Stwerp

I understood that it was common to post the paper to arxiv when it was in the process of being peer reviewed by a journal. The problem is the extended lag time between submission and final publication with most journals which pre-print archives like arxiv try to solve. Do people really just "submit to arxiv" and then that it? I didn't know that, but its not common in my field to use arxiv so I have not kept up with all practices.

Cool! I'm glad to see RFID and localization being merged together like this. I think this really shows that RFID is a much more suitable technology for this type of application than a computation-heavy CV algorithm.

There was an article the other day posted on this. It operates at 24 and 60 ghz whereas most RFID is in the UHF (900 MHz band). This radio harvests energy to run an oscillator and actively transmits data whereas RFID only reflects back power (no active rf transmission). Also, this device require a fairly massive (42 dBm / ~20 watts rf) for a few cm operating distance compared to RFID which achieved several meters of distance using 36 dBm / 4 watt transmitters. The biggest achievement is the size reduction. In the previous HN thread, someone poured out that this is academically very interesting, but probably practical.

45 dBm is crazy! Do you know the FCC limitations for that frequency? For the ISM bands its +36 dBm EIRP maximum. I'm not familiar with the rules for the higher GHz frequencies.

Maybe you can describe this a bit more. The Great Seal Bug was used for wireless audio recording in the 40's, but this operated by using a microphone/cavity to modulate the load of an antenna; thereby embedding audio in the reflected fields.

Bell did a similar demonstration in the 1890s using a mirror to embed reflections in ambient light and demonstrated wireless audio transmission over 200 meters.

However, I'm not sure why audio would cause a frequency shift in a radio circuit. Perhaps you are meaning the antenna will be perturbed and that could possibly be recovered? I'd be interested to know.

Its far-field, so it couples completely differently than NFC tags. Also, NFC communicates by reflecting signals, this device communications by active transmission (according to the article, I haven't read their paper yet).

What's new? Its tiny, and I'm very curious how they got that an oscillator to work at extremely low powers. But, it is really just an extension of RFID/NFC/IoT miniaturization work. But then again, just about everything starts out that way.

Its a like to a blog on compressive sensing pointing out that sensing (or rather sampling) is mathematically equivalent to using the identity matrix. It goes on as an introduction to compressive sensing.

The UW research is actually using a device from enocean, it seems.

I do see your point but still, a newborn cannot support their head by themselves. Having the muscle ability to be able to hold ones head up is a fairly good prerequisite for being able to walk.

Not for any practical measurements. This would work in say an anechoic environment – save for the wall under test – but you'd end up sampling multipath constructive/destrictuve interference instead of the wall reflections.

>I'm hoping for precise indoor navigation, Google and Apple are currently working on that. All you'd have to do is walk around with your phone, measuring signal strength and then visualize that.

I'd wager there are _a lot_ more folks that that looking the problem. Its difficult to just use signal strength as this is heavily multi path dependent and time-varying as anything (e.g., moving your phone and hand around) within the environment changes.

There are results in the literature floating around that show some basic success, but nothing at all like the dreams of indoor GPS we're all hoping for. It's a fun problem space, but still in its infancy.

Maybe I'm reading the article wrong, but it seems they are only describing a way to record EMG signals --- and not a way to `control' anything. I've previously worked in neural/EMG recording of flying insects and a major issue to overcome is the effect of the recording apparatus on normal behavior. For instance, a tiny coin-cell battery can have a significant impact on the flying ability of a small insect (we targeted dragonflies). This work described in the article seems to use a very large structure attached to the insect which the insect cannot lift (they describe being held aloft with electromagnetics). I'm definitely curious to see where they go with this though. I'd love to get back into 'insect cyborg' work.

EDIT: And after looking a bit more, it seems that the actual paper describes the surgical process for implanting the electrodes such that the rebuilding of the moths tissue actually makes them be a part of the moth. Cool!

The article addresses that and intentionally chooses non-human subjects such as walls of graffiti. These still show his `emergent orange' effect.

At first I assumed it was his averaging technique, but I'm more apt to believe it has to do with the spectrum of light which is being `sampled' by the selection of photos.

What then is the research barrier they need to cross? I'm genuinely curious. This seems more "researchy" than a lot of other items I've read (such as optimizing a planar antenna geometry with included matching network et. variants) to me, but I'm perfectly fine with a very blurry engineering/research line.