State of Wireless Charging in May 2019

I have to apologize for the low rate of postings - basically I'm slammed with work, personal ventures, and home/family. I'd like to be writing more, and talking about what I'm doing, but that's just not going to happen for a while. Hopefully more at the end of the year, but for now I'll use the long weekend to try and get at least a couple of articles done.

AirPower and Qi

My last article on wireless charging, noting the disappointment of AirPower and PiCharging (Spanse), got some mixed responses. Some industry insiders were not pleased with my portrayal of Qi as limited, and suggested that if I were to review a premium phone with the associated official charger that I'd have a different opinion. I agree that in a perfect world Qi can achieve some reasonable charge rates, however my hope for AirPower was that Apple removed the need for consumers to worry about positioning and would make it a seamless experience. Just "drop and go" and it's charged when you pick it up an hour or two later - but they couldn't do so. 

The problem isn't Qi's performance under ideal conditions, it's that if you need the ideal setup, a premium phone, and the expensive charger, then many users get a sub-par experience and then that experience taints things from there on out. You don't want consumers to think it's pointless? Give them a great experience first time out, and then that becomes the expectation and when there's a cheap knock-off charger that's $50 cheaper but charges at 1 W not 7.5 W they blame the cheap charger, not Qi. Let there be a tainted ecosystem where for years it's a crap shoot how things go then the standard gets blamed instead.

The reality of things is that consumers are dumb, and will take the cheapest and laziest route on everything. For example, I went to Amazon and typed "wireless charger Pixel 3" and I see the official Google wireless charger for ~$80 (4 star review) and an LK charger for $16 (4 star review). I understand this stuff and can't tell what the difference is, the average person has no chance. I have no idea if LK is any good or not, but is it 5x better than the Google? That's the price point most people expect, and are going to have a hard time justifying that extra $64. Now does that $16 charger work fast and well, or does it fail to charge due to positioning on a regular basis, or charge slowly? (I'll try and let you know in a few days, I just ordered it) If it fails on even a couple occasions and you lose phone use during the day because it didn't charge overnight then people start to default back to "just plug in with the wire that came with the thing". For the Pixel 3 that wire is an 18 W charger, and that's noticeably fast.

So can Qi be great when all is good with the setup? Yes. But if a consumer has to know the exact setup to use to get that then the $16 base unit sets the expectation, not the $80 one.

Update 28th May 2019: A reader tells me "The reason it (the Pixel Stand) costs $79 is not because it charges faster or with more placement forgiveness than some 3rd party charger like LK (although it does offer a proprietary 10W mode, so it should charge a Pixel3 somewhat faster than LK). Rather, the 'Google Screen' feature is why it is priced very high.  You need to use the Pixel 3 phone to unlock this feature, but it is really cool, IMHO... To simply take some Samsung or Apple phone and compare its charge rate on the Pixel Stand vs. the LK and obviously conclude that it is not worth the extra $64 is a waste of time and misleading." Seems a fair point, and I do have a Pixel Stand on the way too, I'll compare them in more than just the charge rate. Still, I had no idea there were even such features in the stand so I think my point on poor marketing of what may be excellent features stands!

It was also pointed out to me that what I was saying about the frequency of operation didn't make too much sense, which on rereading was a fair point. What I wanted to say came over badly, and there was no easy way to fix it, so I deleted it. Thank you for that feedback those who sent that comment.

Pi/Spanse and Qi

So this was the more interesting one, it seems. I had pointed out that I had thought Pi would be a success in part due to the use of the existing infrastructure of the inbuilt Qi charger, but that I was now confused as they talked about the need for a proprietary charging case didn't go down well with users. 

When I had written the first Pi article, I'd seen the original paper on the technology working at 6.78 MHz, and spoken to a couple of people I knew and trusted who had connections to the company and the answer came back "yes they shifted to 140 kHz". I also emailed the founder and specifically asked this question though didn't get a response (should have raised a flag there). I then went on to write the article based on that, and there's a lesson here for me in not believing something until I've seen it in verified. I think someone should start a blog about that...

Well suspicions now seem to be confirmed. If you go to Spanse's website you can see the "Source" that they are now essentially selling is a large Qi charging station that works with up to 6 devices and thick cases, for $189. Sure you get wifi for updating and a USB port for wired charging, but I've already got that in my laptop, or a wall socket, for a lot less. Now personally I don't have 6 devices that need charged, and I'm wondering if it's 12 times better than that LK charger I just ordered. It seems a bit large for bedside table use, so is it aimed at a kitchen table for a family, or an office? The generic image above shows it charging an iPad, but look closely and you'll see the iPad is wired charging, and given either the wall socket the Source is plugged into, or the laptop nearby, could have done it I'm struggling to see the clear use case. 

Importantly, the at-distance part is gone. What exactly happened is unclear, but rumours seem to be that the near-contact Qi charging was conflated with the at-distance charging that would need a proprietary case and a higher frequency. People I've chatted with who have some connections call it an honest mistake and miscommunication, but if true then I'm calling bullshit on "honest mistake" when the key aspects that made this interesting happen to not be true. Everyone knew what people wanted, and it was the convenience of modest charge rates at a modest distance, with pre-existing charging infrastructure. Add in the requirement of a new expensive case, and it's just another also-ran.

Ossia

Ossia (wireless charging with RF, very similar to Energous) announced a deal for wirelessly charging IoT asset trackers in Walmart warehouses. 

...guards and associates will wirelessly power the asset trackers at warehouses’ guard shacks, ensuring the trackers are charged before they’re attached to incoming trailers, crates, pallets, and packages.

While the wording in the article seems to be ambiguous and points to also charging the handheld devices the employees use, I expect that fundamentally this is using their 2D array to locate and charge the small low power trackers that go on boxes and pallets in warehouses. Given that active RFID work at up to around 100 mW in short bursts (from recollection), a high microWatt, low milliWatt source that saves employees a minute on each tag across thousands of tags will be economically viable. From what I've seen, this is basically Powercast's business model and they've been out there for years quietly serving the market without the fanfare or exaggeration of Ossia or Energous.

Interestingly the Ossia VP interviewed talks about the "proof of concept" which makes me wonder if this is just a demo for Walmart and not an actual sale/rollout. Regardless, this very low power, intermittent need, in an industrial facility, which is the kind of thing that wireless power at-a-distance is actually suited for. It's one of the reasons all the companies talk about charging your phone fastert than a wire at multiple meters, but then move to "trickle charging" and then IoT, and then eventually out the consumer space entirely. All of them. No surprise, it's where they all inevitably go after having exhausted all the alternatives (and investor money).

Energous

Very briefly on Energous - I wondered if they would make their raise given the price of the stock, but it seems they did raise a further $25m from stock, and so now have cash to make it to early Q1 2020 assuming no reduction in staff or compensation. (I was told they had trouble selling that, cancelled the first offer and tried again, and ended up getting it from a short seller group, which is ironic. I have no confirmation on this, so take it with a pinch of salt) This still isn't enough to see them to revenue, given their own statements as to even the best case for products, so we'll be back here at the end of the year with the same thing again. We're also still waiting on any products with "WattUp" in them, such as the hearing aids (sorry, PSAPs) that were promised in no more than 90 days about a year ago. Don't hold your breath on those products.

Lastly, investors seem to be catching on, and share price for WATT has dipped and is now around $4.55. Tracking the stock price for the last year, it's not looking good for them. At what point do the institutional investors realize they've been had and bail?

uBeam

Last and definitely least, uBeam. So little going on here compared to the others, Ossia and Spanse at least have technology that can sell even if it's not a wow, and Energous are quite entertaining, but what is happening with my former company? They're continuing to be fairly low profile, as they (presumably) try to package up IP and at least pretend there's a workable product in there somewhere to either licence or sell the company. 

