I have some doubts as to the feasibility of this, though I'm no specialist in Bluetooth or space. The article contains limited technical details, but the description of "turning a magnifying...
I have some doubts as to the feasibility of this, though I'm no specialist in Bluetooth or space. The article contains limited technical details, but the description of "turning a magnifying glass" makes me think their primary method of getting this to work is to make the satellite antennas incredibly sensitive. This approach can work, but it doesn't reduce the background noise radio waves that aren't Bluetooth from being heard by the antenna. If you're picking up the signal more sensitively, you'll pick up more noise you have to differentiate as well. Now, they do intend to make these very low data devices, and reducing data rate can help this, but only to an extent. The Bluetooth spectrum overlaps with a lot of other things, including the 2.4GHz wifi.
Additionally, they want to put a billion devices on this network in the long run. Bluetooth currently uses an extremely narrow range of the RF spectrum, and part of the reason this works is because the devices are low range. The signals don't overlap with each other. If you're trying to connect many devices to the same destination in the same spectrum, it seems to me that there would be a lot of congestion.
Dunno. Without more technical details, seems far fetched to me. Long distance Bluetooth is possible, but it's done via two long distance transmitters that need to communicate both ways to pair, and takes more power than stranded Bluetooth. Maybe they'll eventually put out some more details on how this is supposed to work.
Also, this is being brought to you by a partnership between the guy who founded Life360, and the guy who developed what later became Amazon Sidewalk. I have my doubts that if this works that it remains benign and non intrusive, especially if they're pitching that it's a one way communication just picking up signals from low energy transmissions. Why only look at the signals from your subscribers?
I'm with you on being skeptical that this would actually work. 2.4 GHz is also strongly absorbed by water - that is, of course, how microwave ovens work - and there's a fair amount of atmospheric...
I'm with you on being skeptical that this would actually work.
2.4 GHz is also strongly absorbed by water - that is, of course, how microwave ovens work - and there's a fair amount of atmospheric water. Also, my understanding of Bluetooth is that part of how it manages to get data through a channel despite its low power is that it tracks noisy channels and frequency hops to avoid them. Basically, the two devices communicate about which frequencies are bad. One-way Bluetooth couldn't have this mechanism, which means your phone (it's supposed to work with any Bluetooth device, right?) could be ineffectually trying to yell over your Nintendo Switch sitting next to it and the satellite would never be able to see it.
There is a low power unidirectional satellite communications protocol I can think of, although it goes the opposite direction - GPS. This has the advantage of having its own block of bandwidth.
However, I'm just a baseband verification nerd. Maybe they came up with something that'll make everyone's jaws drop.
It's a pretty neat demo to have a wifi spectrum analyzer running and then turn on a Bluetooth mouse or whatever right next to it, specifically for that reason. The frequency hopping just takes up...
It's a pretty neat demo to have a wifi spectrum analyzer running and then turn on a Bluetooth mouse or whatever right next to it, specifically for that reason. The frequency hopping just takes up the whole spectrum.
I would be really interested in seeing their technical documentation, but I looked at their website and it has basically nothing on it right now. Their only blog post is about their capital raising efforts. They'll have to reveal more at some point though, since their whole proposal is go have a platform that other people can develop applications for.
I think someone messed up their maths here. Pretty sure bluetooth range is better than 100um
The result is a radio signal that can be detected around 1,000 kilometers away — or almost 10 orders of magnitude longer than what can be detected from a Bluetooth chip over terrestrial networks
I think someone messed up their maths here. Pretty sure bluetooth range is better than 100um
I have some doubts as to the feasibility of this, though I'm no specialist in Bluetooth or space. The article contains limited technical details, but the description of "turning a magnifying glass" makes me think their primary method of getting this to work is to make the satellite antennas incredibly sensitive. This approach can work, but it doesn't reduce the background noise radio waves that aren't Bluetooth from being heard by the antenna. If you're picking up the signal more sensitively, you'll pick up more noise you have to differentiate as well. Now, they do intend to make these very low data devices, and reducing data rate can help this, but only to an extent. The Bluetooth spectrum overlaps with a lot of other things, including the 2.4GHz wifi.
Additionally, they want to put a billion devices on this network in the long run. Bluetooth currently uses an extremely narrow range of the RF spectrum, and part of the reason this works is because the devices are low range. The signals don't overlap with each other. If you're trying to connect many devices to the same destination in the same spectrum, it seems to me that there would be a lot of congestion.
Dunno. Without more technical details, seems far fetched to me. Long distance Bluetooth is possible, but it's done via two long distance transmitters that need to communicate both ways to pair, and takes more power than stranded Bluetooth. Maybe they'll eventually put out some more details on how this is supposed to work.
Also, this is being brought to you by a partnership between the guy who founded Life360, and the guy who developed what later became Amazon Sidewalk. I have my doubts that if this works that it remains benign and non intrusive, especially if they're pitching that it's a one way communication just picking up signals from low energy transmissions. Why only look at the signals from your subscribers?
I'm with you on being skeptical that this would actually work.
2.4 GHz is also strongly absorbed by water - that is, of course, how microwave ovens work - and there's a fair amount of atmospheric water. Also, my understanding of Bluetooth is that part of how it manages to get data through a channel despite its low power is that it tracks noisy channels and frequency hops to avoid them. Basically, the two devices communicate about which frequencies are bad. One-way Bluetooth couldn't have this mechanism, which means your phone (it's supposed to work with any Bluetooth device, right?) could be ineffectually trying to yell over your Nintendo Switch sitting next to it and the satellite would never be able to see it.
There is a low power unidirectional satellite communications protocol I can think of, although it goes the opposite direction - GPS. This has the advantage of having its own block of bandwidth.
However, I'm just a baseband verification nerd. Maybe they came up with something that'll make everyone's jaws drop.
It's a pretty neat demo to have a wifi spectrum analyzer running and then turn on a Bluetooth mouse or whatever right next to it, specifically for that reason. The frequency hopping just takes up the whole spectrum.
I would be really interested in seeing their technical documentation, but I looked at their website and it has basically nothing on it right now. Their only blog post is about their capital raising efforts. They'll have to reveal more at some point though, since their whole proposal is go have a platform that other people can develop applications for.
So it’s one way, device-to-satellite right? That does seem interesting. You could track things with very low power usage on the device side.
I think someone messed up their maths here. Pretty sure bluetooth range is better than 100um