Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Wins US Approval For Radar-Based Hand Motion Sensor (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on from the up-next dept.

Alphabet's Google unit has won the approval from U.S. regulators to deploy a radar-based motion sensing device known as Project Soli. From a report: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said in an order late on Monday that it would grant Google a waiver to operate the Soli sensors at higher power levels than currently allowed. The FCC said the sensors can also be operated aboard aircraft. The FCC said the decision "will serve the public interest by providing for innovative device control features using touchless hand gesture technology." The FCC said the Soli sensor captures motion in a three-dimensional space using a radar beam to enable touchless control of functions or features that can benefit users with mobility or speech impairments.

64 comments

  1. Wow by fred911 · · Score: 1

    What could possibly go wrong?

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      IDK, but radar motion sensing is now commonly available in light bulbs and you can buy the sensors for less than a dollar a piece, so we'll find out soon.

    2. Re: Wow by tysonedwards · · Score: 2

      There is a huge difference in power levels required to detect gross movement (like waving an arm) and fine movement (like making a box with your index fingers and thumbs).

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    3. Re:Wow by Mikkeles · · Score: 2

      C'mon, this is just a radar controlled theremin; which has thousands of hour of safe use! Capacitance - radar; what's the difference!

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    4. Re: Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No you shut up! In other words (previous poster) the article is true for more than one reason which is why it works perfectly in all situations and this is not even a little bit sad

  2. No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't feel like being cooked as collateral damage because some some lazy spaz wants to jerk his hands around because he is too lazy to get up and turn the light switch on. This is definitely a "solution" in search of a problem.

    1. Re:No thanks by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 2

      Cooked? It takes a microwave oven with 1500 watts of power about one minute to boil a cup of water. Assuming you weigh 150 pounds, how long would it take a million times less power to cook you?

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    2. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A disturbing thought. Nice thing about physics is if you measure the result of an event then the chain of events required to get there are obvious. If you see a person in a room with only one door, well they must have used that door to get in.

    3. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or the room was built around them and they never used the door.

    4. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they lifted it, tunneled under, climbed over, entered through a window, skylight, roof, or was just the last person in who installed the door.

      For starters.
      Quakes, houses being craned? Mobile home and car crash?

    5. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like a hell of a lot of effort and maybe more than most can imagine since in hindsight it should have Failed

    6. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cooked? It takes a microwave oven with 1500 watts of power about one minute to boil a cup of water. Assuming you weigh 150 pounds, how long would it take a million times less power to cook you?

      But how long does it take it to damage DNA in a single cell of your body, that then replicates uncontrollably?

    7. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably not more than normal background radiation. I suppose there are mechanisms in the body to handle rogue or damaged cells.

    8. Re:No thanks by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure at million times less power than what you use to boil water in a microwave, you aren't adding energy faster than you could ordinarily radiate it away, so.... never.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    9. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right thats why we don't need a cure for cancer ....

    10. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not on a species-level, no. Cancer is a rare disease.

    11. Re:No thanks by usu4rio · · Score: 2

      It won't. They're non ionizing radiation

    12. Re:No thanks by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Cooked? It takes a microwave oven with 1500 watts of power about one minute to boil a cup of water. Assuming you weigh 150 pounds, how long would it take a million times less power to cook you?

      It will not be a problem here but with the right near field impedance matching, you can get a serious RF burn in less than a second with less than 5 watts if it is concentrated in a small volume. People who have messed with helical resonators and RF excited gas lasers have to be careful about this which I know first hand, well, finger.

  3. Will buy an active radar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to screw this stupid googles radioactive abomination.

    1. Re:Will buy an active radar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, they'll make it illegal so you don't mess with Google. If they have approved it is because both of them will benefit (=spying).

  4. Waiver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    So they just waved it through? That seems a bit handwavy.

  5. First! by dohzer · · Score: 1, Funny

    When do we think Apple will claim to have done this first?
    Based on previous behaviour, I give it a couple of years.

    1. Re: First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um.. Apple is always first. When you gonna get that through your thought process?

    2. Re: First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still cannot believe that is okay. Google thinks they invented the telephone. They keep screaming Watson come here itâ(TM)s urgent!

    3. Re: First! by tysonedwards · · Score: 1

      Round about the time they talk to either their Fingerworks or Primesense acquired staff, I would imagine.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    4. Re: First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's: "Watson come here I want you". But not in a sexual way, because they didn't have sex back then.

    5. Re: First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or will get the ridiculous name of some half assed open source library that doesnâ(TM)t even compile properly. But hey that was built in 2017

    6. Re: First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that is so stupid funny but they were not the least bit embarrassed about it

    7. Re:First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on how fast apples reverse-engineering team can get to work on it. They have a lot of other innovations to copy.