I took a look to see if there had been any IP filed - generally you see what got filed about 1 year or more ago, and can tell what the company was working on at the time (not 100% certain, sometimes you still patent dead end paths). I was quite surprised by what I found looking at their filings. Now it's often hard to tell what are applications, what are grants, and what are just repeats in the system, but when you see that the most recent patent (10,252,908) was submitted in Feb 2018, that almost all the people listed on it had left the company 1 to 2 years prior to it, and that my name was one it as well, you can tell they're really not producing much new. In fact, going back through them I can see one other that was filed in 2018, and that's also from an employee who left in 2016. Maybe I'm missing a trove of them at the USPTO, but it looks like the bulk of the filings come from people who were there in 2015 and not much beyond. How do you sell a company based on IP when you've not produced new IP in years, the people who did produce that IP have long since left, one of them writes a blog criticizing you, and there's no product?

It seems that uBeam might now hire a third person since their (supposed) $25 million fundraise over 14 months ago. This time, it's a Chief Commercial/Revenue Officer.

uBeam is seeking to hire a Chief Commercial Officer/Chief Revenue Officer. uBeam is the inventor of ultrasonic power-at-a-distance Always-On Wireless EnergyTM, utilizing ultra-safe ultrasonic array technology to deliver reliable, long-range wire-free charging. By developing proprietary transducers, transmitters, receivers, and custom enterprise software, uBeam’s technology delivers usable power to devices ranging from portable electronics, medical, aerospace, automotive, and in particular IoT devices and networks. Significant revenue-generating experience in these fields, coupled with successful B2B licensing experience is essential. Experience in acoustic technology, phased array radar or ultrasound is also highly beneficial.

So "Always-On Wireless Energy" is their new tagline I guess, since it gets a 'TM', although no-one bothered with a superscript. Apparently the technology is not just safe but "ultra-safe" which I'm not sure the definition of but given the emphasis here, they must be feeling a bit of vulnerability on this front. I don't follow why a C-level "revenue" officer needs to have tech experience but bizarrely they want someone with "significant revenue-generating experience in these fields" and I'm not sure who that could be because quite literally no at-distance wireless power company has ever done that - not Energous, not Ossia, perhaps only PowerCast that actually have had a product on sale for a while.

Lots of references to dealing with board members in the ad, as well as fundraising. "The CCO/CRO will be required to present to the Board of Directors on a regular basis, and from time to time will be involved in fund-raising activities on behalf of the company.", "Successful experience in fund raising and pitching to investors.", "Have considerable experience presenting at Board of Directors meetings.", and "Ability to efficiently interact with board members."

It's a bit odd to be looking for a C-level hire via regular job board postings, those are mostly done via word of mouth, personal connections, and specialized recruiters. As someone on the EEV Blog pointed out - sounds a lot like the role a CEO should be doing. Is the uBeam CEO looking for a scapegoat already, or is this a replacement?

Phrasing also indicates they're aiming for markets outside the US, which on the one hand you can understand because the professed model needs contract manufacturers which are still heavily in China, but given every other country outside the USA definitively has a 115dB or less ultrasound limit (1000x less power than at the professed 145dB), the product is not viable there unless they ignore the law. "Experience in dealing with issues on an international basis: understanding of the North American and European landscape (knowledge of the Asian market would be a plus)."

As far as I know, this is a new position, so not from the Perry era and gives a confirmation to the business strategy the company is taking - B2B licensing, with contract manufacturers, and keep it going long enough to bamboozle for another round of investment.

Oh and apparently "Benefits that are 2nd to none!". Yeah, I'm going to call bullshit on that. How much PTO? How much in RSUs and bonus? Sabbaticals? Educational supplement? Matching 401k? My recollection (and that of more recent departees) is good benefits for a startup, but can't match that of larger companies.

Last thing for this article - uBeam don't post much on social media like LinkedIn so it was interesting to see them link to this safety article from the CTO of Wi-Charge (laser based power delivery). 

Forbes just put out a good new article on wireless charging. Wireless Charging can take on many forms, but not all of them are safe and effective. uBeam's ultrasonic wireless power is a differentiated technology that can safely transmit energy over the air across long distances to charge a wide array of electronic devices. 

The premise of the piece was on regulatory and safety aspects of wireless power, yet uBeam used it to claim safety for their own system. Now we don't know what uBeam have (cough), and they do claim "third party testing" has proved it safe, but never released those reports, despite questions on how they can do what they claim at 145 dB when it exceeds sound limits around the world. For those wondering about various limits, I have a list here.

I have to wonder - do they know and know they are lying, do they deep down suspect and are avoiding checking so they can pretend to themselves they aren't lying, are they just that dumb, or are they true believers? The psychology of this is fascinating, as perhaps each person pretends it's not their responsibility and keeps cashing the paycheque. I really want to find this out someday, sadly I think it's just going to be one of those mysteries.

Dialog Expect Low Volume Energous Sales in 2019

Earlier today Dialog Semiconductor announced on their conference call that they do not expect significant sales for Energous in 2019. Dialog is a large semiconductor manufacturer who produce, market, and sell Energous electronics to third parties, and previously invested up to $25 million in Energous. In the words of Dialog, the relationship is where:

We provide the product manufacturing and marketing part of that partnership. They do the front-end system design, the technology, the engagement with the customers in terms of getting into new areas

While Dialog claim to sell the parts, unlike most electronics parts there are no standard data sheets available for the Energous components, and you can't order them from their website, almost as if they don't want anyone to know the actual performance. As Dialog are a publicly traded company, they have earnings calls, and today they were asked how things were going with Energous. The link above has the full transcript, but here's a couple of relevant parts:

For 2019, it would be some amount of, if you like, low-volume shipment to innovative customers, first-time users, etcetera, who are trying things.

We don’t expect large volume in 2019. In fact, we have shipped already some units, but we’re talking thousands, they’re not millions. 

This is at odds with statement's from Energous' CEO, Steve Rizzone, from last week's WATT conference call:

A similar situation befell us with the second top-tier opportunity we were tracking for Q4 revenue. The customer was planning a second quarter product launch, which would have triggered a meaningful order in the fourth quarter of last year to support preproduction and initial mass production manufacturing ramp. ... With these changes, we now anticipate the associated chip order will come and ship in the second quarter of this year.

as well as:

We expect to see a number of additional products shipping to the consumer in 2019... A case in point is the fact that we expect to see a number of WattUp-enabled hearing aids from different manufacturers launched to the consumer in 2019.

Hmmm, who to believe?

Dialog announce expected volumes of a few thousand units, at a few dollars each? Given this, it confirms my expectations of no leaps in Energous revenue for the next three quarters.

Another potential issue this raises is that just last week Energous moved forward with a new stock offering, and raised around $23m, which at the current burn rate will barely last for 2 quarters, not enough to get them to 2020 and even a chance of volume sales. Steven Rizzone, CEO, had stated:

The transaction raised $25 million less expenses, which factoring on our existing cash, forecasted revenues, reduced expense budget for the year, should fund the Company for the foreseeable future. 

Let's be generous and say that the 'foreseeable future' is 4 quarters, in which case they need to cut expenses from around $50 million a year to $24 million a year. In the last couple of years expenses have been roughly $30 million in R&D (mostly headcount, currently 71), and around $16 million in stock compensation. So the CEO and pals can keep their stock comp and slash staff by about 50 people, though that  won't exactly look like a company with a future. Alternatively, they could give up 100% of their stock compensation, and only have to lose about 15% of the staff (11 or so). 

