Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Have Developed A Battery-Free Mobile Phone (hothardware.com)

An anonymous reader quotes HotHardware: Researchers from the University of Washington are looking to make batteries a thing of the past when it comes to mobile phones. The team has developed a phone that uses "almost zero power" according to associate professor Shyam Gollakota, who co-authored a paper which detailed the breakthrough... The researchers designed the phone to harvest microwatts of power from RF signals transmitted from a base station that is 31 feet away. Additional power is harnessed via ambient light through the use of miniature photodiodes that are about the size of a grain of rice. While in use, the phone consumes about 3.5 microwatts of power and is capable of communicating with a custom base station that is up to 50 feet away to send and receive calls... The phone ditches the traditional analog-to-digital converter, which turns your voice into data, in favor of a system that uses the vibrations from a microphone or speaker to perform the same task. An antenna then converts that motion into radio signals in such a way that very little power is consumed.
There's two drawbacks. First, modern smartphones "need a lot more than a 3.5-microwatt power budget for blazing fast processor, copious amounts of RAM and internal storage, and power-hungry displays." And more importantly, "you have to press a button to switch between transmissions and listening modes with the phone."

83 comments

  1. Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You re-invented a walkie-talkie.

    1. Re:Congratulations by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Indeed. Calling this a mobile phone is utterly stupid clickbait. There's nothing "phone" about it.

    2. Re:Congratulations by blindseer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or a cordless phone.

      The range is 30 or 50 feet. That's barely enough to get across my house, and I don't have a large house. The 1/R^2 law has to put some realistic limits on range.

      This is just another "wireless electricity" article that gets clicks but no real application. Unless page views was the intended application.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:Congratulations by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      Well it is phony.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    4. Re:Congratulations by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's also bollocks. It must have a battery, there is no way 3.5uW could power a speaker for you to hear the other person. It must harvest energy over time into a battery, and then consume it when you make a call.

      Energy harvesting does have its uses, like wireless sensors for example, but this isn't one of them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess you've never heard of crystal radios. If you RTFA you'll notice that the "speaker" is actually a pair of headphones and, in all likelihood, only one of them will be getting signal.

    6. Re:Congratulations by kqs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With base stations that are "up to 50 feet away", I have more problems with the word "mobile", actually.

    7. Re:Congratulations by bug1 · · Score: 1

      "A crystal radio receiver, also called a crystal set or cat's whisker receiver, is a very simple radio receiver, popular in the early days of radio. It needs no other power source but that received solely from the power of radio waves received by a wire antenna."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    8. Re:Congratulations by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      It's also bollocks. It must have a battery, there is no way 3.5uW could power a speaker for you to hear the other person. It must harvest energy over time into a battery, and then consume it when you make a call.

      You can use capacitors instead as your energy-storage mechanism, or inefficiently, inductors. Batteries are just one form of energy storage, but capacitors may be a better fit as they can provide the spike of power transmitters generally need. Plus there aren't charge cycle issues with capacitors - which may be essential if it charges and discharges that quickly.

    9. Re:Congratulations by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And if we get rid of all encryption, multiplexing, and everything useful, it might sort of work. Otherwise, you need more power.

    10. Re:Congratulations by stooo · · Score: 2

      Yep. Nothing new.

      it's basically this :
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      combined with this :
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      it's basically worthless.

      --
      aaaaaaa
  2. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They've actually just advanced and optimised a kids' radio set?

    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Im not sure a 10 meter range is an advancement

    2. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is only a concept.
      Their final product will include a length of wet string to give longer range.

    3. Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I miss my old electronics kit toys. One time I made a transmitter that just screwed up reception of very nearby radios. Sounded like there were aliens hacking our music.

  3. Not a phone.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is not a phone. Its an ambient RF powered walkie-talkie, the likes of which have existed for 15+ years at least.

    This isnt even a good version, needing its own POWERED RF transmitter with a max range of 10 metres. If you have power 10M away then why not use it to charge a battery and have a device that is actually useful?

    1. Re:Not a phone.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have power 10M away then why not use it to charge a battery and have a device that is actually useful?

