Design Con 2015
Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 4   >   >>
Jonas Berge
User Rank
Rookie
Re: digitally networked intelligent sensors
Jonas Berge   11/3/2013 8:06:32 PM
NO RATINGS
You are right in that conversion from analog sensor signals into digital messages in converter (I/O nodes) is how it is done today, and the past few decades. However, to me this is not the Internet of Things (IoT).

Personally I believe the Internet of Things means that every 'thing' is digital, intelligent, and networked. That is, the sensor (thing) itself has digital signal, is intelligent, and networked. A sensor with digital communication signal does not need a converter node. A sensor with an analog signal wired to a converter node does not provide the same capability as a sensor with embedded digital communication and intelligence. IoT to me is about digital communication from the very "first meter" all the way from the sensor. This way you can use digital communication to configure the sensor and to access sensor diagnostics from a centralized location.

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
Re: digitally networked intelligent sensors
Bert22306   11/3/2013 6:11:22 PM
NO RATINGS
"What I personally like about all these Internet of Things (IoT) discussions is that they all take for granted that all sensors will be digital, intelligent, and networked: wired or wireless."

Not so much "take for granted," but rather "is achievable, or has been achieved, in fact." Sensors will increasingly be designed with IP interface, I don't have much doubt on that. Otherwise, you buy or build appropriate interface cards, to convert whatever the sensor signals there are into a digital words or digital messages, and you build network nodes that house these interface cards. That's how it's done now.

Jonas Berge
User Rank
Rookie
digitally networked intelligent sensors
Jonas Berge   11/2/2013 11:28:50 AM
NO RATINGS
What I personally like about all these Internet of Things (IoT) discussions is that they all take for granted that all sensors will be digital, intelligent, and networked: wired or wireless. Today we are shockingly far away from using digital signals from the sensors. In the process industry, most sensors use a pure analog 4-20 mA signal. Some smart sensors use an analog 4-20 mA signal for the real-time measurement and a superimposed slow digital signal similar to telephone "caller ID" for sensor configuration, calibration, and diagnostics. Pure real-time digital communication for sensors and actuators (fieldbus) is gaining ground among leading companies in the energy business such as Shell, BP, Chevron, Saudi Aramco, and Reliance etc. By digitally networking more sensors; bus or wireless, they are making their plants more productive, reliable, energy efficient, and safer. Learn more here:

http://community.emerson.com/process/emerson-exchange/b/weblog/archive/2013/10/03/why-are-there-missing-measurements.aspx

Jonas Berge
User Rank
Rookie
digitally networked intelligent sensors
Jonas Berge   11/2/2013 11:26:22 AM
NO RATINGS
What I personally like about all these Internet of Things (IoT) discussions is that they all take for granted that all sensors will be digital, intelligent, and networked: wired or wireless. Today we are shockingly far away from using digital signals from the sensors. In the process industry, most sensors use a pure analog 4-20 mA signal. Some smart sensors use an analog 4-20 mA signal for the real-time measurement and a superimposed slow digital signal similar to telephone "caller ID" for sensor configuration, calibration, and diagnostics. Pure real-time digital communication for sensors and actuators (fieldbus) is gaining ground among leading companies in the energy business such as Shell, BP, Chevron, Saudi Aramco, and Reliance etc. By digitally networking more sensors; bus or wireless, they are making their plants more productive, reliable, energy efficient, and safer. Learn more here:

http://community.emerson.com/process/emerson-exchange/b/weblog/archive/2013/10/03/why-are-there-missing-measurements.aspx

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Blogger
Re: A visual
junko.yoshida   11/2/2013 8:00:05 AM
NO RATINGS
I agree, Wilber. I had not seen this before, but this illustrates very nicely what coordination and interoperability need to be achieved.

KB3001
User Rank
CEO
Re: Doubt
KB3001   11/2/2013 7:23:43 AM
NO RATINGS
Playing the devil's advocate here, and what if this was done deliberately to show how quick innovation with real impact on our daily lives can be achieved with modern IoT technologies? PS. May be I am giving the government too much credit, but who knows...

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Re: Doubt
rick merritt   11/1/2013 5:12:42 PM
NO RATINGS
@AZskibum: Good point. a late 2014/early 2015 goal might have sparked more thoughtful work.

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Re: Doubt
rick merritt   11/1/2013 5:11:31 PM
NO RATINGS
@Doc D.  I suspect the White House effort is less to spark an Arpanet like IoT and more to help the private sector get focused on the promise and problems of IoT. China, the EU and other regions are ramping their own initiatives in IoT so there's a but of techno-geo-politics here and just plain desire to push things forward.

 

Anyone know anything about China's IoT effort, based I am told in Wuxi?

AZskibum
User Rank
CEO
Re: Doubt
AZskibum   10/31/2013 8:40:58 PM
NO RATINGS
Am I the only one who noticed that the deadline for these demonstration testbeds is April 2014? That's not very far out, especially when most companies have year end deadlines and priority commitments over the next couple months. Any IoT system that could make a good impression by next April had better be well along the development path already, or run the risk of being buggy or incomplete due to being rushed to meet some arbitrary government demonstration deadline.

If Uncle Sam thought the April 2014 date was that important, why couldn't he have made this announcement several months ago?

krisi
User Rank
CEO
Re: RF + JTAG?
krisi   10/31/2013 6:35:47 PM
NO RATINGS
Yes, 10:1 compression in best case...sounds it could be lower in practie though...from wiki

IPv6 requires the maximum transmission unit (MTU) to be at least 1280 Bytes. In contrast, IEEE 802.15.4's standard packet size is 127 octets. A maximum frame overhead of 25 octets spares 102 octets at the media access control layer. An optional but highly recommended security feature at the link layer poses an additional overhead. For example, 21 octets are consumed for AES-CCM-128 leaving only 81 octets for upper layers.

Page 1 / 4   >   >>


Flash Poll
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Max Maxfield

Want to Present a Paper at ESC Boston 2015?
Max Maxfield
9 comments
I tell you, I need more hours in each day. If I was having any more fun, there would have to be two of me to handle it all. For example, I just heard that I'm going to be both a speaker ...

Martin Rowe

No 2014 Punkin Chunkin, What Will You Do?
Martin Rowe
Post a comment
American Thanksgiving is next week, and while some people watch (American) football all day, the real competition on TV has become Punkin Chunkin. But there will be no Punkin Chunkin on TV ...

Rich Quinnell

Making the Grade in Industrial Design
Rich Quinnell
13 comments
As every developer knows, there are the paper specifications for a product design, and then there are the real requirements. The paper specs are dry, bland, and rigidly numeric, making ...

Martin Rowe

Book Review: Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design
Martin Rowe
1 Comment
Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design, Third Edition, by Michel Mardiguian. Contributions by Donald L. Sweeney and Roger Swanberg. List price: $89.99 (e-book), $119 (hardcover).