The subject of the moment is UWB, and if you've spoken to me over the last six months or so, you'd know that I have not had a seat on this technology's bandwagon.
The subject of the moment is UWB, and if you've spoken to me over the last six months or so, you'd know that I have not had a seat on this technology's bandwagon. My arguments had to do with the amount of real estate that was need to implement UWB, the power that it consumed, and the range that it offers.
First the size. All the demos I've seen were multi-chip implementations. I know that all roadmaps lead to single-chip implementations, but I was afraid that other technologies would fill the gap that UWB performs before they could reach that single-chip milestone. I've been assured that that's not the case.
Second is the power. While the power is fairly high, the data rate is also high. Hence, at least the way it was explained to me, the idea is to send the data at the extreme high rate, then quickly shut the transceivers off. In other words, it's high power, but it's for very short time intervals.
Third is the range. The original spec was for 1 to 3 m. Lately, I've heard 10 m bantered around. I could certainly live with 10 m, and would probably even be okay with 3 m, but 1 m just doesn't cut it. If it really is 10 m, as the latest proponents say, I assume that's at the outer edge, where the range would be reduced. But you should get the full data rate at 3 m, which is acceptable.
I'm normally a "half-full" kind of guy, but I'm going to take a wait-and-see attitude toward UWB.