Ultrawideband Signal Passes Data Through Walls

writertype writes "You may already be familiar with ultrawideband; UWB technology has been specifically talked about and designed to replace wired USB connections for over a year. Due to its high bandwidth, it's also been considered as an A/V cable replacement. The problem is that UWB radio performance degrades precipitously, effectively confining it to a single room. Until now, that is. Startup TZero says its UWB implementation provides high throughput through walls. Will this be an effective competitor to 802.11n?"

Comments

3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls

[IntelliAdmin]

The speed increases are nice with this technology. The problem is physics. As it stands UWB runs from 3.1GHZ to 10.6GHZ. Radio in this band operates much like visible light - it is easily blocked by walls and other obstacles. Because of this I think that 802.11b/a/c/n are going to be around for a long time

Windows Admin Tools

Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls

[Anon-Admin]

As it stands UWB runs from 3.1GHZ to 10.6GHZ. Radio in this band operates much like visible light

Oh Microwave. Now your usb harddrive will save your data and cook your eggs all at once :)

Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls

[bibi-pov]

I wonder, if, as you say, it's something like light could it be routed through a "fiber-optic"-like material? This way you could have some kind of passive recieving element on one end of this fiber and then run it through the wall or through the ceiling just like cat 5, and on the other end you have another passive trancieving material.

So basically what your suggesting is that in order to have a working wireless connection you need a wire ?

Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls

[deficite]

Or you could pull out a hammer drill and punch a whole through the walls of every room. I'm a genius. Pay me $50 billion dollars for my great idea.

Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls

[pe1chl]

I wonder, if, as you say, it's something like light could it be routed through a "fiber-optic"-like material?

Yes. That is commonly called "waveguide". It operates exacty like a fiber-optic cable, but at the wavelength of these signals.
Of course, the wavelength being 3-10cm it needs to be physically larger than the fiber for 800nm wavelength "light".

Waveguide often has an air dielectricum, and the dimensions for this wavelength would be slightly smaller than the wavelength. This makes it a bit less practical.
But you could have a waveguide with some other core, and it would be smaller.

Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls

[pe1chl]

Try 802.11g and 802.11a equipment side-by-side. You will find that the 802.11a (5.5 GHz) equipment has considerably more difficulty over non-line-of-sight paths than 802.11g (2.4 GHz) has.

Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls

[Moby Cock]

One major issue with UWB is the antenna design. Its proving very hard to built antennas that have constant gain over the whole BW. As a result, the antenna essentially induces a transfer function on the transmitted (or recieved) signal. It could be possible to compensate using DSP in the Tx or Rx circuits, however the transfer function is different for differing RF environments. That is, move the metal legged table in your living room and the compensation algorithms are no longer valid. There are a few new antenna designs being proposed that focus on ensuring the s21 values are constant over the whole UWB spectrum, but its still early days with those.

The 'going through walls' part is a bit of a tempest in a teapot. That will come when the RF aspects of UWB are better designed.

Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls

[general_re]

Or you could pull out a hammer drill and punch a whole through the walls of every room.

Punch a whole what?

Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls

[pe1chl]

I recently built a 400m (a quarter mile) link using 802.11a pointtopoint equipment (1W ERP, max legal power here).
It is line-of-sight w.r.t. buildings, but there was a group of trees inbetween. The signal had to pass trough maybe 20 meters of foilage.

The link barely worked. Sometimes 6 Mbps, sometimes 12 Mbps.
Relocating one of the endpoints so that those trees were out of the way (actual position lower than it was, now just skimming a building) improved the signal by about 20dB.

Result: 54Mbps link and power output decreased by 5-6dB (by TPC). Could probably gain another 6dB by having more clearance above the building.

I really did not expect this, comparing with results on 2.4 GHz.
You are right that allowed ERP on 2.4 is lower, but I think there would have been a big difference in path loss in this case.

Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls

[bgoody]

It's extremely difficult to gauge foliage attenuation. It literally varies as the wind blows. Because of the wavelength, 5.8GHz also requires less fresnel zone clearance compared to 2.4GHz so if you were skimming the top of the trees on a marginal link, the blockage at 2.4GHz would be more severe, perhaps enough to dip you below the required signal-to-noise ratio.

If the trees were dense and the power ouput the same then 2.4GHz would win out.

Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls

[sootman]

> Because of this I think that 802.11b/a/c/n are going to be around for a long time.

Well, we can always hope for a breakthrough with 802.11d, e, i, k, l, m, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, or z. :-)

Re:3.1GHZ Has trouble going through walls

[salec]

Its proving very hard to built antennas that have constant gain over the whole BW

Uhh... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_periodic_antenna ... T&M gear uses that type. They are not so much of a high directional gain, but they offer very flat frequency/gain characteristic. For GHz range it would be couple of inches for the largest dipole in the set. All in all, resonably good antena for this could be etched on a small PCB.

