Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Hardware Science Technology

Magnets To Replace Bluetooth? 193

aceat64 writes "News.com is carrying a story that suggests magnets could eventually replace Bluetooth as a cheaper and more energy effiect wireless solution. The concept of magnetic induction isn't new, but Aura has managed to shrink the technology onto a single chip. The first device to be made using the technology is a wireless headset that will cost between $60 and $80."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Magnets To Replace Bluetooth?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:33AM (#7011675)
    Talk about lack of ambition.
    • Talk about lack of ambition.

      Actually, it is hard to reach such a high value of

      deployed units
      ---------------
      use

      Bluetooth is second only to clocks on video recorders in this field.

  • by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:34AM (#7011676)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Re:YES! (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Just wait for the neat hacks, like emitting signals to ALL headsets in range by computer controlled constant degaussing of your monitor.

      You won''t be able to see much and the monitor mightn't last long, but for long range gimmi^H^H^H^H^H^Hemergency broadcasts it can't be beat LALL!
      • Re:YES! (Score:2, Interesting)

        by jph ( 42590 )
        Degaussing your monitor emits just a short pulse every 5 seconds or so. I don't think it's enough "magnetic noise" to saturate headset receiver, especially if the communication itself is digital over magnetic waves/fields with error correction and all.
    • Look at those groovy colors on my screen, man! Totally psychadelic!

    • Replace bluetooth? -- Talk about lack of ambition.
      A bunch of wild magnetic fields around our electrical equipment!

      Seems to be a good example of a disruptive technology [wordspy.com]
    • Grant you the cheap joke, but ... you do know that there are some insanely strong magnets right in your hard drive, right? In fact, the coercivity of today's hard disk media is so high that I'd even venture to say that any type of magnet short of a liquid nitrogen cooled superconducting coil wouldn't be strong enough to affect the data on your hard drive.
    • Think about what kind of effects this could have on devices much more sensitive to magnetism. Like in a plane:

      "This is your captain speaking. As you can see on the aisle TV screen, we're currently flying through a purple and green blob, and according to our compass we're spinning at approximately 90 revolutions per second."

      Regards,
      --
      *Art
  • Induction (Score:5, Insightful)

    by polyp2000 ( 444682 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:34AM (#7011678) Homepage Journal
    Correct me if i'm wrong but dont most Radio transmission technologies use some form of magnetic induction in order to achieve their goal. Last i heard passing electricity through a coil produces a magnetic field. Whats new here?

    • Re:Induction (Score:5, Informative)

      by azaris ( 699901 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:51AM (#7011759) Journal

      Correct me if i'm wrong but dont most Radio transmission technologies use some form of magnetic induction in order to achieve their goal.

      The point is using magnetic fields and mutual inductance rather than electromagnetic radiation to transfer information wirelessly.

      Last i heard passing electricity through a coil produces a magnetic field.

      More precisely, passing an alternating current through any conductor will produce a magnetic field. This magnetic field in turn will create a current in another conductor some distance away (the article sites four feet as the maximum distance) which can be used to observer the original signal.

      It's an old concept, but since magnetic fields created by normal AC powers are pretty weak it's not really that useful. Apparently they've managed a very-high frequency (the effect is proportional to the change in current) alternating current in a chip small enough to make this possible.

    • Re:Induction (Score:4, Interesting)

      by v1 ( 525388 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @11:06AM (#7011827) Homepage Journal

      Radio waves are referred to as "electro-magnetic radiation". There is no such thing as a magnetic component without an electrical component, or vice-versa. The two fields compliment eachother.

      Another interesting thing mentioned in the article was that this magnetic field made a "bubble" that "stopped" at four feet. Magnetic field strength decays at the same rate as the electrical component. If you want a smaller "bubble" for wireless, just cut the power down. I don't see a difference here, unless they are just planning on running really low power as a general rule, and I suppose this would also explain the longer battery life they describe.

      I'm really not seeing the difference here. The only thing the article mentions that really separates this from radio is the frequency, which they only vaguely described as "used by industrial and medical" applications. I'm going to guess this means either very high frequency or very low frequency. Very high frequency is far from efficient, and is already staked out well in the bandplan. If they're targetting very low frequency, (VLF) then there's no way they'll have the bandwidth necessary for video as the article suggests.