So slash staff, equity comp, or a mystery source of revenue? Hands up everyone who sees this crowd giving up their equity comp, or the magic money fairy dropping a large bag of $ at WATT HQ?

Speaking of stock, it is not having a good time right now. Here is WATT over the last year - see if you can spot where rumours of Energous being in the Samsung Galaxy S10 started, and when it was announced that it absolutely was not.

Only down 73% since this time last year...

(Repeating the seemingly obligatory statement - I have no financial position, short or long, in Energous or any related company. Nor have I ever had any such positions.)

What's Next for Energous?

A summary of what's in this article:

• Energous are doing their Q4 2018 earnings call from MWC 2 weeks later in February than usual
• They are likely to be running out of money by April without a further raise
• A $75m raise will not see them to profitability even under the marketing fantasies promoted
• Rumours of presence in the Galaxy S10 were false (shock) but boosted the stock price temporarily
• Adverts for the Delight PSAP are appearing, labelled 'Hearing Aid', violating FDA rules
• Specs indicate 20 to 50mW charging, probably at 2 to 5% efficiency max
• The PSAP might work for 10 hours after 4 hours charging, with 6 months of use
• Beaten in all specs by rechargeable hearing aids released in 2016
• The 20 Watt near field charging announced will IMO never be safe or meet FCC regulations, hence why it's shown in Europe
• The collaboration announced with vivo Global is "exploratory" and will IMO never amount to anything
• Such exploration with vG either violates the non-competes in the semi-mythical "Tier One" contract, that agreement has expired, or is not with a phone company as Energous often hint

My last coverage of Energous was during the Christmas/New Year week when they announced a "new product" that happened to be a rebadging of a previous release from 8 months prior. Now that aside, the key issue for Energous was that towards the end of Q3, they had just under $29m in the bank with $12.5m/quarter expenses, meaning they had 7 months operating capital, and that was 5 months ago... So with a capital raise essential, where does the company stand? It's been 5 months since the last quarterly earnings call (no, that doesn't add up) and since then they've done a rather flat CES, and then a mysterious "oh Energous will be in the Samsung S10" which pumped the shareprice a little. If any of you remember the same game with Apple over the last couple of years that never yielded a product, bonus points to you. Today saw a near 10% drop in the stock price as everyone realized they'd been had - again.

So with a desperate need for cash and no sales to speak of, what can Energous do? Cutting expenses will keep it going a little longer, but go too far and no-one believes you have a strong technological future. You have to have products and sales to justify a high share price. Just a reminder of what they said in the earnings call in February 2018.

We expect the first contact-based transmitters will be in the hands of the consumers in early 2018, followed by the first at-distance transmitters coming in late 2018, culminating in far-field transmitters coming to the market in 2019.

We're heads down focused on commercialization, and we believe that the $40 million is sufficient capital to get us to that point (profitability).

Yes, it's clear they were wrong in every single part of what they said there. 

The main method that the company can use to raise is to issue more shares in the company (diluting existing shareholders) and sell to the market. The amount of dilution will depend on the raise, and the share price sold at, so it's in the company's interest to pump the stock as much as possible prior to a sale - I cover here a few of the tricks they do regarding that. 

With $50m a year in expenses, the $75m sale they registered for last year will, at best, do them 18 months without further revenue - and there's no chance of significant revenue in that time without products. So, they have to give the idea that they will have significant product sales in 2018 and 2019 to support that, given the long-distance wireless charging is at least 18 months out (and IMO will never be released, it's pointless). 

PSAP/Hearing Aids

Energous need to get products out there to keep the charade going, but also to release products will then allow them into the hands of the public who can actually test them and see how awful they really are. The company either has to admit delay again and risk the share price collapse, or release and definitively prove how little they have. One of the key products they've been hanging their hat on since the middle of last year has been hearing aids (or more precisely a PSAP - Personal Sound Amplification Product - since the term 'hearing aid' is controlled by the FDA and they cannot sell claiming it is such without approval). Amazingly, there's now some information on this, and there is at least a listing on Alibaba that gives a price of up to $600, a release date of March 2019, and specs:

So a few points here - first of which is they are literally labeling it a hearing aid! It's written on the base unit and the specs reference hearing loss, so hardly any way to avoid breaking regulatory limits if it's sold in the US.

Next, we finally have some data on charging - 3 to 4 hours charging for 15 hours of use, using a Li-Ion battery. Great, now Li-Ion batteries are at 3.6 volts (regulated down to the standard 1.4v for your regular zinc-air hearing aid batteries), and they can't yet be made in the small hearing aid packages, so more like a size 13 package. (Hearing aid batteries come in 4 sizes, size 13 is the 3rd largest). Data here indicates that it's around 42 mAh 'effective capacity', compared to around 310 mAh in a standard size 13 battery, barely 15%. Interestingly this site also indicates that there's around a 30% reduction in capacity after 6 months of daily charging. It's going to be annoying charging for 3 to 4 hours for 10 hours of use, and remember because these are Li-Ion they are sealed in the package for safety.

Most hearing aids draw around 2mA, so at about 70% efficiency that gives around 15 hours of use, matching the numbers above. Now convert that to Watts, and 1.4 volts and 42 mAh means around 60mWh, and at 3 hours to charge, that's about 20 mW charging. Ouch - even if I were generous and said 3.6 volts that's 150 mWh so 50 mW charging. If that's the standard charger that emits 1 Watt, it's around 2 to 5% efficiency. If that's the best Energous can do with their receiver chips, it's somewhat embarrassing even for them. Sad for a company that only a few years ago claimed it could send power to phones at over 12 feet and up to 4 Watts.

I'm also not sure how this product can be sold, in the US at least. Where's the FCC ID for the transmitter and receiver? A search of the FCC system shows no new IDs for those companies. Any regulatory approval for other countries?

Of course, they may be timing the 'release' of this product until after a share sale, and that miraculously it never makes it to market...

Now is this a revolutionary product that will delight users? Nope. Here's Signia's Cellion, with rechargable batteries, a docking station with inductive charging, and claims 50 mAh, 1500+ recharges, 7 hours of use on a 30 minute charge, 24+ hours of use on a full charge, and announced in 2016. (And, unlike PSAPS, these are hearing aids). So well done Energous, you fail to match every specification on a near 3 year old product. 

20 Watt Near Field Charging

Energous are at the Mobile World Congress and today apparently demonstrated their 20 Watt Near Field charging. Now I about fell off my chair when I read that - if you look at their 2018 near field approval, it shows 1 Watt transmitted and sitting at the SAR safety limit, while recommending no-one remain within 10 centimeters of the product in operation. And they go to 20 Watts? There's a reason they are showing in Europe, and it's because the FCC would have a fit it they did that. I'm surprised the European regulators aren't all over that (if anyone knows EU regulations on the ~900 MHz band, please contribute). The only way I could see this being safe is if they put it in a metal box and it only worked with the lid closed. The old joke about putting your iPhone in the microwave to charge it is one step closer to reality...

Think these guys aren't averse to putting an unshielded microwave out there? Here's Mark Hopgood, senior director of strategic marketing for power-chip manufacturer Dialog Semiconductor, who invested in and make the chips for Energous:

“We have some customers doing this. If you have proof there is nothing between the charger and the receiver, you can turn it up to something more like microwave oven levels.”

I need to go look up OSHA rules on RF exposure now.

Regardless, IMO this will never come to fruition as a product for consumers. It's not safe, and will never meet regulatory compliance. It's just another way to fool people without any in-depth understanding of the technology. Is this why they delayed the earnings call, so they could show off something that will never meet FCC compliance in another country? Anything to push that stock price up.

