Comments on: UWB May Revolutionize Wireless Networking... Someday
Article Comments
(20 comments)
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. PalmInfocenter is not responsible for them in any way.
Please Login or register here to add your comments.
Comments Closed
This article is no longer accepting new comments.
RE: Size Matters....
We've got 802.11b and Bluetooth SpringBoard modules for the Visor at work. The Bluetooth one fits inside the SpingBoard slot and uses little power - the 802.11b module is huge and needs it's own battery supply, and still runs out of power in an hour or 2. Anyone who knows anything about PDAs knows that size and battery life are really important.
So, it's very important if Ultra Wide Band is low power & small for us PDA users - anyone know anything about it?
---
russ@russb.fsnet.co.uk
RE: Size Matters....
It then compares speeds with Bluetooth... does that also mean it uses less power than Bluetooth? Mebbe.
---
What's Wrong With This Picture?
http://raj.phangureh.com/picture.html
RE: Size Matters....
UWB is potentially even easier to include in a handheld than Bluetooth. There are circuit diagrams that compare Bluetooth and UWB in the Intel article listed under "Related Information".
Sorry, Scientific American does not put the contents of its most recent issue on its website. Nevertheless, I have to cite it as the source of much of this info. You might also take a look at the Intel article.
---
News Editor
RE: Size Matters....
I was just trying to agree with the first post and add power to the equation. As power was already covered, I'll just resort to ageeing that "size matters" :-)
---
russ@russb.fsnet.co.uk
RE: Size Matters....
High data rates... Yes, but it will depend highly on how UWB is used in the network. I don't have the papers handy, but it's something like this: The transmitter will transmit something like 500Mbps, but it uses alot of redundancy to ensure a valid signal. The receiver will take a running sum of the bits recieved. Then it devides it by the number of bit times (takes an average) to determine what the correct signal was. You can be sure there will be errors (plenty of them) and taking the average makes it more probable that the correct signal can be extrapolated. I'll have to dig around and see if I can find those papers. It's really interesting reading.
Tip DS
RE: Size Matters....
RE: Size Matters....
RE: Size Matters....
---
What's Wrong With This Picture?
http://raj.phangureh.com/picture.html
RE: Size Matters....
More redundant data would mean better chance of transmission. I find 802.11b deteriates rapidly once you start closing doors. Also so may 2.4Ghz cant be a good thing. I've thrown out one wireless radio mouse already.
Secondly, how you FCC rule against such a which use of bandwidth? Even though this is low powered?
Anyone remember Bluetooths rival technology that would used 1/100th the power of Bluetooth?
RE: Size Matters....
RE: Size Matters....
First, the FCC has US jurisdiction over all intentional and most unintentional radiators of radio energy, regardless of power level. My gosh... if somebody didn't play traffic cop, communications as we know it wouldn't be possible.
UWB is a compelling technology, but implementation will definely be at a measurable cost to other users of RF spectrum. GPS won't be the only victim - anybody else who relies on sniffing weak signals out of the background static (we call it "noise floor") is going to have a tough go of it. UWB raises the noise floor we've already seen it plenty of times in narrower frequency-hopping implementations (Bluetooth and 802.11 included).
Bottom line is that there are millions of users relying on narrow-band technologies who would be adversely affected by UWB. This is especially true in the current climate, where NB users are being asked (told) to reduce power and increasingly rely on weak-signal acquisition methods. We may get to UWB someday, but not without a large impact and likely a long, drawn-out cutover process.
Funny...
You might say I'm wrong, that you can buy and use both technologies now, and while that may be true, it comes at a rather high-price.
And even if you could afford it, it's under special conditions (I'm still waitting for Bluetooth on my Clie -without having to learn Japanese-).
RE: Funny...
I think everybody would agree that Bluetooth has been taking its sweet-ass time getting here. I stopped waiting for Bluetooth years ago... I'm doing fine with IR between my Clie and Cel phone.
---
What's Wrong With This Picture?
http://raj.phangureh.com/picture.html
RE: Funny...
RE: Funny...
UWB cannot be used (commercially) below 3.1 gigahertz.
For the most part, the UWB community, led by Time Domain, a Huntsville, Ala.-based company that develops a UWB chipset, is making the most of this decision to get products into the market as quickly as possible and to prove that there are no interference issues. If interference turns out to have been exaggerated, proponents will go back to the FCC to request the removal of the restrictions below 3.1 GHz. Then, UWB players would be able to offer wide-area services. The spectrum above 3.1 GHz is not very useful for anything other than short-range communications.
MetaGroup: UWB is 3-5 years from market introduction
A potential Bluetooth replacement is already on the horizon in the form of ultrawideband (UWB) technology. Recently approved by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), UWB uses one-thousandth of the power of Bluetooth, an important consideration for small, battery-operated devices. It is also much more secure than current wireless systems. It works by sending pulses so weak that they are virtually undetectable amid the natural radio "noise" that permeates the environment, unless the receiver is keyed to the same pattern used by the particular transmitter.
However, UWB technology is three to five years from market introduction and has yet to receive licensing approval outside the US. While homeland security activities by the US government may spur UWB development, we do not expect it to become a practical technology for at least three years.
more
www.metagroup.com/cgi-bin/inetcgi/search/displayArticle.jsp?oid=29681
Latest Comments
- I got one -Tuckermaclain
- RE: Don't we have this already? -Tuckermaclain
- RE: Palm brand will return in 2018, with devices built by TCL -richf
- RE: Palm brand will return in 2018, with devices built by TCL -dmitrygr
- Palm phone on HDblog -palmato
- Palm PVG100 -hgoldner
- RE: Like Deja Vu -PacManFoo
- Like Deja Vu -T_W
Size Matters....
From what I've seen, Bluetooth is the only technology right now that can fit in a PDA without you noticing the size. The 802.11 seems to only be in the form of a 'sled' that doubles or triples the size of a PDA.
What kind of size would we be looking at in the future for these devices? Is it feasible for a PDA?
---
What's Wrong With This Picture?
http://raj.phangureh.com/picture.html