      The article also said "interferance is not an issue". 640k of memory will be plenty, too. I normally don't slam on people, but this article just reeks of lack of forethought and research. It's only natural that any new technology niche has breathing room, until it becomes popular. I'm sure cell phone makers 10 yrs ago didn't expect to ever use even 30% of their allotted spectrum.
      • Answers. (Score:3, Informative)

        by mindstrm ( 20013 )
        1 - They complement each other, yes, and they are intimately interrelated.. but they are not the same thing (for practical purposes). If you have a bar magnet in front of you, is their an electric field around it? no, there isn't.

        2 - A cruise of the whitepapers indicates that the magnetic field strength is related to distance via 1/d^6, as opposed to radiated power, where it's relatd to 1/d^2. This means a much sharper dropoff in power... meaning the point beyond which there is a negligible power level is
        • Re:Answers. (Score:4, Informative)

          by pseudonymouse ( 603284 ) <sudonimuss@y[ ]o.com ['aho' in gap]> on Saturday September 20, 2003 @03:50PM (#7013176)
          1 - They complement each other, yes, and they are intimately interrelated.. but they are not the same thing (for practical purposes). If you have a bar magnet in front of you, is their an electric field around it? no, there isn't.

          There is no electrical field associated with a static magnetic field. Any change of position or intensity of the magnetic field will result in an electrical field and an electromagnetic wave (wavelength dependent upon rate of change). Any transmission of information implies changing the field in some way.

          2 - A cruise of the whitepapers indicates that the magnetic field strength is related to distance via 1/d^6, as opposed to radiated power, where it's relatd to 1/d^2. This means a much sharper dropoff in power... meaning the point beyond which there is a negligible power level is much sharper.

          1/d^6 is sharp drop, and I'm wondering what they're doing. 'Magnets' doesn't explain it. A magnet does inherently have a dipole field (which has a sharper dropoff than inverse-square drop of a monopole field), but 1/d^6 sounds like a higher order field than that, which is interesting. I assume from the article that they've been using magnetic inductors rather than electrical conductors to construct and detect this particular electromagnetic field, which is also interesting.

          • Looks like dipoles drop off at 1/r^5:

            http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MagneticDi pole.html

            Quadrapoles drop off even faster.

            Put a couple magnets like this:
            N----S
            S----N
            and you won't see much magnetic field at any big distances.

            That's why refrigerator magnets feel funny too, and they're only strong for a few millimeters. That makes them safe on computer cases toNO CARRIER...

        • "4 - What you are saying about frequencies applies to RF. This is not about RF. The mention of a high frequency, relatively unused ISM band probably refers to the EM side effects of the devices. (a 10Ghz oscillator, even if it's used via induction, sitll creates a 10Ghz EM signal)"

          That's the one that's hanging me up. Wouldn't it then be possible to evesdrop on any communication from a good distance away by using conventional radio equipment?

          The stated point of this technology seems to be low power c

      • The big deal here is that they made a system
        where the signal rolls off as 1/r^6 rather than
        the usual 1/r^2. This means they concentrate their
        transmit power in a small radius around the device
        which makes it more power efficient.
        They note in their technology brief that yes they
        do have electric field generated too it's just
        less penetrating so magnetic field is preferable
        here since the goal is to save power.
      • It's currently designed for audio niche markets, because the interesting use of Bluetooth is cordless headsets, and that's where they chosen to add value to their system, but if you read Aura's [auracomm.com] web site long enough to find the chip specs, you'll see that it's getting a 204.8kbps data rate on the 13.xMHz ISM band, and using this with CVSD modulation to carry audio.

