Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A 30-Picowatt Processor For Sensors

Posted by timothy on from the just-think-what-a-AA-battery-could-do dept.

Roland Piquepaille writes "University of Michigan (U-M) researchers have developed an ultra low power microchip which 'uses 30,000 times less power in sleep mode and 10 times less in active mode than comparable chips now on the market.' It only consumes 30 picowatts in sleep mode, which means that a simple watch battery could power the chip for more than 200 years. Of course, this is not a processor for your next computer. It is designed for sensor-based devices such as medical implants, environment monitors or surveillance equipment. However, the design is very clever." Roland's blog has some more information, including a die picture of the chip, known as the Phoenix.

5 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. 915x915um^2 by cyfer2000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can some one explain to me how this chip is connected to the world?

    --
    There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
  2. Re:Watch batteries don't last 263 years... by dean.collins · · Score: 3, Interesting

    interesting, I was at the East Coast DFJ venture capital competition a few weeks ago where one of the contestants was a 'radiation based' battery that lasted 20+ years, these two things together could drive a circuit forever. (sorry dont have links). Dean

  3. The article sucks by Facegarden · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is some better info farther into the article, but the first thing they say about the chip is rediculous:

    "So how did these scientists build this very efficient chip? The answer is extremely simple: they've reduced the battery size. 'Phoenix is the same size as its thin-film battery, marking a major achievement. In most cases, batteries are much larger than the processors they power, drastically expanding the size and cost of the entire system, said David Blaauw, a professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. For instance, the battery in a laptop computer is about 5,000 times larger than the processor and it provides only a few hours of power.'"

    So... they made it more efficient by giving it a smaller battery? That is so obviously backwards... They can give it a smaller battery because it's more efficient, but not the other way around... Or did i miss something? The article certainly doesn't help explain anything more if that is really come clever something-something going on...
    -Taylor

    --
    Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    1. Re:The article sucks by lagfest · · Score: 4, Interesting
      That's how Roland Piquepaille understood it. Stuff like this is why I despise his blag.

      From TFA:

      The timer "isn't an atomic clock," Hanson said. "We keep time to 10 minutes plus or minus a few tenths of a second. For the applications this is designed for, that's okay. You don't need absolute accuracy in a sensor. We've traded that for enormous power savings."

      ...

      Phoenix engineers used much narrower power gates that restrict the flow of electric current. That strategy, coupled with the deliberate use of an older process technology, cut down on energy leaks.

  4. No but Lithiium pacemaker batteries last ... by celtic_hackr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A very long time. I have replaced lithium primary batteries in train equipment that have lasted more than 10 years and still retain most if not all of their power. The batteries are a backup so don;t get used a lot, but the ones used in pacemakers usually last ten or more years. The plain truth here is batteries last as long as the application that they are needed for. Which is why retailers don't sell Lithium chromate batteries to the general masses. Who would ever buy an Duracell when they could own a SAFT Lithium Chromate that lasts 10 time longer?