Slashdot Mirror
Ultra-Low Power Radio Transceiver Enables Truly Wireless Earbuds
First time accepted submitter irl_4795 writes At Mobile World Congress in Barcelona NXP Semiconductors will demonstrate Near Field Magnetic Induction technology in a truly wireless earbud including wireless audio streaming from ear to ear. From the article: "The wireless technology being used to enable truly wireless earbuds is based on Near Field Magnetic Induction (NFMI). NFMI features important properties such as ultra-low power consumption and the ability to create a very reliable network in and around the human body, with both high-quality audio and data streaming supported over small distances. An additional integration advantage is also that it requires few external components. NFMI is a short range technology and as such also creates a private network, making it is much less susceptible to interference than 2.4 GHz transceivers.
I'll have to bend down and look for my earbud 'cause the cable's gone....
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Care to show any credible studies that show this to be a problem?
A lot of people? Is this a "who has a TV, anyway" kind of question meant to sound superior or a serious question?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Yet another form of near-field radiation being transmitted across the brain.
Not to seem paranoid.
I'm afraid you failed.
This isn't really the right website to start talking about 'harmful' rf radiation without any sort of proof.
Apparently it uses 1.5mW at 1V.
You can get batteryless radios. Crystal radios (which don't necessarily contain a crystal) get all their power from the radio signal, and they're scarily simple. During the second world war foxhole radios were built out of a razor blade, a pencil, some wire and a set of headphones (instructions: http://www.bizarrelabs.com/fox...) Prisoner of war radios used coal
AFAIK, however, the much lower energy VHF signals for FM isn't capable of running an FM decoder, and probably not an earpiece either.
I wonder if a modern crystal earpiece could usefully pick up low-power AM transmissions from a cellphone in your pocket without spamming everyone around you with radio waves?
Male bus riders on the other hand love being spoken to and messing up their hair.
No. There have been plenty of studies on the effects of non-ionizing radiation on health, and none of the realistic, unbiased ones have yielded any evidence of harm, so it remains a purely theoretical possibility. Furthermore, radiation power densities are going down (TFA is a shining example).
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
No, "auditioned". You can "try" a pair of earbuds by sticking them in your ear. You "Audition" earbuds by ensuring they fit properly, then using them to listen to several pieces of music you are familiar with, and generating a (personal, subjective) rating for them.
It's the difference between sitting in a car and going for a test-drive.
Care to show any credible studies that show this to be a problem?
By "this" I assume we are both referring to near-field RF radiation. According to credible sources, there is insufficient evidence currently to state that it either is or is not a problem, but one consensus of experts agree that mobile phone radiation is worthy of further exploration as a possible risk:
"The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a global authority on cancer, recently concluded that radiation from mobile phones is a ‘possible’ head cancer risk. However, scientific opinion is split on the issue – many different studies have reached different conclusions based on the same evidence." -- http://www.eea.europa.eu/highl...
In Europe they have proposed regulations to reduce exposure of children to mobile phone and wifi radiation: http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
So, yes, there are credible experts who don't share your complacent surety. Personally, I am neither convinced one way or the other and adopt a wait-and-see attitude.
But if we grant that it is a possible issue, then we must consider that these earbud things are "ultra low power," but seeing as electromagnetic field strength increases in an inverse proportion to the square of a decrease in the separation distance, putting a transmitter INSIDE your skull makes an orders of magnitude strength difference over even the few millimeters of additional separation present by holding a phone against your ear.
As I said, I avoid paranoia, but I've lived long enough to see lots of "safe" things turn out to be absolutely not safe (like BPA) or at least called into question (like saccharin).
So I raise it as a possible consideration here, but I am absolutely not saying it is a problem; run for the hills!
The experts are absolutely NOT divided, and your own post illustrates the case nicely.
When health studies were done on Smoking and Cancer, the adverse relationship quickly became evident.
But studies of the relationship between RF Exposure and Cancer has consistently gone the other way.
In spite of hundreds of detailed tests over many decades, no adverse relationship has ever been detected.
There have been once-off results, but each time they were independently re-tested, the effect vanished.
There is now a vast amount of data across different Frequencies, Power Levels, Modulation, etc.
If there were a relationship (as there clearly is with smoking) it would be easy to demonstrate.
Well, you don't seem like the original poster, but I think you answered my question.
Earbuds:
1. Fit in a pocket
2. Are more than adequate for most pop music produced in the last 75 years.
3. Are more than adequate for most mobile listening environments.
4. Are more than adequate for podcasts.
5. Can passively cancel ambient noise without looking like Princess Leia.
6. Might, depending on personal preference, be more comfortable.
7. More amenable to wearing during physical activity.
8. Starting cost is around $1.
But yes, they completely suck for all purposes.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
This is how audiophiles talk. If you have one as a friend, it is best for everyone if you simply never talk about music.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The next step is direct cochlear implantation, bypassing the mechanical subsystems for truly dynamic fidelity. A fortunate byproduct would be hearing implants for the deaf.
I shouldn't need to expand upon point 6, but you seem to need it:
6. Might, depending on personal preference, be more comfortable. Or, might not.
I hope that was helpful. This message brought to you by the letter "A".
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.