        So no, this isn't Firewire, or quite even Bluetooth - it's Almost Appletalk, but very low power cordless. However, unlike Bluetooth with works

      • You CAN have a static magnetic or electric field without the presence of the other. Case in point - motors and generators. A generator will not generate electricity (and a corresponding electric field) unless the wires are moving relative to the magnetic core. Even motors with brush magnets are simply magnets until you apply current to the motor coils. Until then, the motors/generator are at best regular magnets, and most large motors don't use magnets but metal cores with proper magnetic permeability.
        • Static yes. But you can't transmit data or even have a carrier wave with a static field. Modulation is required to transmit data. There's going to have to be an electrical field around this thing, there's simply no way around the laws of physics.
    • This technique has been used succesfully to transmit data over short distances for quite some time. Some technologies used by the RFID world use a modulated magnetic field rather than a modulated electric field (inductive vs capacitive) coupling. The magnetic field can be used as a power source to the remote device ands hence can be directly embedded into live animals for tracking and identification without the need for a an embedded power source. I believe California has adopted this as a means of ident
    • Re:Induction (Score:3, Informative)

      by ron_ivi ( 607351 )
      polyp2000 wrote: "but dont most Radio transmission technologies use some form of magnetic induction...Whats new here?"

      did you RTFA?

      CNet claims "Magnetic induction differs from Bluetooth and just about every other wireless technique now available, most of which use what's known as radio frequency, or RF, signals--bursts of electrical energy that waft out like ripples in a pond until they reach an antenna.

      Magnetic fields also create waves, but the waves form a kind of bubble, which stops growing after f

    • Re:Induction (Score:3, Interesting)

      by deglr6328 ( 150198 )
      When I first read the article I thought I smelled BS too. The number of "you can't have a varying magnetic field without a varying electric field!!" post's below also indicate a frustration with the marketroid speek that pervades the article and a general lack of scientific cluelessness of the writer.

      The key to understanding how this thing works (and yes the technique is old) is getting to understand the difference between NEARFIELDS and FARFIELDS. The nearfield is the zone CLOSE to the antenna less than .
      • Forgot to mention that it should be noted this technique of nearfield transmission can not be used for high data rate transmission for the following reason: you are limited by the Nyquist frequency. In other words the sampling frequency (your transmitting frequency) must be double that of your desired data rate you want to send. And you can see that because the farfield starts at ~.5 pi wavelengths away from the antenna, as the frequency of the transmiter increases, the distance from the transmitter at whi
        • You're right - it's 13.56MHz, which is a wavelength of about 2.5 meters, and they're claiming a range of 1.25 meters, which is .5 wavelengths (as opposed to pi*.5 wavelengths), so that's in range.

          The data rate is 204.8 kilobits/sec - I can't tell if that's bidirectional or shared unidirectional like Ethernet? However, you're wrong about your use of Nyquist's formula - that tells you that your pulse sampling rate has to be twice the frequency of a continuous wavelength you're trying to send (so your data

    • Correct me if i'm wrong but dont most Radio transmission technologies use some form of magnetic induction in order to achieve their goal. Last i heard passing electricity through a coil produces a magnetic field. Whats new here?

      What's new is that they've goofed.

      At any given frequency you can launch an electromagnetic wave by using:
      - And electric dipole. (Essentially impossible at anything above DC due to the current from the moving charges.)
      - A permanent magnet or a current loop (producing a virtual
      • It loos like we said the same thing a few minutes away from eachoter. :) I did not know that dipole fields drop off with the cube of the distance until just now and still don't really fully understand it. do you know of a good site that explains this sort of thing? does anything fall off with the 1/r^4 of the distance for example?
        • It loos like we said the same thing a few minutes away from eachoter. :)

          Yep.

          I did not know that dipole fields drop off with the cube of the distance until just now and still don't really fully understand it.

          - Inverse square because the area the wave is spread out across is increasing with the square of the distance from the emitter, times:
          - Inverse first power because as you get farther away from the dipole (a + and a - pole near each other) the two opposite electric charges or magnetic poles app
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:35AM (#7011685)
    All my credit cards seem to be erased.
  • by spektr ( 466069 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:35AM (#7011686)
    Expect carrier pigeons crashing into your cell phone.
  • Hrmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by acehole ( 174372 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:40AM (#7011702) Homepage
    Magnets... the geek's natural enemy, even more so than fresh air and natural light.