    8. Re:First! by AidanApWord · · Score: 0

      They better hurry this was published youtube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... - on 29th May 2015.

  6. Detect this motion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://regmedia.co.uk/2015/07...

  7. Most IR sensors are low powered Radar now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its an easy mod to make and means that it works in different conditions...

    plus you dont have to deal with optics

  8. FAA says no! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    FAA says no!

  9. Brilliant Google, NOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just what everyone needs more bombardment of signals at close range into their bodies. To do something that really isn't better then what we have now.

  10. Captive Agency by datavirtue · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "will serve the public interest by providing for innovative device control features using touchless hand gesture technology"

    Sounds like one of those statements that I would write and my manager would send out in an email to the executive board with his name on it. Is it that our society is in free-fall or that life has always been like this and we are constantly faced with it due to the speed at which information now travels?

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    1. Re:Captive Agency by ediron2 · · Score: 1

      nothing so nefarious. 'will serve the public interest' is a necessary condition for RF transceivers asking to use airwaves, which are (cough cough) managed in the public interest. Bumping up the radar transmit strength beyond usual legal thresholds means they need to get FCC (and maybe FAA or other) approval, and that puts them into writing a multiprong request: 'it's only a little bit more power needed, serves the public interest via ____, and doesn't impair existing uses like keeping jets from colliding.'

  11. Google Wins!! by datavirtue · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google wins, you lose. Faintly opaque commentary and missing details at 6 and 11.

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  12. The FCC is shutdown; unless you're Google. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The FCC is shutdown; unless you're Google.

    1. Re: The FCC is shutdown; unless you're Google. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It already shut down a while back by the way or did you not notice?

  13. Do not want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Touchscreens are bad enough. Don't need it to do all the wrong things just because you are near it.

  14. No more covering up your camera you normie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh, bet they can do facial recognition through any plastic or glass, no more covering up your camera to remain anonymous! plus think of the selfie radar porn! Clothes don't matter to this sensor!

  15. Use the force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've waited years to do the hand wave:

    Your toast is ready now./* hand wave */

    Huh?
    (Toaster pops up toast in the kitchen) Or did you want Pop tarts?

    1. Re:Use the force by whitroth · · Score: 1

      Actually, I prefer Ellie Dee to Cherry.

  16. How does never strike you? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Hand waving gestures have always struck me as a dubious control mechanism - way to prone to false input as people move hands naturally. Nothing like going to blow your nose and deleting all your files.

    On a side note..

    The FCC said the sensors can also be operated aboard aircraft.

    OMG no.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:How does never strike you? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      You like having to touch the same screen as a bunch of sick people on a plane?

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  17. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google Assistant: Do you want me to add extra large tissues to your shopping list?

  18. Still never by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    You like having to touch the same screen as a bunch of sick people on a plane

    A) I wipe down arm-rests and tray with a Clorox wipe when traveling. You don't??????? I mean, since you seem to care about touching surfaces sick people have touched, and you are sitting there for hours stewing in other people's filth...

    B) Why are sick people touching my iPad?

    C) Everyone would universally loathe hand gesture controls of airplane screens which is absolutely worst case for accidental triggering. Even if the extra expense to install something like that per seat were to go forward, it would be disabled within a month and never used again. Airplane LCD screens already have the cursed behavior of coming on often when you just want the damn things off, hand-waving activation makes that issues 1000x worse.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  19. A new level of horror by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    You like having to touch the same screen

    Sorry, just had to follow up with one more thought on this...

    D) I just thought through the scenario of hand control for LCD's in front of your seat. That means the people NEXT TO YOU are constantly waving hands around instead of being still like they are supposed to.

    Seriously can you think of a bigger nightmare in a situation where everyone around you is annoying already? Can you imagine how many more drinks would be spilled from trays just trying to adjust volume or turn screens off/on or change channels? Nothing like someone next to me sweeping a cup of coffee into my lap...

    NO THANK YOU SIR I WILL HAVE NONE OF IT.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:A new level of horror by AidanApWord · · Score: 0

      [...] That means the people NEXT TO YOU are constantly waving hands around instead of being still like they are supposed to.[...]

      These are not about hand swipes and sweeping these are about fine control movements (pinched fingers, etc) ... project Soli ... youtube ... give you an idea of the scales of movement we are talking about.

  20. I'm bathed in radiation already by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    It's sad that I already have to soak in WiFi. It's too useful not to use but it's unlikely to actually be good for you. Hopefully it's benign. It's been show that oscilating electrical fields do have unexpected coupling to humans and animals. FOr example, one can drive DNA resonances that lead to unwinding of DNA or bubbles of unpairing that can move through DNA. It's not the fields (which have wavelengths far beyond the molecule size) but some other coupling phenomena. THat can't be good though we can't exactly say if it's showing up in any way.

