Breaking News
Blog

UWB on ice?

NO RATINGS
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
grasor
User Rank
Rookie
re: UWB on ice?
grasor   12/6/2007 4:27:56 PM
NO RATINGS
Jack, Where's Fanny's test report on WiMedia and Pulse~LINK UWB devices? Inquiring minds want to know the results! I though it would be complete by now, and published! I heard that WiMedia has scheduled a press conference to pre-emptively respond to their lack of material participation in the testing. Is that true? Gregg

chrisf..2
User Rank
Rookie
re: UWB on ice?
chrisf..2   11/30/2007 1:35:12 AM
NO RATINGS
I could not agree with these comments more. They are dead-on. Some back-of-the-envelope calculations I did when the UWB NPRM was released showed the range to about 10 ft. Cable replacement (i.e., wireless USB) was the right application but it did not need the complex MBOA technology to provide low-cost solution. We abandoned logic and embraced hype. Shame on us.

Lbat3
User Rank
Rookie
re: UWB on ice?
Lbat3   11/1/2007 1:02:58 PM
NO RATINGS
It used to be that engineer was grounded in physics and mathematics. Now it seems that aggessive and heavy handed marketing hype has replaced reason. Not only does it set up incorrect expectations, but it causes the venture capital community to either direct money in the wrong direction, or be un willing to invest in more promising technologies. The truth is that UWB signals can only be transmitted about 12 feet and cannot pass through the walls of a standard house. Why has this not been the basis for the conversation about UWB in the press? What has happened to engineering analysis, when even this is obsured by marketing nonsense? In order to get UWB video from the downstairs of a 2 story house to an upstairs bedroom will require several repeaters (3, 4, or "n" hops). Each repeater (hop) will cut the bandwidth in half from the previous hop, and add to the cost of a system over the cost of narrow band system that can send from the source to the destination in one hop. Why hasn't the technical media simply stated these facts based on the physics of the situation? A 2**n decrease in bandwidth is fundamental and cannot be argued against. I also recommend that while we are looking at the fundamentals, that we take a look at the MBOA MAC specification. Can QoS for multimedia really be guaranteed in straight formward way by a mesh networking protocol, that is definately a non-TDMA based protocol? I also worry about US competitiveness. What happens when so many companies and venture captialists throw away so much money? What innovatiation remains unfunded, that should have been funded? I have not gotten into the issue of complexity to implement UWB, or the issue of residual bit error rate of UWB versus narrow band systems because it is not necessary to continue to that level. The physics of UWB is enough to say that this technology is not a good solution to most, if not all, wireless networking problems.

Flash Poll
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week