From news.stanford.edu:
A Stanford engineering team has built a radio the size of an ant, a device so energy efficient that it gathers all the power it needs from the same electromagnetic waves that carry signals to its receiving antenna – no batteries required.
Designed to compute, execute and relay commands, this tiny wireless chip costs pennies to fabricate – making it cheap enough to become the missing link between the Internet as we know it and the linked-together smart gadgets envisioned in the "Internet of Things."
"The next exponential growth in connectivity will be connecting objects together and giving us remote control through the web," said Amin Arbabian, an assistant professor of electrical engineering who recently demonstrated this ant-sized radio chip at the VLSI Technology and Circuits Symposium in Hawaii.
Much of the infrastructure needed to enable us to control sensors and devices remotely already exists: We have the Internet to carry commands around the globe, and computers and smartphones to issue the commands. What's missing is a wireless controller cheap enough to so that it can be installed on any gadget anywhere.
"How do you put a bi-directional wireless control system on every lightbulb?" Arbabian said. "By putting all the essential elements of a radio on a single chip that costs pennies to make."
Cost is critical because, as Arbabian observed, "We're ultimately talking about connecting trillions of devices.""
# Archives of Article:
1: https://archive.today/5aIuj
2: http://web.archive.org/web/20140910034449/http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/september/ant-radio-arbabian-090914.html
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @03:17AM
Or the terrorists win. You don't want the terrorists to win, do you?
(Score: 1) by takyon on Friday September 12 2014, @03:36AM
You could easily stick these in a standard envelope. I wonder if there's an application for that.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @03:52AM
Tweet the result of your pap smear.
(Score: 3, Funny) by MrGuy on Friday September 12 2014, @03:17AM
A radio for ANTS????
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 13 2014, @02:17PM
I wonder what kind of music they listen to
(Score: 2) by gringer on Friday September 12 2014, @05:19AM
The vision is for these radios to be placed every metre in a house, because "high-frequency signals don't travel far". Given that the radios scavenge energy for receiving and communicating from radio waves, how is it possible to transmit further by putting in more of these things? I can sort of see how that would work if they're scavenging power from other radio frequencies, but the article and paper seem to suggest that the harvesting is done from only the receiving signal.
Ask me about Sequencing DNA in front of Linus Torvalds [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Friday September 12 2014, @05:48AM
Good point, I just though the same and wanted to add a comment to the other article [soylentnews.org]. However, at least in the article there is no clear statement to limit the energy harvesting to the incoming signal. I could imagine the device could be optimized to harvest from a WIFI router in the home, and use it to communicate with each other.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Friday September 12 2014, @05:39AM
http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/09/10/1143233 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday September 12 2014, @06:17AM
connecting objects together and giving us remote control through the web
Um...security?
I recently visited a company that produces industrial valves. They have received all sorts of awards for there newest design: Every valve has a built-in web server. I just had to ask about security. The answer was simply that the web-server code is in flash, and can only be replaced by physically connecting to the device. Which doesn't really help - if the code can be hacked, it doesn't have to be replaced. And once thousands or millions of these things are installed, who is ever going to bother to update them with a security patch by crawling through the bowels of a building to physically connect to each one?
Tell me again, why is the "Internet of Things" a good idea?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday September 12 2014, @07:25AM
Because 83% of boffins say so: feel free to browse their arguments [pewinternet.org] but keep your salt close.
Amazon can dream.
Errr... ummm... this part of life is too deep a socket for me.
(somebody needs to think of the terrists al the time).
Keeping into account that 20% of this world population live under extreme poverty [wikipedia.org] I doubt they have something significant to wear or be preoccupied with all the world's information.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @10:00AM
Ebola might take care of a decent number of those. With the lackluster response to the crisis in West Africa, a cynical person might wonder whether world elites have stopped considering West Africa a potential source of customers, someday far in the future, for their goods and instead would just prefer the states in that area collapse quickly so that wealthier nations can more easily extract resources.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday September 12 2014, @10:22AM
If that's what they are waiting to happen, they are in for a big surprise [wikipedia.org].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by jcross on Friday September 12 2014, @12:10PM
When the GP mentioned "wealthier nations" and "world elites", he/she equally well might have been referring to China and the people who run it. I suspect they will not be surprised at all. Also, since I haven't followed the news closely, is China even pretending to help with the Ebola outbreak?
(Score: 1) by hendrikboom on Saturday September 13 2014, @01:59AM
If the wealthy nations don't fight Ebola in West Africa, they will eventually have to fight it at home.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @10:25AM
I agree that using internet controlled valves in industrial processes is a bad idea. But on the other hand, maybe the "internet of things" is not about that. There are some things that might be useful:
- Replace barcodes. You no longer have to wait for the cashier to scan your groceries. (This might be bad for the cashiers though, they would be out of a job).
- Saving energy. Firstly, the user can get a real-time graph and statistics about the energy use of their appliances. Second, some of the appliances can be programmed to switch on at low tariff hours.
- Security. Given that the communication is secure (this is a subject on it's own) connected devices can be coupled to their owners. Think phones but also doorlocks and cars.
For commercial applications I can imagine that these kind of next-generation RFID tags can make assembly and stock tracking easier. I have reservations about connecting important controls to the internet though..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @05:45PM
The internet of things USED to be about measurement. Then I got bored one day and just dumped in control too. I created a generic interface to let you do both. It could bridge just about any control system out there. Then my boss's boss's boss got excited about it. Started giving it wacky names. Glad the product tanked. But unfortunately the idea stuck :( sorry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @02:20AM
>This might be bad for the cashiers though, they would be out of a job
No they wouldn't--it just means more help available to keep the store clean and properly stocked.
Once that need is filled, THEN the layoffs begin....
>For commercial applications I can imagine that these kind of next-generation RFID tags can make assembly and stock tracking easier. I have reservations about connecting important controls to the internet though..
Wal-Mart tried to use RFID this way years ago but the privacy advocates cried foul loud enough to make them reconsider. They WILL be ignored and RFID implemented if it will save them SERIOUS money or boost profits enough to make the upgrade worthwhile in the long run....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @09:24PM
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday September 13 2014, @12:53AM
Excellent opportunity for cheap mass surveillance ....
Just spray the environment of the target and it tells you just about everything. If not now, then in the future.
(Score: 1) by hendrikboom on Saturday September 13 2014, @02:17AM
Are there even enough IPv6 address for all these things?
(Score: 1) by hopp on Saturday September 13 2014, @04:12AM
Yes there are! We could even do a 192.168 type prefix (dedicated /64) for these things.
From: http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/press-centre/understanding-ip-addressing [ripe.net]
/64 1 IPv6 subnet 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPv6 addresses
/56 256 LAN segments Popular prefix size for one subscriber site
/48 65,536 LAN segments Popular prefix size for one subscriber site
/32 65,536 /48 subscriber sites Minimum IPv6 allocation
Our tiny WISP got a /32 from ARIN that's 7.9228163 * 10^28 IP addresses
Even a /64 which we have four billion, two hundred ninety-four million, nine hundred sixty-seven thousand, two hundred ninety-six of would be enough to cover this.
Because a /64 is eighteen quintillion, four hundred forty-six quadrillion, seven hundred forty-four trillion, seventy-three billion, seven hundred nine million, five hundred fifty-one thousand, six hundred sixteen IP addresses.
Don't forget to subtract 3: one for the gateway, one for the network address and one for the broadcast address.
Regards