      Or why not just talk, at a normal or slightly raised speaking volume, to whomever it is standing 10 or 20 metres away? Or if it's private, take the five seconds to walk over to them.

  4. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this is... basically an elaborate foxhole radio with a very short range transmitter added?
    Don't think it'll have much market application unless it's something tacked on to modern phones as an emergency call feature.

  5. Theremin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever heard of Theremin's spying device ?

  6. Two problems? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are more than two major problems. The requirement of a nearby base station (or other RF source) is a significant drawback.

    However the research is interesting - and people need to remember this is intended as rather fundamental research, not something that's ready for commercialization. And the "walkie talkie" comments are really missing the mark, since the person you're talking doesn't have to be local.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Two problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are more than two major problems. The requirement of a nearby base station (or other RF source) is a significant drawback.

      Eh, I already need one for my home wireless phones, if they could replace that function alone, it'd be reasonably useful for me, as I really don't use a cellphone much at all.

      However the research is interesting - and people need to remember this is intended as rather fundamental research, not something that's ready for commercialization. And the "walkie talkie" comments are really missing the mark, since the person you're talking doesn't have to be local.

      No way man, if it's not something that we can put in Wal-Mart TODAY and outsell the CABBAGE PATCH TICKLE ME ELMO NEW COKE it is no good for anything at all!

    2. Re:Two problems? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Make that a CABBAGE PATCH TICKLE ME ELMO NEW CHERRY COKE and I'll buy one.

                     

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Two problems? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Good point. A cordless home phone would be a more apt comparison than a mobile phone.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:Two problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The person you're talking to" is the base station, which has to be within 50 feet. It's a pair of walkie-talkies: one using ambient energy and the other being used as a relay.

    5. Re:Two problems? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      So, by that same logic, a cell phone call is a conversation between you and a cell tower. Most people aren't going to see it that way - but you're welcome to employ more tortured verbal gymnastics, if you wish.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    6. Re:Two problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the position of an experiment and research project this is very interesting.

      From the position of creating a product you want someone to purchase it is a non-starter.

      This is the sort of experiment you do so that you can create new technologies to spin off to other devices.

    7. Re: Two problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also forgot about the little problem of it being illegal. Taking power from random transmissions to power a device is not any more legal than cutting into you neighbors power lines to power your fridge (in most jurisdictions at least, I know for sure about Germany).
      Of course it's cool and people still do it for small projects like radios without batteries, but being illegal will make commercialization rather challenging...

    8. Re:Two problems? by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      Thought 5g had to have a base station every 75 feet or so...
      Sounds perfect.

    9. Re: Two problems? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      They also forgot about the little problem of it being illegal. Taking power from random transmissions to power a device is not any more legal than cutting into you neighbors power lines to power your fridge (in most jurisdictions at least, I know for sure about Germany).

      Why aren't crystal radios illegal in Germany then?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    10. Re: Two problems? by AC-x · · Score: 1

      That's not how broadcasting works, that's not how any of this works!

    11. Re:Two problems? by green1 · · Score: 1

      If you insist on trying to torture your verbal gymnastics, you'd try to tell us that a cell phone, a cordless phone, and a wired phone are all the same because they can all talk to people on the other side of the planet. But people know the difference is in how far they can walk with it before they lose a signal (for wired that's the length of the cord, for cordless that's somewhere on their front lawn, and for cellular it's anywhere where there's a tower within a few kilometres)

      Based on that definition, this device is somewhere between the wired and cordless phones. So calling this a cell phone is pretty stupid.

    12. Re: Two problems? by green1 · · Score: 1

      citation needed.

      In most parts of the world it is perfectly legal to receive any signal that hits your antenna. (Often there are caveats for particular types of signals, but usually that's just about decoding and reading/listening to the data contained in the signal, not in whether you took some of the energy out of the air)

  7. Why should I care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You all know that nothing, absolutely nothing will ever come of this. It is just another one of Slashdot's Astounding Filler Articles! . Please Slashdot. Even a return to Jon Katz and Columbine would be an improvement. Or kittens. How about pictures of kittens, lots of kittens?

    1. Re:Why should I care? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Here you go (probably NSFW unless you're in Japan).