Getting Crowded

[Ignignot]

Great, so now my idiot neighbors can make even more interference, and this time whenever they tune in to see Lost, I'll lose my internet connection. Will I at least be able to see what they are seeing?

Re:Getting Crowded

[christopherfinke]

I mean, does anyone really run A/V signals between rooms as it is (except, of course, cable or satellite runs from a dish or the street)?

Perhaps no one is running A/V signals between rooms because it hasn't been easily doable, and this technology will greatly increase the number of people doing so.

All I know is that this would have been great to have when I was retrofitting my home for cable last year. That was a pain...

Re:Getting Crowded

[arivanov]

Do not worry. They will not.

The only reason UWB has even started being considered by regulators in most countries was the assumption that it will be limited to a line of sight.

UWB that goes through walls will make all the early fears resurface once more and delay regulatory approval for UWB where necessary.

Frankly some of the pushers of competing tech like 802.11n should invest into this technology ASAP.

Quick response...

[JPamplin]

Will this be an effective competitor to 802.11n?

Um, no. 802.11n has significantly greater range (as a spec, at least). Plus, if this company is claiming to have developed it, I don't think they will just give it up for free. 802.11n is a public standard.

So, no. ;-)

Re:Quick response...

[Moby Cock]

802.11n uses MIMO, whereas UWB does not (as yet).
UWB is not designed for long range, it is meant for very low power rich message passing
Neither are proprietary


I agree that 802.11n and UWB will not dethrone one another, because they are not really equivalent or competeting.

Other uses

[loraksus]

These folks didn't seem to have too much trouble trying to get the signal through walls ;)

http://www.uwb.org/RadarVision2i/rv2iperf.htm
That is a pretty primitive picture, some of the stuff in labs is quite a bit more advanced.

BTW, is anyone noticing font corruption on that page in Firefox?

I don't know about you chaps

[also-rr]

But I find that for the best data rate through walls all that one requires is a sledge hammer and a fibre optic cable.

Re:I don't know about you chaps

[CrazyJim1]

What about going through a wall with a Station Wagon full of backup tapes?

Yea yea yea...

[suv4x4]

UWB technology has been specifically talked about and designed to replace wired USB connections for over a year. Due to its high bandwidth, it's also been considered as an A/V cable replacement.

Yea, yea, yea... That sounds so desperately trying to hype it up. Just a month ago we were discussing that current digital A/V *cables* can't handle high enough resolutions for some larger (resolution) monitors out there, which requires two or even four DVI cables.

We've discussed also how the new standard introduced, is just as bad (despite claims to "scale indefinitely", in theory, with other equipment and all that..).

Now this is of course gonna replace everything, including food and water in one year. Therefore buy our shares and give us venture capital. Screw it.

The problem is that UWB radio performance degrades precipitously, effectively confining it to a single room. Until now, that is. Startup TZero says its UWB implementation provides high throughput through walls. Will this be an effective competitor to 802.11n?

I don't get it: we have enough problems with people logging into our wifi networks because it passes through walls already (even if it's password protected and so on, it can be hacked into), and now they found a way to do the same with UWB? I kinda like it in my room only, neighbours will have to buy theirs.

Re:Radio through walls???!?!?!?!!!!

[Walt Dismal]

I always knew the government was sending me secret signals through walls. UWB proves the CIA really does give me those disturbing dreams about hot dogs chasing donuts and packets from hell in my network. I'm not paranoid. Hey. Why are you pointing a Pringles can at me? Help!!

Re:What about bluetooth?

[MountainMan101]

Yes. Bluetooth was designed to replace IR, which in turn replaced short wires. It was purely a personal wireless protocol, short range between paired objects. Wireless USB is designed for higher bandwith, although I don't see it being a competitor to WiFi - mainly because they can exist in the same way that wired USB and Ethernet do.

You may ask why we can't have one all encompassing protocol - the answer, cost. Bluetooth is the cheapest, GPRS and WiFi cost more. So for a BT headset the cost would rocket up if it had to do be fully compliant with a new protocol.

Anyway, in the grand scheme it's all a bit pointless. There's more interesting things in life, like mountains, women and fast cars. Who cares about wireless!

Of course not.

[electrosoccertux]

Not when UWB's output power is limited so that its range is only 30 feet.