  • by moehoward ( 668736 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:40AM (#7011704)
    Bad news for Iron Man.
  • Wow.. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Quixote ( 154172 )
    From the article:
    The magnetic approach also consumes very little power when compared with notorious battery-draining RF techniques like Bluetooth. According to a description on the Aura Web site, Fonegear's headset can keep going for up to three months on a single AA battery, as opposed to only a number of hours for equipment outfitted with Bluetooth.

    :-o

    • Re:Wow.. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Marketing bullshit

      My bluetooth headseat lasts far more than 2 weeks on 2 AA batteries, and I use it for several hours every working day.

      They obviously have a useful product if it can last three months on one battery, but saying "only a number of hours" for bluetooth equivalents would be like saying a DVD can store a whole movie but a CD can store "only a few seconds of video". Big marketing exaggeration, which makes me distrust them from the start.
  • I looking forward to see this technology and hearing more about it, as always I'm very open to new tech due to my principle and goal of life... However magnetics and magnetic storage doesn't math up, I remeber when we formatted HDD the hardcore way by using string magnets around attached to it!
  • by dcw3 ( 649211 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:41AM (#7011711) Journal
    I'm positively repelled by this, flux you very much.
  • by rde ( 17364 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:42AM (#7011718)
    So the hapless doofi who've spent years thinking a) magnets can heal them and b) phones can give them cancer must be delighted with this new headset; it'll fix those brain tumours right up.

    D'you think it's coincidence that the company who came up with this is called Aura?
  • Eh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by BJH ( 11355 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:42AM (#7011719)
    How can you replace a technology that nobody actually *uses*?
    • Let me guess - you're american. Bluetooth is widely used where I live. Guess where.
  • Infomercials? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RalphBinaca ( 703952 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:42AM (#7011720) Journal
    I can just now see the new line of infomercials talking about combining the freedom of a wireless headset and the 'healing power' of magnets! Sweet Jesus...
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Docker uses a single AA primary cell battery to get up to 1500 minutes - 25 hours! - of talk time and 3 months of standby. What's more, Docker has no on-off or stand-by button, so you never need to remember to turn it off.

    it'll automatically turn off when the battery runs out though, so you'll have to remember to change the battery.
  • Total hogwash... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Davoid ( 5734 )
    OK I RTFAd and unless there has been a change in the fundamental laws of physics and the properties of electrical and magnetic fields then this whole thing is just BS.
    You can NOT get a varying magnetic field without also getting a varying electrical field. That is the way the physical universe works. If you can not vary the magnetic field... how are you going to send a signal from the transmitter to the receiver?

    -DU-...etc...
    • Re:Total hogwash... (Score:2, Informative)

      by lxmeister ( 570131 )
      Magnetic fields also create waves, but the waves form a kind of bubble, which stops growing after four feet, making them more secure than waves wafting endlessly in every direction, Cui said.

      I assumed that they would just be modulating the magnetic field with the signal rather than modulating a carrier signal with a high frequency.

      The description above is nothing like I heard in physics at school but it may be that lower frequency signals have a shorter range.

      • Re:Total hogwash... (Score:4, Informative)

        by astroboscope ( 543876 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .epocsobortsa.> on Saturday September 20, 2003 @01:07PM (#7012419) Homepage
        Magnetic fields also create waves, but the waves form a kind of bubble, which stops growing after four feet, making them more secure than waves wafting endlessly in every direction, Cui said.

        It's vague, but I think this means it it using the "near field" instead of the propagating field. A transmitting antenna emits two fields: a propagating electromagnetic wave (i.e. light) whose intensity drops off like 1/r^2, and a nonpropagating electromagnetic field that drops off like 1/r^4 (which is why it's called the near field). It can carry a lot of power, but since it doesn't go anywhere it is usually ignored.

    • nah, they've just invented a magnetic monopole. By varying the strength of the monopole, they can induce a current in another monopole up to four feet away. Pretty much the same thing as EM transmission.

      At least, that's what I got from the article.
  • finally using wireless technology will bring some holistic benefits, instead of just causing brain tumor ;)
    • Actually, using magnetic induction is much MORE likely to cause damage. Remember all the hoopla about people living under high tension lines and the EM radiation that surrounded those lines?

      Microwave RF has little to no measurable effect on the body unless it's right at the natural oscillating frequency of water (about 2.4 GHz), and even then, the effects from such a miniscule amount of energy are minimal.

