Slashdot Mirror


A 30-Picowatt Processor For Sensors

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.

15 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. Doc Oc... by clang_jangle · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...might want a Beowu ---- oh, forgive me. I know where the door is...

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
  2. 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.
    1. Re:915x915um^2 by CTho9305 · · Score: 3, Informative

      That die isn't particularly small - 1mm by 1mm. Plenty of existing chips have dies that size, but they're just packaged in larger packages to space out the pins. This picture shows a die (about 3mm*3mm) and the remains of its package so you have an idea of how small a die can be, even in a large package.

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. Re:But... by kipman725 · · Score: 5, Funny

    no

  6. Theoretically... by seanadams.com · · Score: 5, Insightful


    What's with all these idiots who think "theoretically" is a synonym for "not really"? This gem in particular:

    "Theoretically, the energy stored in a watch battery would be enough to run the Phoenix for 263 years."

    Note that it's carefully worded to say "the energy stored in.." not to that a watch battery actually _could_ do this. Because it couldn't. The battery's internal resistance and chemical processes would cause it to drain itself long before you'd ever consume a meaningful portion of that energy.

    Only in very specialized applications where you have extremely weak, but continuous sources of power, could you realize any benefit to a picowatt vs a nanowatt of consumption. For batteries or supercaps, the power source will self-discharge at a much higher rate anyway.

    1. Re:Theoretically... by hvm2hvm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And they are right. I don't work with watts every day so I don't understand exactly what 30pW mean. This is how the human brain works: comparisons with other things in life. You know that a Hummer is big because most other vehicles are smaller. A sky scraper is big only when compared to a 10 story building (which in turn you must compare to your own height). Stop picking on these details, it's pointless. And BTW, your condescending way of saying "I am smart because I can understand the real way of measuring power" is just stupid. Grow up.

      --
      ics
  7. Re:Watch batteries don't last 263 years... by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Informative

    Are you thinking of an RTG? These things last a few decades before the thermocouples lose the ability to transform the heat to electricity.

  8. Bad article by UK+Boz · · Score: 5, Informative

    The guy (who admits to not knowing his stuff so perhaps we can forgive him) really hasnt got a clue

    The processor is designed specifically for sensors that wake up, do a few calculations and go back to sleep, these type of devices are genrally battery powered and off grid and generally make a decision whether to power up some other device eg to transmit the data. The device would probably be useless for anything involving serious processing, even the processor in an optical mouse would probably wipe the floor with it!

    Barring that there are billions (yes billions not millions) of sensor devices out there currently using PIC/AMR/8051 derivatives that may benefit from this technology.

    Interestingly we are getting to a level of power where even the most inneficient generator (or a low power radio signal) and a rather small capacitor could power it forever

    --
    www.boznz.com Simple solutions to complex problems.
  9. Re:But... by mustafap · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, it runs an age old Operating System called "Main Loop".

    --
    Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
  10. Re:Watch batteries don't last 263 years... by Detritus · · Score: 3, Informative

    The typical RTG uses Pu-238, which is an alpha source and easy to shield.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  11. If it's 30-picowatt in Sleep mode... by Siriaan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Surely it's a bit of a stretch to call it a "30-picowatt Processor"?

  12. 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?