A Phone Company!

Finally, Energous announce they'll be in a phone. 

Energous Corporation the developer of WattUp, a revolutionary wireless charging 2.0 technology, today announced a collaboration with vivo Global, a leading Chinese technology company, to explore integrating WattUp into smartphone designs that charge wirelessly over-the-air.

“We are excited to announce a collaboration with vivo, a top 6 global smartphone manufacturer, to explore the use of our WattUp wireless charging 2.0 technology,” said Stephen R. Rizzone

Well, no. They announce a "collaboration" with vivo Global, to "explore the use of WattUp", so basically nothing. One of my earliest articles on Energous was how they use carefully worded announcements to let the reader make inferences that aren't in fact there. Like everything Energous, it will utterly fail to meet the expectations set, other than to boost the stock price temporarily.

Further, don't Energous often make reference to a "Tier One" vendor contract (often intimating that it's Apple) that have restrictions on who they can work with? If so, then the Tier One agreement is no longer in place, or the Tier One isn't a phone company. Either way, not good for Energous!

Earnings Call

The Q4 2018 earnings call will be this Wednesday 27th, in the morning US time (5.30am Pacific) as the executive team is at MWC. I'm looking forward to how they spin all this, I'm always amazed by the true genius (and shamelessness) of Energous in how they keep this thing going. It has to end one day, but they seem to be able to get blood out of a stone better than anyone.

(Repeating the seemingly obligatory statement - I have no financial position, short or long, in Energous or any related company. Nor have I ever had any such positions.)

Energous FCC Approval Found: It's a renamed approval from April 18

My last few posts have asked where the FCC approval for the recently announced product was, as it wasn't showing up on the FCC search site. While the FCC site doesn't have it, it can be found at a different site and is ID VAW-NF910. It is indeed by SK Telesys, was granted on Dec 27th, and is for wireless charging under FCC Part 18. Reading further though, it's clear this is not a new product, but rather simply a renaming of an earlier near field charger, the 2ADNG-NF230.

Since I've written a lot this week, I'll summarize here:

• This transmitter is a rebadged 2ADNG-NF230 that Energous mad a fanfare about in April 18
• If it's been approved since April and is awesome, why can't I buy it yet?
• There is no receiver that works with it yet approved (known of), so no product sale possible
• If so, no PSAP/hearing aid approval could then be claimed
• For safety shouldn't be within 10 centimeters of a person when operating
• Maximum output is 1 Watt, so likely under 100 mW charging max
• Slower, less safe, less versatile than a Qi charging case for earbuds
• Share price continues to fall from this brief spike

So back to the detail:

I did a full post on this 'product' back in April and I was as unimpressed then as I am now, I titled it "Energous FCC Approval Shows Weakness of WattUp Technology". Basically, slower than Qi, with further safety restrictions and less compatibility. There are already Qi based charging cases for earpieces, why is this any better? Or should I instead ask, why is this not worse?

The user manual for the 2ADNG-NF230 is here, and the FCC Approval from April 9th 2018 can be found here. Below are pictures of the device and antenna from those documents.

An interesting statement from this documentation:

The NF-230 Charger requires all persons to be at least 10 cm afar from the charger at all times except when placing or removing the device to be charged. 

Don't sleep too close to it!

With one antenna active at a time, it's 29dBm output so just under 1 W transmitted. They maintain the SAR limit (1.6W/kg) at around 0.86W/kg, so judging by the previous Part 18 approved device which was similar output after the safety cutoff zone (though 10W transmitted), we can probably expect no more than 200 mW of received power, and after conversion from RF to DC down to around 100 mW at most. 

Interestingly, if SK Telesys and Delight are simply rebadging existing Energous applications, there is no current FCC Approval for a receiver for this, so the transmitter can send, but there's nothing to take the power. The only parts in the same frequency range approved are the larger sized transmitter (2ADNG-MS300), and a phone sized receiver (2ADNG-MS300A), and are not appropriate for this.

I would give some comment on their DA2223 chips and what they might be able to do in a receiver, but unlike regular electronics, the vendor provides no data sheet, only marketing level material. Without receiver approval, there's no product here!

And doesn't this mean that a statement like "FCC approval of the Delight PSAP hearing device" in the press release is a bit of an exaggeration when it's a charger that's approved, not the PSAP? There really needs to be another approval somewhere we've not seen.

Well done Energous, great marketing hype given there's absolutely nothing new at all. What did that do for your share price?

Oh, a bump and back down 40% from there. I hope the insiders managed to sell at that high - we'll see in a few days if they do.

(Repeating the seemingly obligatory statement - I have no financial position, short or long, in Energous or any related company. Nor have I ever had any such positions.)

Energous Product Announcement: Where's the Approval?

Earlier today Energous put out a press release about an apparent FCC approval for an anticipated personal sound amplification product (PSAP) that may be on the market in as little as three months. Despite his being a re-announcement of an already delayed product, and contact only, it send the WATT stock shooting up from under $4.80 to nearly $9.50 before settling back down closer to $7.00 at close, a healthy ~50% gain. Interestingly, it's basically a year to the day when they announced the FCC Part 18 approval for their mid-range wireless charger, that still is not announced as for sale, which got it a big price spike before a long slow decline. As this was 3am pacific time, my post was fairly cursory, and since then I've had some discussions with others who follow Energous and a few interesting points have come up.

As noted earlier, no FCC approval could be found for such a device for Energous or the manufacturers SK Telesys or Delight. Now I'd expect there to be something, somewhere - Energous push things pretty far IMO in how they exaggerate, but they really avoid doing anything blatantly illegal. Given this, I'm interested to know what that FCC approval is, if the company can provide any more details on that - the type of approval, and approval number, anything.

Interestingly, this is a personal sound amplification product PSAP - not a hearing aid. A hearing aid requires FDA approval, a PSAP does not. From the FDA:

PSAPs are intended to amplify environmental sound for non-hearing impaired consumers. They are intended to accentuate sounds in specific listening environments, rather than for everyday use in multiple listening situations. They are not intended to compensate for hearing impairment or to address listening situations that are typically associated with and indicative of hearing loss. 

Products making these (hearing aid) or similar claims should not be considered PSAPs. In addition, products that are sold as an “over the counter” alternative or substitute for a hearing aid should not be considered PSAPs. Because PSAPs are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or mitigate disease and do not alter the structure or function of the body, they are not devices as defined in the FD&C Act.

The link also has a very clear definition of hearing aids, and the regulatory pathway expected of them.

So a very clear and specific difference between a hearing aid, and a PSAP, and while the press release starts by talking about a PSAP, it then goes on to say:

Like hearing aids, PSAPs are used by the hearing impaired to assist with hearing loss, but they are available without a prescription and tend to be lower in cost than hearing aids.

So they are making claims that these devices are to be used for mitigating hearing loss, which makes them hearing aids, not PSAPs, and subject to FDA approval. Now confusion is often useful when you want people to draw incorrect conclusions from statements, but when you get into a regulatory environment like the FDA, you have to be careful and precise. So which is it Energous?

It's also very hard to find out anything from either of the partner companies on the product itself. SK Telesys isn't a hearing aid company and there's a single Energous related press release that I can find on their page (and nothing else, for any product, for a company that's 21 years old...). Delight have a website with more information, but not much more. They clearly advertise as a hearing aid (not a PSAP), no mention of FCC or FDA approval (it has Bluetooth, FCC approval is mandatory, it's a hearing aid, so FDA approval mandatory), and it's dated from the original June 2018 announcement.

