? And what's the efficiency? Here's their previous demo, from 2011.[1] What they had then was a bunch of cheap ultrasonic transducers [2] aimed at each other. Those used to be popular for hobbyist robotics. Some unspecified amount of power was transmitted about two feet. Probably a few milliwatts. The last time UBeam published numbers, they claimed to be generating a few kilowatts of sound power. Such things are usually used as weapons systems (see LRAD) or welders. You don't want to be in a kilowatt ultrasonic beam. The energy mostly ends up as heat. This technology is either too low power to be useful or, if pumped up to useful power levels, too dangerous. [1] [this video] [2] [link]

Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.

Keyboard shortcuts

/
Search
j k
Next / previous video
r
Surprise me
l
Like (video page)
w
Watch later (video page)
?
This help
Esc
Close