5 ms·

"The Decawave DW1000 Radio IC [3] for example, can move 6.8Mbps of data with an accuracy that is 100x better than WiFi or Bluetooth. It can reach 290 meters of

"The Decawave DW1000 Radio IC [3] for example, can move 6.8Mbps of data with an accuracy that is 100x better than WiFi or Bluetooth. It can reach 290 meters of distance with a very minimal power requirement with a 50x faster speed compared to standard GPS latency." None of this makes sense as-written. It is either techno-blither or the author doesn't sufficiently explain "distance", "power", "speed", "better" or "accuracy".

stagger87 7y ago
The quote makes sense. He's comparing the ranging accuracy of UWB to other wireless protocols while also pointing out it's relatively high throughput and low power requirements. He's also comparing the latency of acquiring ranging information to that of GPS.
laughinghan 7y ago
That mostly makes sense to me, it's a chip that allows for both spatially locating other chips and communicating with them, supposedly with more bandwidth and further range than WiFi or Bluetooth, while requiring lower power: https://www.decawave.com/dw1000/productbrief/ https://www.decawave.com/dw1000/productbrief/
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- teppifk 7y ago
  I agree with the gp, the quote makes little sense. It seems to take a bunch of facts from the product marketing but words them in such a way that is highly tortured and just doesn't make sense. Apparently you didn't parse it correctly either: More bandwidth? Even 802.11b had greater bandwidth. 6.8 Mbps is not more bandwidth than WiFi. What the quote is most likely trying to convey is that the radio has much better positional accuracy, which you didn't seem to glean in your paraphrase. 100x accuracy seems to imply that the data transmission is 100x more accurate which is not the cae. The product has high positioning accuracy. "can move 6.8Mbps of data with an accuracy that is 100x better than WiFi or Bluetooth." is a very bizarre way of saying that to be charitable. "It can reach 290 meters of distance with a very minimal power requirement" Very minimal? What is "very". Also in practice, the distance achieved is going to be dependent on power. So you can't get these maximum distances with minimal power. Also a bit misleading, as for non-positioning Bluetooth LE is superior. "with a 50x faster speed compared to standard GPS latency." This is a tortured way of saying that position acquisition is 50 times faster than GPS. In practice, the laws of physics also apply. You're not getting 290m of 6.8 Mbps through any walls with minimal power.
- dweekly 7y ago
  Links to spec sheets always welcome. Thank you! Per the article's apparent claim: 6.8mbps is not a higher bitrate than WiFi. Or even close. 802.11ax (aka WiFi 6) offers three orders of magnitude greater goodput. I don't know what is meant by "100x better accuracy" - perhaps the author is making claims about the ability to locate a device with more positional accuracy than 802.11 triangulation via RSSI? Or 802.11mc? Or 802.11az? Who knows what the author meant?
bsder 7y ago
Decawave UWB is really good for positioning accuracy--like sub-centimeter level accuracy. I've seen them scatter a handful of stuff on a desk and everything figures out where it is. Yes, it's power consumption is quite good--compared with GPS and WiFi which have abysmal power numbers for small battery powered devices. Compared with BLE--UWB doesn't look so great in terms of power consumption. So, most things only turn UWB on when they are trying to get accurate position measurements.
- jwr 7y ago
  That sounds overly optimistic. From what I know, 15-20cm is the best accuracy you can achieve — which is still fantastic, mind you. There is a lot of confusion around UWB positioning. Some articles describe TDoA (time difference of arrival) systems, which can indeed be very precise and the device being positioned can be low-power, but these require a nwetwork of beacons with precisely synchronized clocks, which is very difficult to achieve in practice. Also, the DW1000 chip is a power hog. Yes, if you compare it to a GPS receiver it is still fantastic, but in low-power devices it is not easy to manage. As an example problem, you can't power a DW1000 from a coin battery: the internal resistance of the battery is too large, and it can't deliver the peak current that the chip needs.
  - vaxman 7y ago
    What of the OEM specs of 10cm accuracy, only 31mA during transmission, 64mA in receive --which is usually not battery powered-- and its claims of months-to-years battery life using a coin cell? Did you overlook this or are you testifying anecdotally oR about your direct experience?
    - skykooler 7y ago
      31mA is significantly more than most coin cells are designed to supply - while a new one may be able to reach peak currents of 50-100mA this significantly reduces battery capacity, and is only possible with a new battery (once it's partially discharged it cannot sustain these current levels any more).
PeCaN 7y ago
not considered: you don't know what he's talking about
- teppifk 7y ago
  Well I am very familiar with the decawave, and I agree with the GP. This quote is bizzaro, as I mention in detail in another comment.
GuiA 7y ago
Could it be generated with a GPT-2 style model?

stagger87 7y ago

The quote makes sense. He's comparing the ranging accuracy of UWB to other wireless protocols while also pointing out it's relatively high throughput and low power requirements. He's also comparing the latency of acquiring ranging information to that of GPS.

laughinghan 7y ago

That mostly makes sense to me, it's a chip that allows for both spatially locating other chips and communicating with them, supposedly with more bandwidth and further range than WiFi or Bluetooth, while requiring lower power: https://www.decawave.com/dw1000/productbrief/ https://www.decawave.com/dw1000/productbrief/

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
teppifk 7y ago
I agree with the gp, the quote makes little sense. It seems to take a bunch of facts from the product marketing but words them in such a way that is highly tortured and just doesn't make sense. Apparently you didn't parse it correctly either: More bandwidth? Even 802.11b had greater bandwidth. 6.8 Mbps is not more bandwidth than WiFi. What the quote is most likely trying to convey is that the radio has much better positional accuracy, which you didn't seem to glean in your paraphrase. 100x accuracy seems to imply that the data transmission is 100x more accurate which is not the cae. The product has high positioning accuracy. "can move 6.8Mbps of data with an accuracy that is 100x better than WiFi or Bluetooth." is a very bizarre way of saying that to be charitable. "It can reach 290 meters of distance with a very minimal power requirement" Very minimal? What is "very". Also in practice, the distance achieved is going to be dependent on power. So you can't get these maximum distances with minimal power. Also a bit misleading, as for non-positioning Bluetooth LE is superior. "with a 50x faster speed compared to standard GPS latency." This is a tortured way of saying that position acquisition is 50 times faster than GPS. In practice, the laws of physics also apply. You're not getting 290m of 6.8 Mbps through any walls with minimal power.
dweekly 7y ago
Links to spec sheets always welcome. Thank you! Per the article's apparent claim: 6.8mbps is not a higher bitrate than WiFi. Or even close. 802.11ax (aka WiFi 6) offers three orders of magnitude greater goodput. I don't know what is meant by "100x better accuracy" - perhaps the author is making claims about the ability to locate a device with more positional accuracy than 802.11 triangulation via RSSI? Or 802.11mc? Or 802.11az? Who knows what the author meant?

bsder 7y ago

Decawave UWB is really good for positioning accuracy--like sub-centimeter level accuracy. I've seen them scatter a handful of stuff on a desk and everything figures out where it is. Yes, it's power consumption is quite good--compared with GPS and WiFi which have abysmal power numbers for small battery powered devices. Compared with BLE--UWB doesn't look so great in terms of power consumption. So, most things only turn UWB on when they are trying to get accurate position measurements.

jwr 7y ago
That sounds overly optimistic. From what I know, 15-20cm is the best accuracy you can achieve — which is still fantastic, mind you. There is a lot of confusion around UWB positioning. Some articles describe TDoA (time difference of arrival) systems, which can indeed be very precise and the device being positioned can be low-power, but these require a nwetwork of beacons with precisely synchronized clocks, which is very difficult to achieve in practice. Also, the DW1000 chip is a power hog. Yes, if you compare it to a GPS receiver it is still fantastic, but in low-power devices it is not easy to manage. As an example problem, you can't power a DW1000 from a coin battery: the internal resistance of the battery is too large, and it can't deliver the peak current that the chip needs.
- vaxman 7y ago
  What of the OEM specs of 10cm accuracy, only 31mA during transmission, 64mA in receive --which is usually not battery powered-- and its claims of months-to-years battery life using a coin cell? Did you overlook this or are you testifying anecdotally oR about your direct experience?
  - skykooler 7y ago
    31mA is significantly more than most coin cells are designed to supply - while a new one may be able to reach peak currents of 50-100mA this significantly reduces battery capacity, and is only possible with a new battery (once it's partially discharged it cannot sustain these current levels any more).

PeCaN 7y ago

not considered: you don't know what he's talking about

teppifk 7y ago
Well I am very familiar with the decawave, and I agree with the GP. This quote is bizzaro, as I mention in detail in another comment.

GuiA 7y ago

Could it be generated with a GPT-2 style model?