Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
posted by n1 on Friday September 12 2014, @03:12AM   Printer-friendly
from the because-why-not dept.

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

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday September 12 2014, @06:17AM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Friday September 12 2014, @06:17AM (#92290) Homepage Journal

    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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday September 12 2014, @07:25AM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 12 2014, @07:25AM (#92308) Journal

    Tell me again, why is the "Internet of Things" a good idea?

    Because 83% of boffins say so: feel free to browse their arguments [pewinternet.org] but keep your salt close.

    Rather, it’s the refrigerator knowing that a consumer is out of milk and querying her real-time personal health records to infer whether Amazon should same-day deliver 2% or skim.

    Amazon can dream.

    Nearly everything in daily life will have a connected application associated with it. We can think of each person as a plug and each part of life as a socket...

    Errr... ummm... this part of life is too deep a socket for me.

    Now add in tailored information and wearable devices that can sense harm, such as threatening weather, criminals in the area, or even health issues….that’s the future of these devices.

    (somebody needs to think of the terrists al the time).

    The Internet of Things will become pervasive, creating an almost totally-connected society, including globally. We will be close to a situation where all the global population will have access to all the world’s information—and to everyone else—using any device, including wearables.

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @10:00AM (#92334)

      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.

      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

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 12 2014, @10:22AM (#92340) Journal

        instead would just prefer the states in that area collapse quickly so that wealthier nations can more easily extract resources.

        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

          by jcross (4009) on Friday September 12 2014, @12:10PM (#92361)

          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

        by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 13 2014, @01:59AM (#92640) Homepage Journal

        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

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @10:25AM (#92341)

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @05:45PM (#92519)

      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

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 14 2014, @02:20AM (#92881)

      >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....