Slashdot Mirror
The Future Of Wireless Sensor Networks
Frisky070802 writes "In the 12/03 Wired, Intel's Tiny Hope for the Future describes a fundamental transformation as Intel's Research director David Tennenhouse realized the importance of sensor networks. He saw a Berkeley project on 'motes,' little sensors that communicate on ad-hoc wireless networks. 'The company now foresees networks consisting of thousands of motes, located wherever there's a need for data collection, streaming real-time data to one another and to central servers. Intel imagines the day when every assembly line, soybean field, and nursing home on the planet will be peppered with motes, prodding factory foremen to replace faulty machines, farmers to water fields, and nurses to check on something unusual in room E214.' Intel was impressed enough with the technology to fund a whole 'lablet' to develop it. Intel sees a huge potential market in developing both the sensors and the computation to process the huge amounts of sensor information. If this rings any bells, note that the Intel lablets are also behind the Planetlab Internet emulator, previously discussed in Slashdot."
Is this idea all that original? It seems to me like this is the kind of thing imagined for wireless communication from the start. We already have wireless communication. We already have programs to monitor things and send data. Is it that inventive just to combine the two?
Esoteric reference.
Here's an analogy: think about the visible-spectrum radiation emitted by an LED. Are you concerned about sunburns or skin-cancer from LED radiation? (If so, I'd like to see your computer room...) These motes will be capable of transmitting similar amounts of power. I doubt very much that they'll adversely affect anything with their radiation.
Their bigger impact will probably be the damage done by the adhesives or fasteners used to stick them to their monitoring posts, or by the hazardous wastes left behind when they're done using them.
John
This is a really cool idea
Doesn't the whole concept seem kind of Orwellian? Doesn't the following quote from the article disturb you?:
Deployed the way Tennenhouse envisions, the networks will require zero human input. We'll reap the benefits without having to interact with the networks, and Intel will eliminate a long-standing obstacle to its growth: the feebleness of the human brain. "Sensor nets let us relieve the human being of the responsibility of drawing information out of the physical world," says Tennenhouse. "We need to have computers anticipating our needs and sometimes taking action on our behalf."
It bothers me - sounds like SkyNet or something. Not to even mention the environmental waste/radio interference for all these machine.
That's the beauty of an off-beat R&D lab. They're given free rein to develop just about anything without regard to need OR profit.
AT&T and IBM both funded labs like these for years. They were responsible for developing such novel and diverse things as transistors and scanning tunnelling microscopes. The goal is, of course, that they will develop a product that fills a real need, which in turn will create a demand for their product appeasing their shareholders.
I think it's absolutely terrific that some industries are able to risk investing in the totally unknown. It was truly a shame when Bell Labs dropped their unfettered research. It was also disappointing to see IBM drop research for all but computer-related work. But even so, their Zurich labs have recently come up with some novel storage mechanisms leveraging their decade-old scanning tunnelling work.
Regardless of whether these labs prove to be duds or if one of them creates the transistor of the 21st century, the money is being well spent. Exploring the unknown is always of value.
John
Like the patient's vitals somehow slipping and not being noticed despite the perfectly good monitors used currently in hospitals? I'm reminded of an urban legend said to take place in a South African hospital. Seems that whoever occupied a certain bed in the ICU would kick off during the night. Turns out that the night cleaning person would unplug the breathing machine for that one patient in order to run a floor polisher.
Also, I think you're right about the orwellian aspect; but I figure this is going to happen anyways. Technology is powerful. There are those who wish to hold power over others. If you look at history, you'll find a hell of a lot of the buggers! And those who want power, will find these wonderful new tools, and put them to their uses. I don't like it, but I think it's the other edge of that double-edged sword called Technology.
The only solution is to (a) put into place systems to keep those people from abusing the technology or (b) wait until they abuse it, and hopefully a structure will come into place through intense struggle that will keep it from happening again.
How convenient...for a company that sells microprocessors ;). As market the penetration of PC's approaches 100%, Intel envisions a future in which everybody needs to have thousands (or millions) of devices with a microprocessor, instead of a just a handful. And of course they require zero human input. Nobody could operate or pay attention to thousands of devices at once.
Wireless power transmission is a possibility. At low power levels, it's quite feasible. That's how RFID tags work, after all. In controlled spaces, like hospitals, airports, aircraft, and prisons, it could work.
This sounds like the right thing for telemetry and control systems. Perhaps they will fit them in the wing flaps and engines on airliners, so they don't need to go to the expense of laying wires or fibre. Or maybe they should fit them in the reactor core of nuclear power stations, so that the reaction can be moderated if it gets to hot. Again, they wouldn't need to go to the expense of laying wires or pneumatic lines. These would be good tests of thier reliability. Another application would be for the brakes on our cars - no need for a cable, just transmit a signal with a mote. Are there any downsides to this technology?
I stole this
I agree wholeheartedly with what you say about the days when Bell Labs and IBM Research did unfettered research.
Unfortunately, these companies were under "market attack" by companies like Dell, which does no technical research at all. They're also under "analyst attack" by Wall Street types measuring progress one quarter at a time, with little eye to the long term.
The logical consequence of this is that research gets "focused," unfortunately.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.