      By contrast, magnetic fields have a very measurable effect on the body. Your blood is composed of

      • Re:holistic benefits (Score:3, Informative)

        by jerde ( 23294 )
        By contrast, magnetic fields have a very measurable effect on the body. Your blood is composed of about 7-28 umol/L, or if I did the math right, about 1 mg/L. Take a magnet and rub it near a vein sometime. If the field is strong enough, you get reorientation of the red blood cells, and eventually clumping of those cells. In sufficiently concentrated doses, the health effects could be significant.

        That's false. Red blood cells do not clump in the presense of magnetic fields.

        There have been studies on t
  • by nih ( 411096 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:48AM (#7011747)
    'At the heart of the new interest in what's known as "magnetic induction" is Aura, or so claims the nine-year-old chipmaker'

    quick, somebody stop these fiends!
  • Faraday (Score:5, Informative)

    by penguin7of9 ( 697383 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:48AM (#7011748)
    Developed in the late 1950s, magnetic induction never really caught on

    Gee, silly me, and I always thought Faraday [corrosion-doctors.org] developed "magnetic induction" and that it was in wide use. But, hey, it has turned out that, contrary to my own silly ideas, Gates actually invented the Internet and that BT invented the hyperlink, so I must be wrong on Faraday as well.
    • Yeah, I guess I never really knew what an Inductor actually did in a circuit... I guess Physics II and Circuits were a waste of time...
  • I'm... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Raagshinnah ( 670749 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:48AM (#7011749)
    I'm wearing metal braces, you insensitive clod!
  • This cell phone has been certified by the Association of Alternative Medicines as an evvective communications/healing device.
  • by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @10:57AM (#7011786) Homepage Journal
    also in news, segways could eventually replace cars on commuting, rocket packs could eventually replace aeroplanes, slashdotter could eventually get laid..

    you get it, anything could eventually do anything.

    (and bluetooth is not useless, obsolote tech. it's pretty useful, and if you're bitchin that you don't need a cellular then it really doesn't make much sense to bitch about not needing bluetooth fo r it)
  • Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by DoorFrame ( 22108 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @11:01AM (#7011805) Homepage
    I installed one at my home yesterday, and today my hard drive isn't working and my monitor's got all sorts of funny colors on it. I'm posting this from work... I think I'll install one here to trouble shoot.

    Just a se
  • Magnets (Score:5, Informative)

    by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @11:01AM (#7011806)
    A broadcast antenna is a magnet, an electromagnet, one that changes polarity many times per second, and that varying electromagnetic field is what induces a response in the receiving antenna. This is called radio transmission (see Marconi, or better yet look up Heinrich Hertz or James Clerk Maxwell.) If this so-called technology is claiming to transmit information using a static magnetic field they are full of little red ants. Phooey.
    • Re:Magnets (Score:5, Informative)

      by TeknoHog ( 164938 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @12:19PM (#7012173) Homepage Journal
      This technology does use changing magnetic fields, but it is still different from EM radiation.

      There are different kinds of modes for electric and magnetic fields to work with. EM radiation is just one of them, but it is special in the way that it can cross arbitrary distances if properly focused. This works because a sinusoidally changing electric field generates similarly changing magnetic fields, which in turn generate similarly changing electric fields. In a way, the fields themselves are not traveling, but they build up new fields in succession, hence propagating the signal.

      In every practical antenna, other modes of electric/magnetic fields are present besides the radiation component. However, the other modes disappear faster than the radiation, as they do not rebuild themselves. The inductive method relies on these other modes, using very different kinds of antenna which don't produce much of the radiation component.

  • In other news, the letter "B" is replacing Shakespeares "Hamlet"... For some reason, that's what it sounds like to me :)
  • by Xerithane ( 13482 ) <xerithane.nerdfarm@org> on Saturday September 20, 2003 @11:03AM (#7011816) Homepage Journal
    "Hey, look over there it's bluetooth!"

    "What, where?"

    "Oh, sorry, you missed it."
  • by Flave ( 193808 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @11:08AM (#7011835)
    Like many here, I was very skeptical when I read this article -- the reporter is clearly a total sci/tech ignoramus (you gotta love the totally redundant "cordless cell phone").

