AndyMan 7
Recommended Posts
Zenister 0
QuoteThe RFID standard is quite strict.
You need to understand how these chips work. They key thing, is that they don't have a battery, or any other kind of power source.
The chips get their power from the radio waves the receptor directs at them.
The chips basicallly act as a sort of mirror. They sort of "bounce" radio waves back towards the original source. They accept a radio signal, that signal provides power to the chip, which then modifies the signal before bouncing it back to the receptor.
They're not really transmittors, they're not really receivors.
The technology is inheriently short range, and this isn't going to change.
umm we currently use 'RF tags' (larger yes but not for long) for military equipment with the airborne receiver some 150km away...
yes these are 'passive tags' with no power source other than the energy they get from the reciever...
yes it will...dont put your head in the sand....
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
turtlespeed 226
QuoteAre you making shit up, or can you actually point me to a GPS device, without an external power source, with a working life of > 12 monthes?
Because I'm a pretty hardcore geek, and I just can't see how it'd be done.
Regardless, Passive RFID most definately has range maxing out at about 10 feet, so I'm not quire sure why this is relevant.
_Am
No there is no GPS with that type of tech - but with the tech w3e have today iot is VERY possible. -
And Zenister Nailed it - Those devices are what i had been thinking of and thought they were gps - because that is what the tags are used for - location and tracking.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
AndyMan 7
The RFID standard allows for different frequencies.
Most implementations of this operate in the public, unlicense spectrum. These often use 125/134.2 KHz, 13.56 MHz, 869 MHZ, 915 MHz,2450 MHz.
People might recognize these frequencies.
869 is commonly referred to as "800 meghahertz"
915 is commonly refered to as "900 meghahertz"
and 2450 is commonly refered to as "2.5 gigahertz".
Anyone shopping for a cordless telephone (cordless, not cellphone) will see the same frequencies. Because of the fact that telephones have batteries and DC power sources, they use these frequencies to get a few hundred feet, or maybe a few thousand feet.
You could use RFID with a MUCH higher frequency, like those up in the microwave range, and see the range go through ther roof. I'm sure that's probably whats done with the military systems. The problem with these is that you can't use them for widespread use without an FCC license. The FCC licensing requirement pretty much breaks the idea of these things being used for inventory tracking...
Most importantly is that these devices have a problem when there's a lot of them in a small area. They overpower each other. There's an assumption in their development that each sensor will only have one tag in its range. If you have multiple tags, the system breaks down because one tag will "shadow" another - making the second tag invisible. This makes it unlikely to scale up to the level people are worried about. The system just can't handle it.
Anyways, the system as available to hospitals, stores, and businesses has a range of only 10 feet. End of story.
I have absolutely no doube that the government will some day come up with a system to track people. RFID isn't it.
_Am
Most implementations of this operate in the public, unlicense spectrum. These often use 125/134.2 KHz, 13.56 MHz, 869 MHZ, 915 MHz,2450 MHz.
People might recognize these frequencies.
869 is commonly referred to as "800 meghahertz"
915 is commonly refered to as "900 meghahertz"
and 2450 is commonly refered to as "2.5 gigahertz".
Anyone shopping for a cordless telephone (cordless, not cellphone) will see the same frequencies. Because of the fact that telephones have batteries and DC power sources, they use these frequencies to get a few hundred feet, or maybe a few thousand feet.
You could use RFID with a MUCH higher frequency, like those up in the microwave range, and see the range go through ther roof. I'm sure that's probably whats done with the military systems. The problem with these is that you can't use them for widespread use without an FCC license. The FCC licensing requirement pretty much breaks the idea of these things being used for inventory tracking...
Most importantly is that these devices have a problem when there's a lot of them in a small area. They overpower each other. There's an assumption in their development that each sensor will only have one tag in its range. If you have multiple tags, the system breaks down because one tag will "shadow" another - making the second tag invisible. This makes it unlikely to scale up to the level people are worried about. The system just can't handle it.
Anyways, the system as available to hospitals, stores, and businesses has a range of only 10 feet. End of story.
I have absolutely no doube that the government will some day come up with a system to track people. RFID isn't it.
_Am
__
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
Quote*Sigh*
Unfortunately - I can think of one application that might warrant such a chip.
Child sex offenders.
I believe that they should be affixed with a locator, and a GPS that records their whereabouts, But not under the skin - not IN thier bodies.
I've been mulling the situation with "sex offenders" because I have problems with the way they are being treated in the penal sense. (Do NOT go there.)
Why should we accept that such offenders are to be punished after their prison punishment is over? Ostracized? Monitored? Forced to essentially blare a message everywhere they go that they committed this crime?
Is the public really so much more at risk from a rapist, say, than a recidivist violent criminal like a robber or murderer? Lots of people get let out of jail far before "life" is served, and they've shown a predilection for harming people for all sorts of reasons ranging from financial gain through just plain malice. Why on earth do we not feel that they must notify a neighborhood when they move in? Why do we not feel that they should have to check in with authorities? Why DO we feel that they alone should be kept in prison after their actual sentence has been served simply because some doctor says he can't guarantee that they won't offend again?
Look, I'm a 32-year-old man: I am NOT a target for a rapist. It is very unlikely that in the rest of my life a rapist is ever going to victimize me. I am NOT so fortunately outside the scope of a violent criminal who has demonstrated a recidivist tendency to rob, beat, stab, shoot people. Yet no one is screaming and howling to keep those people in prison or in institutions until we can be assured that they won't do it again (as if that's ever even possible).
BTW don't go thinking that I defend rapists of any kind, or that I am one, or have ever stood accused as one. This is not the case. I just think that we are overplaying the danger from them and underplaying the danger from other violent criminals. (yes I know rape is a violent crime, but I'm talking about the standard physical-injury-type crime.)
Blue skies,
-Jeffrey
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
You're right. There is no logical basis for it other than the "Won't anybody think about the children?" heart string.
wmw999 2,600
Actually, child sex offenders have one of the highest recidivism rates there is. Very sad, and very damaging.
Wendy W.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
Zenister 0
QuoteYou could use RFID with a MUCH higher frequency, like those up in the microwave range, and see the range go through ther roof. I'm sure that's probably whats done with the military systems. The problem with these is that you can't use them for widespread use without an FCC license.
yes.
your looking at the very small picture by focusing on inventory tracking, and we have solutions to the resolution issue you mention. FCC is not an issue, find proper justification and/or enough money and their requirements disappear to the right systems..
the concept of RFID (or RF tags or any number of other names these projects are being pursued under) is far more than its current civilian implementation...eventually every soldier will have several, imbedded in themselves and their equipment, remember they dont have the same choices......
as to convicted criminals? society continually redefines what rights and privledges they have and the manner in which we 'contain' them.
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Because I'm a pretty hardcore geek, and I just can't see how it'd be done.
Regardless, Passive RFID most definately has range maxing out at about 10 feet, so I'm not quire sure why this is relevant.
_Am
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites