3 ms·
im very skeptical of the accuracy claimed. The layout and complexity of objects in most homes to do this is way to awkward to work reliably. For someone breath
by puppycodes 1y ago
im very skeptical of the accuracy claimed. The layout and complexity of objects in most homes to do this is way to awkward to work reliably.
For someone breathing or a heartbeat you need much higher GHz signal. Usually this is done at 30ghz to 60ghz. The power flux leaving the antenna has an inverse square drop off rate which makes this basically impractical unless your standing directly in front of it.
- lrvick 1y agoI have personally tested wifi imaging from a cheap old 2.4Ghz linksys router that was accurate enough to tell if my hand was open or closed, maybe 10 years ago.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- paavoova 1y agoIs 60GHz not part of the standard now? Only a matter of consumer hardware support.
- vel0city 1y agoI don't think 60GHz is required on WiFi 7 which includes a lot of sensing, but I'm open to be proven wrong.
- vel0city 1y agoI do agree some of these claims are pretty extreme. I wonder if it does work what the reliability of things like breathing and heartbeats. FWIW, some of these systems do incorporate 60GHz signals in their analysis, but as you mention dealing with 60GHz is incredibly challenging even in something like a residential building. I'd really like to actually see it in person to really grasp the limitations.