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  8. Welcome to 1945 by darkain · · Score: 2

    Welcome to 1945. Glad to know you're "invented" something amazing! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re: Welcome to 1945 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this the same thing? What level of power did the "Thing" need? From what I'm reading this is substantially more sophisticated.

    2. Re:Welcome to 1945 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I would suggest that this is a multi-generational descendant of the crystal radio. And crystal radios have been around a lot longer than the 1940's.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio

      Of course the ability to transmit is a huge advance over the crystal radio.

    3. Re:Welcome to 1945 by green1 · · Score: 1

      Hence the reference to "the thing" because it was in fact a transmitter...

      It's really "the thing" and a crystal radio in the same box. Hardly revolutionary.

  9. Re:Two types of gays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't. My ambient RF powered cell phone is not near enough of a RF source. Otherwise I would have stated something blazing, copious and internally power-hungry. But only when it's my turn.

  10. It's not a phone .... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... unless you can play games on it.

    Rovio will be coming out with one soon just for this device: Anemic Birds.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  11. Soon on Apple News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple invented battery-free iPhone

    1. Re:Soon on Apple News by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Only Apple can invent a battery-free iPhone.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Soon on Apple News by viperidaenz · · Score: 1
  12. Re:Two types of gays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think general gayness is genetic, but I think the flamer's behavior arises from a basic insecurity about his sexuality. It's overcompensation due to shame. So, no genetic difference between the flamer and the normal gay.

  13. Better idea: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put the mic and a speaker on that base station that's 31 feet away and just shout at it. Zero power!

  14. Cordless phones by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Informative

    This sounds more like a cordless phone than a mobile, unless you never move more than a few dozen feet.

    A cordless phone that didn't need to be put on a charger would be a pretty good convenience. Of course who the hell has a landline anymore these days.

    1. Re:Cordless phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a landmine still, its out back. I forget where i buried it though, so dont go lookin.

  15. Re:Two types of gays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't matter. Everyone knows that god hates fags and fags doom nations.

  16. April fool's? Just stupid? by ooloorie · · Score: 2

    The phone ditches the traditional analog-to-digital converter, which turns your voice into data, in favor of a system that uses the vibrations from a microphone or speaker to perform the same task. An antenna then converts that motion into radio signals in such a way that very little power is consumed. However, reminiscent of a walkie-talkie, you have to press a button to switch between transmissions and listening modes with the phone.

    So, in different words, they have built a very-low-powered analog transmitter and receiver... something people have been doing for about half a century.

    Congratulations on the completion of a high school science project! I'm afraid it's still just an also-ran, however.

  17. Re:Two types of gays by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 0

    The flaming homo has more similarities with the metrosexual.

    Discuss.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  18. Re:Two types of gays by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    If God hates fag why did he create them?

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  19. Comms Badge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you could make it small enough, it might work as a standalone Communications Badge.

    1. Re:Comms Badge? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      It would be so much easier to just put a 15 year watch battery in it for consistent power.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  20. vocal vibrations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    theres another phone that uses no power and converts vibrations from your voice into transmittable data: it's called a string and two cups...

    1. Re:vocal vibrations by green1 · · Score: 1

      Not at all a fair comparison. With a long enough string you could easily get a longer range than they did on this device...

  21. Re:Two types of gays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we can smoke them and self-treat our schizo tendencies.

  22. Stationary mobilephone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That seems really useful!

  23. Re:Two types of gays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He hates Jews too, but he created them as well. It's one of his "mysteries".

  24. Re:Two types of gays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Other than the preoccupation with fashion, I'm not seeing how they're similar.

  25. Re:Two types of gays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Metros are constantly preening themselves and they like to gossip like vapid housewives. I'm sure there are more similarities as well.

  26. 2 cans and a string.... by tekrat · · Score: 1

    This is not a phone. It's a solar powered walkie talkie. You're limited in range, it's not cellular, it's not a phone. I can invent a mobile phone that uses no power using two soup cans and a string to communicate with a base station (Amazon Echo).