Now there's even a PDF for download, however you enter an email, click send now and then see this:

And when you click the only button you have - nothing. So a 6 month old webpage, with minimal information, that contradicts some of Energous' statements, and that I can't find necessary FDA or FCC approvals for. No ordering page, no description of commercial outlets to purchase from, no release date.

Not much more to say, with so little to go on, the coming weeks will tell. The roller-coaster of Energous continues. Now to keep an eye on when insiders sell and see if they take advantage of this spike.

(Repeating the seemingly obligatory statement - I have no financial position, short or long, in Energous or any related company. Nor have I ever had any such positions.)

Energous: Here we go again with another 'product' announcement

Only a few days ago I thought I'd done my last post on Energous for 2018, but it was not to be. Not to be outdone by uBeam, a few minutes ago Energous sent out a press release about the first new amazing life changing FCC approved WattUp consumer product, the SK Telesys hearing aid  personal sound amplification product (PSAP).

New wirelessly-charged personal sound amplification products from Energous customer, Delight, are certified to sell in the United States

“FCC approval of the Delight PSAP hearing device is a very significant and positive announcement for Energous in that it represents the first WattUp-enabled consumer product moving into full commercial production, with anticipated availability in Q1,” said Stephen R. Rizzone, president and CEO of Energous 

Incredible. FCC certified to sell. With anticipated available in no more than 3 months. Wow, couldn't be more certain than something that's 'anticipated'. And it was only at the beginning of August that the same CEO Rizzone was telling us that this hearing aid product personal sound amplification product would be available in... 90 days. (And that's forgetting the Myant chargable undies announced as a product about a year ago and that seem to have been... forgotten). I used to say "Time to Carrot" for Energous products was a near constant 18 months, but that's the long range wireless charger, for the contact based charger, it's apparently 3 months. 

So yes, even if this product ever becomes available, it will be the in-contact WattUp version, not the at-distance, and charges at a rather low rate (a few hundred mW most likely, claims up to 1 W but we'll see). I know it's easy to get mixed up between that and the at-distance wireless WattUp products that charge even slower and aren't actually available, but then that's kind of the point of creating a single marketing name for multiple very different products. Almost as if the company wanted to bamboozle and confuse you into thinking they had something other than what they do.

So why use this instead of Qi, the industry standard, that charges at a higher rate, is compatible with all your existing wireless charging devices, and is more efficient? Not sure, about the only thing they might be able to claim in "hearing aids don't need to be in a case" which is awesome, especially when they roll off the nightstand and get lost.

The FCC approval itself is also interesting. Seeing there's a government shutdown the FCC can't have authorized it in the last few days (update: turns out the FCC is funded through Jan 3, so still possible), and a search of the FCC system shows no recent licence grants for Energous, Delight, or SK Telesys (most recent authorization, 2011). I'll dig through the FCC site tomorrow to see if there's something in another section, but sounds odd to me. Almost as if Energous were desperate for some form of publicity and made up the best they could from the turds they had lying around.

So, this was an amazing announcement today. For a product that was first announced 5 months ago, was supposed to be out 2 months ago, might be available in the next 3 months, is contact only charging, and is slower than the incumbent mass adopted charging technology, Qi. Cue the WATT fanboys to go nuts...

Update: WATT did indeed spike to around $9.50 before dipping and settling around 70% up at $7.95. Let's see if there is another sudden rise and long slow decline situation here.

(Repeating the seemingly obligatory statement - I have no financial position, short or long, in Energous or any related company. Nor have I ever had any such positions.)

Energous in 2018: The Sudden Rise and the Long, Slow, Decline

With the end of the year looming, and a few days off on my hands, it's time for a "year in review" of my favorite companies like Theranos and uBeam, but let's start with Energous. To place where the company is right now, let's look at the stock price over the last year.

Energous share price over the last year

Energous share price from March 2014 (IPO) to date

It wasn't so long ago that Energous were on top of the world, and 2018 was going to be its year of proving the doubters wrong, but what a difference a year has made. A year ago tomorrow WATT closed at around $8.83 per share and then there was a sudden leap to $33.50 on Dec 28th (closing at $31.57), following announcement of FCC Part 18 approval of their 'mid range' wireless charging, which the media reported as almost a fait accomplis for the company. I covered this in multiple posts, and it was clear to me that this was an approval for a product that could and never would be released - impractical, no true application, ridiculously low charging rates, and in my opinion unsafe. Subsequent lack of announcements on this appear to have proven me right. 

Energous even got a congratulatory tweet from FCC Chair, Ajit Pai, despite his public office not being supposed to promote any company or product. The public and institutions bought and bought, at just the same time the insiders and large holders sold, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. As you can see that was the peak and after a few bumps it was a long, slow decline for the company to its lowest price ever, of $4.80 per share (Now down over 85% from peak, it was initially offered at $6.00, was $9.50 on launch day, and had a previous all-time low of $4.91 in Jan 2016). 

At the end of October I was noting a $1.50 to $2.00 decline per month, and near 2 months later here we are $3.00 lower, so $1.50 a month continues. This long slow and steady decline seems to be continuing, and if anything seems remarkably steady. Any chance there's a co-ordinated selloff to not spook the rubes?

At this rate the stock will be at zero by the end of March 2019, which is an interesting date because given their ~$12.5m a quarter burn rate and near zero revenues they are essentially out of cash to operate by then. Without a raise or cash injection, Energous have three months left to live. While Energous have filed with the SEC to sell up to $75m of stock, that's now 60% of the market cap. With a continuously declining stock price and no products, who would buy? 

What are their options? Well I have been fully expecting some form of 'goosing' the stock price with a vapourware product launch or similar for CES (essentially, IMO, what they did at the beginning of 2018 following the FCC announcement), but that seems to no longer be an option for them. Take their announcement of the DA2223 chip, for example. It fizzled out with barely a ripple in the stock price. That was announced at the end of November, and is supposedly the receiver chip that will enable Energous on hearing aids and the other markets that will make them billions. Some are even back to saying this is what will get Apple on board, despite them literally putting components of another utterly incompatible wireless technology in their products and announcing that different method as the future (sneaky Apple, misdirecting us like that). These chips have no market availability, no price, no data sheet that any engineer would want - simply some marketing and 'product briefs'. To release it would show there is not a transmitter you can buy to work with it, and if there was you would see how awful the performance is. IMO it's vapourware and Energous will never want their products out in the wild for actual testing, it would show them for the farce they are.

A reader points out to me - it doesn't look like the FCC granted Energous the experimental license to demo their new toys yet, and then the government went on shutdown (turns out the FCC have funds to stay open until Jan 3). They might not get it before CES and have to rely on showing the same things as last year. This might work in their favour, no limited visibility of their next-gen useless crap!

That reader also reminded me there are other ways they attempt to boost the stock such as with 'accidentally' misleading deals and press releases. Earlier this year they announce a deal with IDT International. Most engineers did a double-take on that, as IDT Inc is a large $6bn market cap company that's pretty respected, but closer inspection revealed it's IDT International, a smaller Hong Kong electronics company with around 3% of the market cap of IDT Inc. In one of my earliest blog postings I commented on how companies, and Energous specifically, can use vague and misleading wording in announcements to allow readers to make leaps toward what they think the company said, while remaining perfectly legal and technically accurate. Seems they are still at it.

Other options? Cash injection from Dialog, who recently got a bit of a windfall from Apple? Seems like it would be a tough sell to its shareholders for a public company, but I've seen dumber things happen. They might market it as investing in a seriously undervalued company, and that there's huge upside. Given the management invested prior, it might be they have to keep going rather than admit they bought a lemon before and their judgement was poor. It wouldn't be the first time.