    Now there's another involuntary radiation source bathing me in the office, elevators, cars, planes, and trains.

    Microwave ovens were derived from radar band transmitters and we know those can excite the rotations of small molecules. Local heating, protein denaturation. Pulsed impulses are being studied now for opening blood brain barriers (as a therapy to introduce drugs into the brain, but hey why not viruses as passengers too). then of course at there's the weird effects in the cuban embassy.

    I'd ust prefer to have my radiation doses voluntary so I can decide if I like WiFi or not.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  21. What a wonnnderful idea (NOT) by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Old reason why voice computing will never come in: the just fired employee is being escorted out of HR, and yells, at the top of their voice, "start!command!runasadministrator!format c-colon-slash!enter"

    Now, with radar, gosh, you kids are too young to remember how pranksters used to hold up a couple fingers in a V behind your head when your pics were getting taken. Now, someone on the plane, in the seat behind you, can motion for your phone to download an app to steal everything you have.

    Just because you can does NOT mean you should.

    1. Re:What a wonnnderful idea (NOT) by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Yes of course, because there will be a gesture for "download malware please."

      Like, you're trying to make a joke, right?

  22. Here's a gesture for ya Google by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    <#insert middlefinger.asciiart.txt>

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  23. What coulda possibly go wrong? by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    On an Italian submarine? Everythinga!

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  24. So the old power limits were too conservative? by misnohmer · · Score: 2

    The transmit power thresholds were chosen for some reason, no? Or did the FCC just pick the power levels out of a hat before? If they had valid reasons, how did those reasons change to make the higher thresholds ok today but not in the past?

    1. Re:So the old power limits were too conservative? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      The transmit power thresholds were chosen for some reason, no? Or did the FCC just pick the power levels out of a hat before?

      The thresholds were picked out of a hat. The need was "we want to assure a noise floor for this frequency." The choice of exactly what that floor should be was fairly arbitrary. It was also somewhat restricted by the signal processing technology of the time. That's the part that is changing, making one number out of a hat less necessary than a slightly bigger number out of a hat. With good signal processing, a higher noise floor can be tolerated.

      There's also been advances in transmitter technology. No transmitter is perfect. There are always harmonics in any transmitted signal. But the more efficient a transmitter is, the better it is at putting energy into the primary frequency, wasting less in harmonic frequencies. With nicely efficient transmitters, more of your signal shows up in the frequency you are nominally using, so there's less noise in other frequencies. Again, limiting the noise floor.

    2. Re:So the old power limits were too conservative? by misnohmer · · Score: 1

      I agree with technology getting better and receivers being able to filter out the noise better, but as for transmitters, isn't the noise transmitted on harmonic frequencies regulated separately? If I have a 900MHz transmitter and my power limit is 100mW, are you saying I can transmit on any harmonic frequency I want as long as my total emissions are 100mW (so maybe 95mW on 2.7GHz and 5mW on all others including my main 900MHz carrier), or is it that I can transmit 100mW on 900MHz and some other power limit for all other frequencies?

    3. Re:So the old power limits were too conservative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never seen harmonics that are at a higher power level than the primary frequency. That isn't how harmonics work, nor their definition. What you are asking about is the same as asking for the ripples in a pond to be larger than the initial splash from the rock you threw in. There are some physics laws that would like to have a word with you. If you think you're gonna be smart and get around that by capturing the weaker harmonic and amplifying it, well, it's not a harmonic anymore. It's the new primary frequency and then it generates its own set of harmonics.

    4. Re:So the old power limits were too conservative? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      If I have a 900MHz transmitter and my power limit is 100mW, are you saying I can transmit on any harmonic frequency I want as long as my total emissions are 100mW (so maybe 95mW on 2.7GHz and 5mW on all others including my main 900MHz carrier), or is it that I can transmit 100mW on 900MHz and some other power limit for all other frequencies?

      Your total emissions are limited to 100 mW. The FCC measures power being sent to the antenna, since that's by far the most convenient place to measure. This is why antenna efficiency is desirable. (Quite aside from making it easier for receivers to successfully extract your signal.)

  25. Theremin on steroids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it?

  26. Google Watch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the article: "In a video on its website, Google said a user could operate a smart watch, scroll through music or adjust the volume by simply motioning using the system."

    The only problem with that is that Google Wear OS smart watches still run on 286-equivalent processor technology. Wear OS smart watches have CPUs that are so ancient, they hardly can keep the time right. Google would have to find a smart watch CPU maker to provide at least 386-level technology to do hand motion sensing. That's not Qualcomm since Qualcomm doesn't give a shit.