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:2 cans and a string.... by scdeimos · · Score: 1

      I agree, there's nothing cell-phoney about this thing. To be fair TFA just took UW's bait hook, line and sinker: a photo of the device clearly shows the silk screened words, "UW Battery-free Cellphone."

    2. Re:2 cans and a string.... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      there's nothing cell-phoney about this thing

      There's something cell-phony about this thing.

  27. It's a walkie-talkie with a base station by Proudrooster · · Score: 1

    Why not just get a solar powered walkie talkie and forget it?
    This is not a full-duplex nor is it a cell phone communicating in the 2.4Ghz band to a cell tower 1-10 miles away.

    News flash, you can build something far superior to this today, get a Nokia brick phone and a solar panel case. Boom! Done! No base station required, not PTT (Push to Talk) button required. It will have a battery but never need traditional charging.

    How is this high-tech geek news?

    Anyone?

    1. Re:It's a walkie-talkie with a base station by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Cellphones don't communicate with cell towers in the 2.4GHz band either

      It's usually 750MHz, 850MHz, 900MHz, 1.8GHz 1.9GHz or 2.1GHz

  28. mobile phone != smartphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there are still people on this earth that just us a regular cellphone. I would buy one if improved.

    1. Re:mobile phone != smartphone by green1 · · Score: 1

      Apparently you missed that this "invention" also != mobile phone.

      Unless by "mobile phone" you mean a device that can't talk and listen at the same time, and has a usable range from the handset to the "tower" shorter than the distance from my bedroom to my kitchen.

  29. Backscatter RFIDs + The Thing (Bug) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)

    They mention that they are using backscatter techniques not that new but in a very nice package and interesting execution for a device.

  30. no way it speaks any useful technologies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    another post here referenced a "crystal radio receiver" as a parallel. it's a good analogy actually. and it has massive shortcomings. for one, crystal radios only work because AM modulation is so trivial you can do it with a single diode. nearly every phone (cordless or cell) in existence today has far more complex modulations requiring (at a very minimum) an asic to do the tx modulation / rx demodulation; and for cellular signals, UMTS requires descrambling, despreading, decryption, and DECT is fairly complex too, none of which can be done on 3.5 microwatts. sure you can make a... "phone"... that doesn't do these things, but these things exist for a reason: RF is a harsh environment, and without spread spectrum and hopping and all that you cannot get good voice quality (welcome to the era of the walkie-talkie) and without encryption you get no privacy either (again, walkie-talkie).

    interesting research project... but the practical limitations means it dead-ends at "research project."

  31. It is not a phone. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    It is not a phone. It does not even have MMS, don't even think about whats app. Neither forward facing camera, nor rear facing. Absolutely no selfie mode. No wifi and no bluetooth. No calender, no apps, no games, not even snake.

    At best it can do some voice communication using electric signals. How anyone would confuse this with a phone, I can't imagine.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  32. Not a phone by jandjmh · · Score: 1

    The described device is equivalent to a blue tooth headset.

    1. Re:Not a phone by green1 · · Score: 1

      Bluetooth actually has over 3 times the range of this device, and can support transmitting and receiving at the same time, so I don't think this is a good analogy either.

  33. Star Trek Combadge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This could be used to make a combadge like device.

  34. Awesome surveillance device. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    says it all

  35. Re:Two types of gays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, truly He works in mysterious, totally not gay look how hard I'm proving I'm not gay, ways.

  36. No Sources by Verdatum · · Score: 1

    The closest thing to a source in this clickbait article is a crummy YouTube-like video. The other links are just links to tags on that same woefully named "hothardware" site. EditorDavid, don't accept submissions like this.

  37. Re: Two types of gays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you hate Jews. The God you were taught iS a derived work of the God that was invented by Jews.

  38. Keep trying to fuck chicken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the matter with you? Your Kool-Aid go down (or, more likely up) the wrong pipe?

    (You forgot to use your Fox-Bot voice):

        Death to CNN! ~bzzt~ Long live the new flesh! ~bzzt~

    Don't worry, I got ya covered.

  39. iPhone 8 by farble1670 · · Score: 0

    ... will use only 2.7uW of power.
    http://appleinsider.com/articl...