Issues: Cost Size, weight Power use Self-testing, self-calibration Wired/wireless communication
Stand-alone components are far away from ideal characteristics desired for measurements.
Cost: Only a few cents extra for a BT chip Power usage: 10% of a BT chip Low End Extension (LEE) of Bluetooth is the technology to solve a simple mismatch. There are several small devices that could add value by having wireless radio connection to mobile terminal but cannot bear the power consumption and cost associated to Bluetooth. However, the mobile terminals will have Bluetooth as the short-range wireless solution. Bluetooth LEE tackles the mismatch by introducing minor additions to the Bluetooth chip in the mobile terminals that allows designs that will produce major saving in power consumption and cost in the chips embedded into small devices. Examples of the small devices include wireless sensors, toys, wireless pens etc Instead of replacing the existing wired connections with the wireless as targeted by Bluetooth, the BluLite targets to provide new connections between the Bluetooth enabled mobile phones and the devices that cannot bare the additional price and/or power consumption of the Bluetooth radio but could benefit from the connectivity. Further, the target use scenarios require some processing in the device connected to the mobile phone and there is not necessary line-of-sight connection. Thus, IRDA and RFID solutions do not meet the requirements. The following categorization highlights the BluLite use cases. IrDa fails to meet the link distance, the power consumption and the pointing criteria. Furthermore, the current co-existence of IrDa and Bluetooth is not a cost- and size-efficient solution for mobile terminals. ZigBee would result in a considerable cost and size penalty to the mobile terminals since it results in yet another radio alongside Bluetooth. It’s as complex as Bluetooth and the power-efficient protocols are limited to home and industrial automation use. RFID is difficult to benchmark due to the plurality of RFID technologies. The RFID technologies that feature the essence of the technology, passive tag, would either fail in link distance, voice support and in cost increase in mobile terminal. Bluetooth technology is limited by its peak and average power consumption, cost, piconet topology, and connection set-up times. The consensus is that Bluetooth technology cannot be scaled down to the appropriate power and cost levels for small peripherals just by applying advanced implementation techniques. Rather, the specification needs to be changed in some areas to account for the mismatch in design requirements of small peripherals and mobile terminals.
The MIMOSA sensor architecture is defined to be modular, freely scalable and has open interfaces for third parties through open Simple Sensor Interface (SSI) protocol. Plug-in type implementation of sensors using SSI is the key to modularity. Using SSI system will detect what sensors are available regardless their location in terminal, in RFID tag, or in sensor radio node. This modular architecture is shown here. The Sensor API on the host device will keep a list of available sensors and provide functions for accessing the sensors, be they local (connected directly to the host device) or remote (RFID or BT LEE connected).
NanoIP, which stands for the nano Internet Protocol, is a concept that was created to bring Internet-like networking services to embedded and sensor devices, without the overhead of TCP/IP. NanoIP was designed with minimal overheads, wireless networking, and local addressing in mind. The protocol actually consists of two transport techniques, nanoUDP, which is an unreliable simple transport, and nanoTCP, which provides retransmissions and flow control. A socket-compatible API is provided which makes the use of the protocols very similar to that of IP protocols. The only difference is in addressing and the port range. NanoIP makes use of the MAC address of underlying network technology rather than IP addresses, which are not needed for local networks. The port range is 8-bits, 256 ports each for source and destination. In addition to nanoIP itself, a range of compact application protocols have been developed, such as nHTTP and nPing.