Last option I can think of is that the company still goes ahead with a stock sale under poor terms and raises just enough for a last hurrah for the executive team and bonuses all round. This has been a roller coaster of surprises with this company as to how long they can keep it going, so who knows.

As to what else happened in 2018 for Energous, it was pretty much a continuation of what has gone on before. Poor revenue at earnings calls, repeatedly delayed long range charging systems (time to carrot - a near constant 18 months), quiet downgrading of performance specs, multiple announced products then either cancellation or lack of availability, but really the highlights came with Aristides Capital presentation on Energous, and the earnings call in August where someone finally called bullshit on the CEO. If you haven't already, watch the Aristides Capital video and listen to the Q&A on the August earnings call.

So we're really in a wait and see what happens position. I've said before that I think Energous are geniuses, not in the technology sense but in how to extract millions of dollars, seemingly perfectly legally, while producing nothing that was ever promised. Most startups have to actually get bought to make money but all you seem to need is an early IPO, some marketing hype, and hopeful but gullible investors. They may have a new business model here and as unique as their ascent has been, I fully expect their decline and end to surprise us even more.

(Repeating the seemingly obligatory statement - I have no financial position, short or long, in Energous or any related company. Nor have I ever had any such positions.)

Edit: Someone on Stocktwits linked this post so I got a ton of hits from there. Apparently I'm a bitter long who lost money and just bashing. And before Christmas too, what a Scrooge. But not one rebuttal or serious argument regarding what I've said from them. Thank you to those few on there who point out that I'm sticking with the facts and that it's not financially motivated.

Energous at CES 2019

So it appears that it's not just uBeam that will be showing at CES 2019, but that Energous (the company that claims to do at-distance wireless charging via RF) will be there as well. While they are not in the official exhibitors list, one of the EEVBlog readers pointed out to me that they've applied for an experimental demo license from the FCC (Special Temporary Authority) to show equipment there that does not have FCC approval. They did this earlier this year for CES 2018, as well as back in June 2016 when trying to demonstrate their earlier system to the FCC.

The application for CES 2019 is very similar to the 2018 version, though only for 2 systems not 13, but a key difference in the amount of power transmitted - 10 Watts ERP (Peak) not 30 Watts ERP (Peak) from a year before. Whatever the system they are showing at the upcoming CES, its peak output is 1/3 of the system from last year. It would be interesting to know why they did this - but without further information it is hard to tell. (One other thing that is different is that they do not include the low power wifi/bluetooth communication component. Forgotten, or done via a separate commercially available part?)

Note this power is way down from what they tried to demonstrate to the FCC in June 2016 - not only was it at 5.8 GHz rather than the current 913 MHz, they were at 56 Watts (Mean), so what they finally got approved in December 2017 was significantly lower in power than what they showed the FCC only 6 months prior, and what they are showing now is lower than that. I go into a lot of detail about those 2016/17 changes here.

Looking forward to CES 2019 and the tech press completely failing to question Energous effectively, yet again...

Update Dec 7th: I clarified the wording that at this time it is an application for the license, not awarded. Also there is an informal objection filed against this.

Update Dec 24th: Energous filed a response to the objection calling for it to be dismissed. It doesn't look like the FCC granted Energous the experimental license to demo their new toys yet, and then the government went on shutdown. They might not get it before CES and have to rely on showing the same things as last year. This might work in their favour, no limited visibility of their next-gen useless crap!

Update Jan 7th 2019: Experimental licence granted by FCC. Now they just have to have a product that is safe, practical, efficient, and useful. Perhaps in the next 18 months? :)

Energous Earnings Call Q3 2018

Energous had their earnings call yesterday, and sadly it was a much calmer call than last time - no irate investor actually demanding real answers to pointed questions, demanding accountability for prior statements made. It was completely as expected, same old delays and obfuscation, you can read a transcript here for yourself. Last quarter's earnings call promised hearing aids on the market in the next 90 days, which was essentially today, so what do we get?

Indications are that the hearing aids from SK Telesys and Delight will be the first WattUp enabled products to hit the consumer market hopefully, before the end of this year.

"Indications" that "hopefully" in the next 90 days. Again. Will they just disappear and be forgotten, just like Myant? Why does anyone believe a single thing out of this CEO's mouth? Other 'highlights':

• Key products such as the spine tracker and some location tags are listed, so essentially tiny markets from non-Tier 1 customers. Not enough to sustain a $200m+ market cap company.
• Continuing with ~$12.5m per quarter expenses with ~$29m in the bank. Capital raise needed by the end of Q1 2019.
• They claim progress on their GaAs and GaN chips for transmitter, receiver, and power amp chips, and that they can handle up to 15 Watts. This may actually be true, but the surrounding transmitters and receivers will still be in the <100 mW range. There is legitimate work that can be done in this area, if Energous ever have worthwhile IP, this is where IMO it will be.
• They still mix consulting and licensing revenues so we can't split them, and they are still a paltry ~$200,000.

One of the more egregious statements came in the Q&A, regarding contact charging vs at-distance:

The strategy has always been that we go in first with near-field, engage the regulators and then migrate the discussions to distance.

The entire basis of the company for the first three years was at-distance, with FCC approval of at-distance always the 'Holy Grail' which finally came in Dec 2017 and then... nothing. They marketed themselves as charging multiple devices, at up to 15 feet, at up to 5 Watts. If they position themselves as a contact only Qi competitor, just without the existing infrastructure, support, standards, efficiency, or max power delivery, they'd never have the funding they have enjoyed. From the earnings call in Feb this year:

We expect the first contact-based transmitters will be in the hands of the consumers in early 2018, followed by the first at-distance transmitters coming in late 2018, culminating in far-field transmitters coming to the market in 2019.

We're heads down focused on commercialization, and we believe that the $40 million is sufficient capital to get us to that point (profitability).

So the first thing never happened, they've just admitted the second won't happen, the third really isn't a priority and never was, and that they will still be in the red by ~$12m/quarter by the time that $40m runs out so they miss the fourth by just a tiny amount.

Why does no-one call them on this? Well, in a way, the markets are doing that. Here's the stock price at around 8am Pacific this morning.

That's nearly a 9% drop first thing in the morning, hardly a ringing endorsement. We'll see if that continues. Unfortunately, you should remember that there are some large institutional investors still owning WATT, so that's part of someone's pension taking a hit there.

Now we wait another 90 days for the same again...

Energous, Theranos, uBeam Updates

I've been at the International Ultrasound Symposium in Kobe this week, and have hardly had time to do any updates or summaries of what's been going on in Energous, Theranos, and uBeam lately. Having spent the weekend walking around Tokyo, my feet are now sore enough that I'm going to sit still for a couple of hours and write. Let's start with Energous:

We last left Energous after an earnings call where finally someone questioned their basis for optimism, and they were promptly cutoff. Emperors do not like their nakedness pointed out. The other key takeaways from that call were that the long range transmitter was pushed out to 18 months away (again), and that hearing aid products would be out within 90 days. Well here we are 88 days later (which means another earnings call is coming up, Tuesday Oct 30th at 1.30pm PT), and what's happened?

First thing is that the share price seems to be on a long, slow, almost constant trajectory down, losing about $1.50 to $2.00 per month since April, and right now the after hours trading has the share price under $8, putting the company market cap close to $200 million. Not good for shareholders and compensation of employees, nor for any future share offering. Worse, given their revenues, >95% of their valuation is based on the hope of massive future growth - there might be a stock price at which the big institutional investors need to exit, and at that point it's game over. So what are they doing about it? I've indicated in the past that I expected to see some goosing of the stock price with pointless or small-time product announcements and so on, and those products were indeed announced. (BTW Energous, you didn't bother to check your website after the redesign - your "In the News" page is a bad link). 