    So I went to Aura's website for more info. Here's their blurb:

    While the concepts behind magnetic induction communication have been around for decades, Aura's engineers are the first to develop and implement practical solutions capturing the benefits of this technology.

    Conventional radio frequency (RF) wireless communication systems are optimal for sending large amounts of information and communicating over long distances. However, this consumes power, creates information security issues, and results in interference and "crowding" among devices. A good example is in the 2.4 GHz band where simultaneous operation of a cordless phone, WiFi network and Bluetooth headset is frequently not possible without severe degradation of Quality of Service. In sharp contrast, LibertyLink's magnetic communication operates in a "bubble" that envelops the personal space of each user and is - by the laws of physics - inherently private and secure. The result is an easier to use, lower-cost system that makes far more efficient use of power and bandwidth than conventional RF solutions. By selecting a technology that limits the range and bandwidth to only what the application requires, Aura achieves a very substantial savings in power with all of the simplicity advantages of LibertyLink: dedicated communication channels, no bandwidth sharing, complete frequency re-use between bubbles, worldwide regulatory flexibility, and reliable coexistence with WiFi, CDMA, TDMA. and GSM transmissions.


    Still pretty vague -- how the hell do they handle interference issues in this "magnetic bubble"? Do they supply Faraday cages for your PC/monitor?
    • Well, according to The Making of Star Trek, a Cochrane warp field generator creates a bubble of "warp space" around the generator. This effectively places anything inside the field into a transient alternate universe: electromagnetic fields on either side cannot penetrate this bubble. So, presumably the people that came up with this "magnetic communications" technology simply supply a low-powered warp-field generator with each device, thereby limiting the effective communications range.
    • My confusion is that the security claims are bogus based on 'electric' portion of the EM field still being necessarily coded.

      An alternating current creates and EM field. The strength of the the two portions of the field related to the strength of the current, the configuration of the 'antennae' and the distance from the 'antennae'

      To create a strong magnetic field, it seems one would have loops. The loops would create a strong magnetic field based on number, radius, and current. A electric field would

    • cordless cell phone

      Yeah, it plugs straight into the wall socket -- no need for a power cord to recharge it!

      Where's your imagination? ;)

  • I just got Bluetooth!

    Stupid technology...

    -Waldo Jaquith
  • Van Eck Phreaking? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by TinheadNed ( 142620 )
    Assuming this isn't all complete bollocks, about which I'm going to hold an open mind, as I'm not entirely sure how this thing would work near computers or pylons, or electrified rail tracks, or power mains, unless it has some AMAZINGLY good filtering in it.

    Anyway, assuming that, does that mean we get a chip on a usb stick (say), that would allow Van Eck Phreaking to be done at home? I mean, if you can send useful amounts of data through this technology, it must be good enough to pick up clock signals and
  • Hey! (Score:2, Funny)

    by ShadowRage ( 678728 )
    I know how magnets heal people! you take a large magnet and beat a pseudo-spiritual idiot over the head with it, thus you healed the world of one less germ! I read this headline and saw "magnets" and first thing that came to mind was "erased hard drive" so, replacing a technology that no one uses with a technology no one will use.. smart idea! I think I'll start selling AOL cd's instead of music cd's to get my business flourishing!
  • ...but doesn't every form of wireless transmission that exists use magnets for transmission? Temporary magnets, electromagnets, but how could anything be done fixed magnets, which are, well, fixed? I'd be impressed if something cool were to replace EM transmission, like gravity, or the strong nuclear force, or midgets on scooters. Yeah, that last one would be cool.
  • by panurge ( 573432 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @11:18AM (#7011873)
    Obviously the magnetic induction loops in churches and halls that transmit the sound to hearing aids don't count because they are some primitive old technology.

    Actually, I have to wear a hearing aid in one ear due to mid-ear damage, and I'm expecting before long to have an inductive loop for my cell phone that means handsfree use without any kind of additional earpiece. Apart from convincing people that I'm completely mad and talking to myself in the street, it should be a considerable improvement over bluetooth headsets, which, compared to either of my hearing aids, are heavy and have poor frequency response.

