Talk:SonicEnergy

RADIATION

The phrase is in the article, "Ultrasound is non-ionizing radiation". This is incorrect. Ultrasound is vibrations in matter, not non-ionizing radiation. Ionizing and non-ionizing can travel through pure vacuum while sound can not. R39525 (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Power level

"145dB to 155dB"? Is that in dB SPL? -- Impsswoon (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The original reference (uBeam's site) doesn't say, but dB SPL is conventional and consistent with the power densities uBeam also provides. I've clarified it to dB SPL, and referenced a journal article discussing ultrasound intensity limits for life safety for some background on the meaning of that. 73.11.93.107 (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I notice that the reference (Smagowska 2013) was removed, and replaced with the company's own claims relating to safety limits for medical ultrasound. That doesn't make a lot of sense, since Smagowska is talking specifically about government limits on the ultrasound power density in air (like uBeam), and not coupled directly to tissue through a fluid (like for medical imaging). The typical frequencies also differ by orders of magnitude. I've fleshed out the safety section with that reference plus a few more.

The edits were made by a new account that only ever edited this page, and edited it in a way that's generally flattering to uBeam. If you want to revert the change I just made, then I'd suggest that you provide some context for why on this talk page, to avoid any suspicion that you're acting on behalf of the company. 73.11.93.107 (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I notice that it just happened again, from 2600:1012:b043:6c04:b0d6:5c01:8e2d:c7a1, an IP address in California with no other editing history. This is the same location as the company's headquarters. Before editing again, can you state your affiliation (if any) with the company, and provide references for the statement that "There are no studies or literature that show any impact of airborne ultrasound in the 40-100 kHz range.", despite the existence of government regulations on exactly that and extensive literature discussing them? 73.11.93.107 (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Ubeam debunked

EEVBlog has done a thoroughly debunking of this "product" Short: Is not safe, its not efficent, its too expensive, its impractical in any way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8dqzVlhFkA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.243.117.191 (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

EEVBlog has released an updated video indicating that the company has had massive layoffs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1R9IQF0Y9s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.76.137 (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries

When I see extensive deletions from the article, with edit summaries

Fixed typo, added content

Added two sources ...

format citations and add block quote templates

it's pretty clear that someone is keen to hide the truth about this product. Maproom (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

WTF is this? A company business card?

Seriously Wikipedia. Are you going to let yourself be abused by a scam company that uses this space to advertise their scammy idea? 82.72.139.164 (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

If subject meets WP:NOTABILITY then it can have their own article regardless of being a scam company or whatever. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

COI

It appears that user EVnerd2000 may have a conflict of interest or otherwise may be personally involved with the subject of this article. I suspect a COI because this user has a history of:

a) Removing content critical of the company, and,

b) Has made detailed contributions concerning the personal names of the company's leadership and key people (which is not all readily available to the public, as far as I can tell),

c) has made contributions with reasons such as "removed false information" and "deleted incorrect facts", despite the information/facts having multiple sources, and,

d) has made contributions which appear to only portray the company in a positive light (example: added the company logo). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisefroggy (talk • contribs)

Safety section

I've removed the Safety section on the grounds that it is original research. As far as I can see, OSHA have not tested the specific uBeam system, so we cannot take their general statements about ultrasound exposure and imply that they demonstrate the specific uBeam is safe. We need a reliable source that talks about the specific safety of uBeam to include it in this article. Railfan23 (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that all the talk of cavitation be removed. Cavitation is not an issue for air coupled ultrasound. For medical HIFU yes, for this, no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.9.186 (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Mirror Cracked and Wise Froggy

“All of uBeams original engineering team leaving by 2016” is both false and misleading. The company didn’t have employees until 2014, and anyone who worked with Perry before 2014 would have been contractors. According to LinkedIn, there were 14 original engineers at uBeam, 5 of which had left by 2016. The company then grew to 30 people. Their current engineering leadership that replaced Paul Reynolds has been employed with the company since 2015. All of this is information is available on LinkedIn. Wiserame (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

LinkedIn is not a reliable source. BusinessInsider is - you know the reference you removed in your edit. You also left unsourced potentially libellous comments in the article which is absolutely not allowed. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

McElrea replacing Perry

Jacqueline McCauley did not replace Perry as CEO. Simon McElrea replaced Perry. See uBeams press releases. Wiserame (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, uBeam's press releases are not reliable sources. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

They tried to sell me with a forklift

I changed the external link to what appears to be the last-known-good archive of their website (not too surprisingly, from around the time the company apparently gave its last gasp.)

I enjoyed the sizzle reel that appears to have headed up the home page for several years, in which, about seven seconds in, it is strongly implied that a propane-powered forklift is being recharged on-the-go by ultrasound. NapoliRoma (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Meredith Perry

Gonna merge Meredith Perry here - uBeam is the entirety of her notability, as far as I can tell. Anyone object? - David Gerard (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

merged (one ref) and redirected - David Gerard (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Wikwizard2040: By your action of removing the redirect at Meredith Perry, I presume you are disputing this merge, so I have restored the page. Please expand on your rationale here. Personally, I support this merge, as most of the article is based on unreliable sources like LinkedIn, and the remainder doesn't seem enough to support an independent article. Liu1126 (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Also pinging User:WikiEditor020575 who seems to be involved. Liu1126 (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Liu1126I do not support the action of merging a company with a person. A person is not the equivalent of a company, and the subject of the article Meredith Perry is associated with several other institutions (NASA, J Craig Venter Institute, and Elemind). From previous edits, it appears @David Gerardis looking to minimize the subject and disparage her. This goes against Wikipedia rules and should be stopped. WikiEditor020575 (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Please don't remove the merge template while the discussion is still in progress and hasn't been closed by an admin or another editor. Merging isn't about deciding whether two subjects are equivalent, its about whether the subject deserves an independent article per the notability policy. Her associations also don't necessarily make her notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. Liu1126 (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, the Perry article is AFD material - and her entire notability is the company. We redirect individuals to their company quite a lot when that's the case; an AFD would likely end with that as the result. If the Perry article were to remain a standalone, it would need much more varied notability than it has, and a lot less ill-sourced puffery - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Wikwizard2040 and WikiEditor020575: If you don't have any further objections, I'll restore David's merge. Otherwise, we'll have to take this to AFD for wider discussion. Liu1126 (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Restoring the merge given no response since three weeks ago and no significant improvements to original article. Liu1126 (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I do have further rejections. Her entire notability is not the company -- your opinion that it is, is very clearly subjective. It's clear you're trying to erase her as a person as you have a personal vendetta against her, and it make you feel better if she didn't have recognition. This is a page that has been up for 7 years without issue. WikiEditor020575 (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@WikiEditor020575: An AFD for the page has been opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meredith Perry. Liu1126 (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)