First of all we have some asset tracking tags by Qubercom, though it seems it's the contact based charging, which kinda defeats the "IoT charging" wireless benefit when you have to drop 20 of them at a time on a charging pad. Seriously if you want to charge IoT low power devices wirelessly, there's already solutions like PowerCast out there. Then we have some spinal position trackers, also with contact based charging from the Gokhale Method, which I did try to buy, but the nice lady there told me they wouldn't be available until next year and only available to practitioners, so it's not really a big market. Apparently Austar Hearing have an upcoming product, but I can't find anything there. Now Energous have also passed regulatory approval for their contact charging in 100 countries (oooooh...), so you can imagine my shock when none of these had any effect on the stock price.

Pretty much, it seems everyone is wise to their games now. No stock bump just before Apple WWDC events, no belief that charging hearing aids is going to make them a $1 billion company. Without a major product release (not announcement), real regulatory approval for something practical, or clear licensing deal with a real company like Apple, this thing is heading to $0. Remember they are out of cash in Q1 2019 so they've less than 6 months to raise more money, and with a declining stock price that's going to be hard to do. Have we reached the limit of this game? I would say so, but the chutzpah of this company, and the gullibility of the press and the public, might mean there's another round left in it.

Theranos

CEO Holmes and COO Balwani of Theranos are facing criminal charges for fraud at the blood testing company. Earlier this month they lost an appeal to try to keep documents out of the government's hands, and according to Bloomberg the judge in the case referred to undisclosed charges and activities, while the Assistant U.S. Attorney bluntly stated that the indictment did not cover all the criminal activity, implying there may be more to come for the pair. Not looking good for them.

Marketwatch had an interesting article on "The Last Days of Theranos" and is pretty blunt with the sub-title of "the financials were as overhyped as the bloodtests". It covers a lot of the mechanics of what happened but the really standout parts for me were the statements from Daniel Warmenhoven, a board member from December 2016. It starts with this quote from him about one of the huge deals that "made" the company:

“The Walgreens deal made no sense, ... It was doomed from Day 1 because it was based on using the minilabs, which weren’t completed when the deal was signed."

So he immediately admits the whole thing was a fraud, but later comes out with this gem:

Warmenhoven told MarketWatch he blames engineers for the final sinking of Theranos. “They lost the recipe. The tests were not coming out right. That 60 to 90 days extra to figure it out took away the runway we thought we had.”

Yes, that's right - after terrible business practices, fraud, intimidation of former staff, 15 years work and over $700 million of investment, it comes down to two months and dumb engineers losing the Post-It with the entire future of the company on it. Damn those pesky engineers!

This seems to be the norm for people like Warmenhoven - engineers as annoyances, replaceable cogs that better behave, not a vital part of the technology development or company, but rather the true irreplaceable geniuses are the CEOs who are the innovators and aren't held back by such things as fraud, physics, or Post-Its. 

This ties with statements I've heard C-level execs make with all sincerity "I told the engineering team what they needed to do, they just didn't understand/weren't good enough". There's some school of MBA that says engineers are fungible units, and are lazy and always say they can't do it, and so need pushed. To an extent there's usefulness in pushing a team to achieve more, and then as a C-level exec providing them the resources, cover, and time to execute, but those without the training and experience seem to regard measured statements that something can't be done as demanded as more of the frustrating whining of a developmentally challenged child than of an experienced employee trying to do the right thing. The idea that the C-level is wrong or mistaken is clearly an option never to be considered.

uBeam

And so that brings me to uBeam. Only a couple of things to say here, there's really precious little new information on this. Mark Suster, the lead investor in uBeam, seems to have deleted all his Tweets from prior to October 1st this year, which is shortly after Perry "moved on" as CEO. He's been a prolific poster on many topics over the years, so this was surprising to see. Further, his Medium post supporting uBeam from just after my blog gained publicity, seems to have been altered. The article "What is it Like to Wake Up and Have the Press Ready to Torpedo Your Business?" used to contain the line:

“If for any reason we fall short of expectations we have set in the market, I will be the first person in line to admit it and then to immediately fund Meredith’s next company.”

for which Mark drew high praise - you can see references to it in the original blog comments, as well as articles from other investors here, here, and here - but at some point between original publication and now, that line disappeared. I wonder why it's not there anymore? (Thanks to HowardLong of EEVBlog for spotting this).

Last thing - I've been asked "What would you do if you were made CEO of uBeam today?" Here's my simple answer, and bear in mind I have not seen the status of the company or the books, I'm just inferring from public information:

I'd give the staff 60 days notice that their jobs were ending, and an offer of a bonus should they stay and tidy up their work (document, and pack it up), along with services to help find another job. Then I'd close down the company, and return the remaining money to the investors. In my opinion, it's the most they'd ever get back.

I'll be surprised if that happens as usually the "sunk cost fallacy" along with legal hurdles prevents such an approach, but I just can't see how the company is viable at this point.

Mailbag: Questions on Energous

I've been asked some questions on Energous and my recent posts, and rather than answer in the slightly-annoying-to-reply-in comments section here, or in private email, I thought I'd just answer them as a post in themselves. Nothing startlingly new here, for those who have read my prior posts, except for one thing. In the earnings call, CEO Rizzone talked about devices at the 5 to 15 Watts level, previously they'd claimed up to 5 Watts and 15 feet, so if he truly meant Watts, that's quite a bold new claim.

1) Has Energous implicitly conceded it cannot generate significant charging power in the near field, ergo its new focus on tertiary products?

I'll start with the most important point - this company has no products, and in my opinion, never will. To say otherwise is to play their game. Everything is turned on its head compared to other companies, all IMO of course. If the thinking of most of Energous' detractors is correct, the goal is not to release a product but to maintain interest in share purchase by large institutions, not to develop technology but to offer the fantasy of safe at-distance wireless charging, that marketing is the true innovation and money earner in the company, and engineering R&D is simply the necessary expense to maintain the illusion it's about products and technology. In summary, it's a very well run marketing company with large R&D expenses that is successfully extracting millions of dollars a year for the insiders.

Now to the 'technology'. I'm going to start covering the 'at a distance' application - basically the non-contact version, since I'm not sure you meant "near field" when you said "near field", and there are multiple definitions of that term being used. In physics terms, near-field and far-field refer to the regions of interference from radiation emitters. In simple terms near-field is close to the emitters where the field varies extensively (it's bumpy) while further out in the far-field it varies inversely with distance (it's smooth) - the image below from Wikipedia shows this. Where this transition happens is relative to the size of the transmitter and the wavelength of the radiation.

So for Energous there is the "contact" version of their charger, the "miniWattUp", which they position as a competitor to Qi, except it's less efficient, slower at charging, has no existing infrastructure, and isn't available (there are multiple product announcements that never make it to market, such as with Myant). Then they have the claim of "at-distance" charging, such as the "long range" device they've been promising for years at 15 feet and up to 5 Watts (now 15 Watts apparently), and the FCC Part 18 approved "mid range" device that will send at best 30 mW at 0.9 meters to a single device, requires a safety cutoff, and also isn't available.

I'm also careless with the use of the terms here, so in part I'm writing this to force myself to be more consistent - the confusion from Energous I think is deliberate, as it helps them with allowing the public to think whatever they want of the technology, rather than making them see it as it is.