Damn, time to upgrade

[jhines]

Time to upgrade the ol' tin foil hat. Maybe some shiny stickers...

building construction

[FudRucker]

as anyone knows reading my coments knows i am no IT guy, but i do work construction and done it for years, most commercial office buildings are built not with lumber and a lot of what is called sheetmetal stud and track, also there is sheetmetal HVAC ducts & etc.; lots of metal, well anyhow metal always blocks radio signals so within a large building with enough walls to go through i can see why wireless will have limitations...

i would imagine a large enough office building would benefit from a repeater system like some ham and commercial radio systems already use...

n is still better

[MooseTick]

802.11n makes many improvements over 11.g. It provides for greater redundancy(MIMO), security, speed(400MBPS+), and more distant coverage. It is also an open standard so anyone can use it without worring about paying someone license fees today, tomorrow, or 3 years from now when it is commonplace. Since its speed can allow multiple hdtv connections to stream at once and the costs should not be any greater than 11b or 11g devices, the n standard will soon dominate wireless networking and connections.

Why do you need it?

[phorm]

From my understanding of the article, this is intended as a wireless protocol for USB devices. That being so, why would you need it to go through walls, or better yet, why would you want it to?

Personally, in 99% of the cases, I'd be more than happy to have my USB signals stay put where nobody but me can read them... despite the assurance about "security being mandatory" we all know that in most cases if a signal can be picked up, it can be hacked.

The only reason I might want something that passes through walls is if I decided to stick a media server, etc in the closet, and have it controlled by a local device connected by UWB... and either a wireless or hardwired connection for the video.

No Data

[thePig]

The article (press release ??) has NO data whatsoever on how they solved this issue?
Since the high frequency makes it *very* less able to go around objects, how did they do it indeed?
Were they able to use EIT ?

BTW, they did not speak about the degradation pattens in the article.
Any ideas on the same?

Re:No Data

[Mike Buddha]

To get the wireless to work through walls, you have to use their patented Universal Wall Hole(tm) technology to prep each wall for optimum wireless performance.

Fix the drawback

[MoogMan]

One thing I never liked about USB, is that you can't use the connector "upside-down" (I'm sure there's probably a technical word for this... symmetrical or something).

I hope this UWB - being a successor of USB - has connectors that work "upside-down". Oh wait...

Re:Fix the drawback

[Russellkhan]

I think the thing that makes it annoying with USB is that there's no simple visual cue (e.g. shape of the plug) to tell you which way to plug it. There is that little plastic bit on one side, but for some reason I have a harder time remembering which side of the USB socket has the plastic bit than I do remembering for example which way the wider side of a VGA socket faces.

Re:Fix the drawback

[Ksevio]

There's typically a crack in the metal on the bottom, and a usb symbol on the top.

"10-4 Good Buddy"

[LM741N]

It will work great until your neighbor on CB running 10kW speaks into the mic.
(same for BPL Internet)

Different markets

[VoiceOfDog]

Ultrawideband is being developed as a WPAN standard for IEEE 802.15.3a, which aims to provide a high (~20Mbps) alternative to Bluetooth. .15.3a is being called "WiMedia" and is intended for use in the Wireless USB (WUSB) standard. This is clearly the market this company is trying to address.
WPAN (Personal Area Networks), like Bluetooth or ZigBee, aim at a different market than WLAN (WiFi). For a WPAN, it may be advantageous to have a shorter range to reduce interference.
Extending the range to blur the line between WPAN and WLAN is an interesting business plan. There are numberous competing technolgies in the WPAN arena, and history tells that not all will survive. Time will tell if this one is viable.

mommy!

[bigattichouse]

Mommy, I feel all tingly inside!

Oh, sweety - thats just the Ultawideband USB, now with extra radiation!

Oooo, it feels like progress! But my hair is falling out!

Thats ok honey, thats how you know it's working!

Can't we just...

[douglips]

Can't Geordi just reverse the tacyon polarization?

Re:Can't we just...

[Moby Cock]

No. Battery died in his visor.

TZero name already taken

[Phreakiture]

The TZero name is already taken. Anyway, I'd much rather have this TZero.

UWB not so scalable...

[Dr. Zowie]

Will this be an effective competitor to 802.11?

Ye Gods, I hope not. UWB is absolutely terrific so long as a limited number of people use it -- but it's one of those solutions that sound great until you multiply by 10,000,000 installed devices -- then everyone's radio noise floor goes up, stealing bandwidth (range, really) from things like FM music, shortwave, air traffic control, and emergency services. By that time it's too late, because you can't track down and eliminate 10^7 devices -- short of nuking the city centers.

MIMO Myth

[katharsis83]

It's a common myth that MIMO - sticking on multiple antennas - is for redundancy purposes.

If you actually crunch through the math, increasing the number of antennas basically increases the theoretical capacity of the wireless channel, meaning faster transmission speeds over the same distance/attenuation/power. So the extra antennas aren't in case one antenna fails, it's to increase transmission speeds.