    • They make a point of pointing out in the article that it is NOT new tech. The new thing is the size. Remember no matter what the girls tell you, smaller is better. Those old examples are way to big to carry around in your pocket.

      So no nothing new, in the same way the transistors did nothing really new. Except they did it while being really really small.

      Of course I am just getting all kinds of funny images of what will happen with conflicting magnetic fields. But they are probably way to low in power to do

  • Of Course (Score:3, Insightful)

    by m1a1 ( 622864 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @11:35AM (#7011945)
    Not only can magnets give you lighter wireless communication, but also eternal life! [alexchiu.com]
  • I, for one, welcome our new magnetic Overlords!

  • > Magnetic fields also create waves, but the waves
    > form a kind of bubble, which stops growing after
    > four feet, making them more secure than waves
    > wafting endlessly in every direction, Cui said.

    Doesn't anybody study physics any more?
  • A single manufacturer is selling a "cordless cell phone headsets" which no mobile currently supports, yet somehow it's the death knell for Bluetooth, purely because it's technically superior. Does this strike anyone as a pointless product?

    Betamax was better then VHS, but it's even deader than my favourite OS. So I'm still going not going to hold my breath.
  • If I recall correctly from my Calculus-based Physics 110 course, an electric field cannot exist without a magnetic field which is why we call them ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS.
  • everyone here is making stupid jokes because they don't understand what the product is. i was skeptical at first, but i looked around at some of the documents on the site and did some googling and found this is actually kind of interesting.

    here [elecdesign.com] is a relevant article that explains the technology a little better.
  • If someone is using one of these and it knocks out your laptop, etc., who do you sue? The manufacturer for producing a damaging product, or the user, who probably didn't know any better?
  • by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @01:28PM (#7012529) Homepage Journal
    Now, I'm no physicist, but I was under the impression that all radio waves were based on electromagnetic induction. So this article doesn't really make sense at all.

    Now, I know there are some devices that use magnetic induction to 'charge' and then blast out information, like RFID. But the key here is the RF -- radio frequency (ID = identification, of course).

    So it would make some sense if these guys said they wanted to carry power using Magnetic induction, rather then using power cables or batteries, but it doesn't make sense for them to say they want to replace 'blue tooth' with it, because blue tooth and all radios use Magnetic induction to communicate...

    My guess, yet another reporter with absolutely no idea wft they're talking about.
  • by Nullsmack ( 189619 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @02:29PM (#7012810)
    N&V covered this in the June 2003 issue along with RFID and UWB. Page 22 for those who can get access to a backissue (say at the library or somewhere like that)

    One problem (that's easily fixed) with the magnetic system is that both transmitting and receiving coils have to be parallel. If they're at 90 degrees little or no signal gets through. The fix for it happens to be using 3 coils, each one 90 degrees from each other on the receiver. The transmitter only needs one, but no matter how that one is oriented one of the 3 coils in the receiver can pick it up. I haven't heard of any other chips, but the LibertyLink chip from Aura Communications can automatically select the coils on it's own.

    Very short range, but it works for something like a wireless headset where range doesn't matter anyways.
  • by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @03:49PM (#7013169)
    Dear God! I don't think the aluminum foil in my deflector beanie is thick enough to handle all that! Quick, get me some sheet metal!
  • by NewtonsLaw ( 409638 ) on Saturday September 20, 2003 @06:06PM (#7013736)
    Perhaps the easiest way to explain this technology is that it's simply a type of transformer.

    One coil creates a varying magnetic flux that induces a current in a matching coil -- and thus an electrical signal is passed through the ether.

    Those who claim that it's no different to a radio link are almost right -- the only real difference is that with such a system there's no need to use a carrier wave (RF) -- the information can be dumped (raw) into the transmitting side of the coil and received by the other coil.

    There's no rocket science here -- all that's happened is that some crowd has figured out that by using three coils instead of one, they can effectively adjust the direction of the strongest flux lobe to give the maximum transfer of energy.

    Of course, the marketing droids would never simplify things by simply telling us it was a "clever transformer" because then they couldn't charge so much for it eh? :-)

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Working...