Now to actually answering the question:

Energous seem to be careful not to bluntly lie, but let ignorance and laziness of press and investors do the work for them in drawing incorrect conclusions they want from what is said. For years they hinted about a "Tier One" they had a deal with, that they did everything bar say was Apple, until they finally had to give up on that one following AirPower last year - there's a post on some of that here. They deliberately confuse everyone by talking about "WattUp" which is a branding term for all their "products" such as the contact, mid, and far range devices. They also give demonstrations of products that are not FCC approved and exceed the SAR limits to get higher power levels and have people associate with the approved products. I cover some of that here.

In summer 2017 the CEO was already dialing back expectations in specific statements:

“As long as you’re in that 15-foot range, you’ll be charging. Small, small amount of energy. It’s not charging super fast, like you would be plugged in the wall, but a small amount of energy, trickle charging it. And as you put it down closer or farther away, the amount of power changes.”

I cover my opinion of the journalism that let him get away with that statement and no follow up here.

Rizzone says this again in January this year, in a Barron's article

As for five watts, “I don’t see it happening at 15 or 18 feet,” concedes Rizzone. More likely, he thinks Energous will be shipping at the end of 2019 systems that can charge devices such as wearables and smartphones at that distance, but perhaps only with a watt or two, perhaps only hundreds of milliwatts. 

Despite these statements, Rizzone makes claims in the earnings call this month that would lead people to believe 5 to 15 Watts charging is coming. It's no wonder people are still thinking that somehow you'll be charging at the same rate as a wire from the wall. If Energous ever end up in court on fraud claims, they can point to this and say "See, in major interviews we said it was a trickle charge, we never lied, they just interpreted it another way"

Regarding the contact version - The FCC reports for the latest contact device, the 2ADNG-NF130, shows two antenna each able to transmit just shy of 1 Watt. I assume they are at 90 degrees to one another to try to improve performance with receiver position. Given Qi charges at 5 to 7.5W there is literally no way, even at 100% efficiency, for this method to challenge the established market leader. FCC documents show this system charges at a maximum of 300 mW, so a tiny fraction of what is needed, and at no more than about 15% efficiency (Qi is usually 70%ish).

Now does anyone think that the far range transmitter is going to be better than one that's in contact?

So to answer the first question - they seem to almost deliberately confuse terms like feet and Watts, and give differing statements at different times. When Energous have no choice, or are on the record, they downplay performance and obfuscate. They have to know it won't work at the multi-watt level, there is no question there, but what can they badger the FCC into allowing, especially as it seems they have contacts at the top like Chairman Ajit Pai willing to break the normal rules for them. They have to keep this gravy train going for as long as they can, so let the rubes think the next great release is 18 months out perpetually. One thing I'll give to Energous, they are geniuses at how to milk this market.

Next question:

2) Given your assessment of its RF based technology and its limitations re SAR compliance, what could the basis be for Rizzone's claim on the call of achieving 5 to 15 watts for midfield?

Now let's get the first thing out the way - as with all at-a-distance wireless power transfer - is sending 5 to 15 Watts possible? Yes, of course it is. But you do not want to be anywhere near that thing, as it will be hideously dangerous to anyone around, and highly inefficient. So it is possible, just not in any vague sense practical or within SAR limits.

So in the real world, the basis is 'None'. It was always fantasy. This is like me claiming I can run a 3 minute mile, but I just need to train harder and I'll soon get there, maybe another 18 months... Now Energous claimed the 15 feet for the "far range" device in Jan 2015, to my knowledge this is the first time anyone has ever claimed 15 Watts for Energous. Either a slipup by the CEO, or a sudden increase in performance for this so-far nonexistent technology.

The "mid range" device was the one that got Part 18 approval last December, and only goes to ~100mW max, 0.9 meters max, at safety limits, so why would they be able to charge >50x faster at longer ranges? See the quote above where they admit it's less than a wall charger, so not even 5 Watts. Yes, Energous are inconsistent, but that helps them, confusion benefits their message as most people give up.

Looking at the physics, I don't think there's a practical combination of size and safety that results in an even vaguely useful amount of power received (impractical, maybe). That doesn't mean that they won't keep this deception going IMO, and pretend something ridiculous that games the system is coming and will have the fanboys salivating - but in any practical sense it will be pointless. Now, here's what he said in the call:

We expect to see the full impact of this next generation of chips towards the middle of next year, when we anticipate the first product releases to the consumer using our high power WattUp technology for quick charging and applications requiring 5 to 15 watts of charging power.

So that's just not going to happen. It's a year out, minimum, same as all their claims, then it's for applications that require 5 to 15 Watts, he doesn't say they'll actually provide it. Maybe the chips will do 5 to 15 Watts, but the antenna and rest of the system won't. This is definitely a "hopeful" statement and probably can be justified because they keep asking the FCC to approve their 5 to 15 Watt (feet?) device and keep getting told 'No, not safe'. I expect as the end gets closer, the statements will get a little riskier and them less careful about blatantly lying (see recent statements by CEOs of well known tech companies for examples...)

Next question:

3) It seems odd that Dialog would highlight its relationship among others with Energous in its latest press release. Merely justifying its investment and partnership seems unlikely to be the only reason; isn't there something material the partnership could realistically produce?

Yeah. Dialog. No one gets why they did this. I liken them to Safeway and Walgreens with Theranos, where stupidity at the CEO level over-rode all internal advice. They had warned it was possible they were going to lose some of Apple's business, and perhaps were desperate for a 'must have' technology to replace and got suckered, or maybe they knew it was a scam and after the share price hike got their money back out at a profit (looking at their quarterly reports, I don't think they did). I have no idea, it might be a great business school case study when this is all over. As for their statements, note that they make no press releases on Energous since January, and in quarterly reports they say the minimum they can and still be compliant with disclosure rules. This is not a relationship they want to promote right now.

Overall with Dialog I'd say "Stop trying to apply logic and sense to this decision, it's not there". Anyone who has worked in large businesses knows that even when there is a ton of money on the line, what the coal-face workers know are dumb-assed decisions still get made.

4) What do you see Energous doing next?

I see them continuing what they've been doing for the last few years, until the market or the SEC says they can't. What does this mean? Basically, gaming the system and abusing the poor diligence of both investors and press, to raise money from a hopeful public. If I had no scruples, what I'd do is try to find a way to weasel around the FCC rules on Part 18 on my long distance charging to get something that sends 10's of mW over 2 to 3 meters. Perhaps something impossibly large, say a 1 to 2m square array, to keep the W/kg down for SAR, and pushing the far-field boundary out for 'contained' energy. Maybe a safety cutoff variable with charge rate so at any useful rates no-one can be in the room, and if they can it charges at the sub-mW level, but the press and public will not understand that. It would be utterly useless and impractical, something that would never be viable as a product, but the press and investors will believe, because they have no idea what's actually just happened. (Alternatively, I'd get it approved under Part 15 at the sub mW level and then claim Part 18 is coming). Products will be announced for 18 months out, and that they've decided to cancel the contact and mid-range products to concentrate on the long range one, hence managing to excuse how they failed to deliver upon promised products.

At that point, stock price will spike, and they'll a) have the insiders sell their current holdings, b) raise more capital via stock, up to $75 million at the boosted price, to keep this thing going another couple of years, and c) reward themselves with more stock and bonuses. IIRC the CEO gets large bonuses if the market cap spikes beyond $1 billion (a $38.70 stock price assuming no more dilution). We may then see a company with a market cap of >$1 billion, with no products, and revenues in the high 5, low 6 figure range.

Basically, expect something to happen to goose the stock price. This trick worked last year, why not do it again? When someone is rewarded for a set of actions, they are incentivized to repeat. In the end, this stock is going to zero, IMO, but that doesn't mean it's not going to be a rollercoaster until then.

(Repeating the seemingly obligatory statement - I have no financial position, short or long, in Energous or any related company)