More standardisation for WSN

More standardisation activities, this time to set sensor net standard for process control. Having a big say on how wireless sensor networks (WSNs) can be used in a practical way at the moment, several industries from the automation and control sectors are trying to muscle in their own standards for WSNs. Notably the 30,000-member ISA trade group which focuses on factory automation.

On the other hand there are industries from the PC data side that try to extend Internet Protocol (IP) to WSNs. For example IETF’s Routing over Low-power and Lossy Networks (Roll) group which is pursuing a standard way for control and sensor nodes on Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and 802.15.4 nets to link to the broader Internet, interestingly backed by Cisco Systems.

Related blog posts:
Share and enjoy:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • email

New technology and hype

It wasn’t that long ago when 3G network was touted to give mobile users broadband experience on the move. Till today, even though I have 3G capabled mobile phone, I still am not experiencing the “web surfing” experience I enjoy 7-8 years ago using my desktop machine. Whereas the speed of fixed line broadband has increased considerably over these years, the bandwidth you get from 3G connection has not really managed to catch up. It is a wonder if 3G can ever live up to the expectation they once jazzed up years ago.

Then there is the multi-hop ad hoc networks which threatened to compete with network operators’ infrastructure, extending the coverage of the last mile access and potentially squeezing the core networks. Thankfully after the telecom bubble, the hype surrounding this was much less than the 3G circus, but it is a networking concept that has captured many’s imagination initially. To be honest, it is still a very unique networking concept, and has shown to work, but just has not been good enough, yet again. It is more realistic at the moment to use it in a more static environment than trying to get it to work satisfactorily in an environment where every nodes can potentially move around.

So is the wireless sensor network. It seems to also come to a stage where the hype is slowly fading away and people are getting back to basic. Rather than trying to capture investors’ attention by telling them that, “hey, these little motes can be thrown out of the aeroplane and they can ’self-configure’ to form a network and propagate monitoring information back to the base station”, people are more prudent and use it in a more sensible way in the form of Zigbee network with a star topology for example. Multi-hop, long lifespan wireless sensor network is still some way from being ready for deployment.

Anyway the point is new technologies will keep emerging all the time. It’s good to feel excited about new technologies. But unless you are in the position to do something about the technologies, there’s no need to get overly distracted by the hype surrounding it, created by marketing people who don’t know that much about the technologies, yet somehow manage to leave a bad taste in many people’s mouth.

Related blog posts:
Share and enjoy:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • email

SunSPOTs available in the EU

Having not been keeping in touch with news about WSN for 3 weeks while I was on holiday, I’m notified by my colleague today that SunSPOTs are now finally available in the EU area. But checking on their website myself, it seems that it costs much more to get a Sun SPOT development kit in Europe than in the US after currency conversion (€627 compared to $550 excluding tax), which is probably not news anymore given the fact that it’s almost always more expensive to buy goods in Europe than in the US. However Europeans can probably take heart from the news that they are soon going to change the pricing in the US from $550 to $750 (apparently as of 27th Feb 2008) :) Well, perhaps not, €627 is still a lot of money. Just shows that wireless sensor motes are still very much in the prototype stage.

Related blog posts:
Share and enjoy:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • email

How ready is ZigBee?

ZigBee modules are readily available nowadays. Assuming that they can all live up to their expectations, providing the network stack that allows wirelss sensor motes to be easily organised into a network fit for deployment, we will be seeing a host of software applications to be developed for wireless sensor networks this year. My concerns with ZigBee are, forget about large-scale or maybe even medium-scale sensors deployment, the ease of deployment of a ZigBee wireless sensor network and the lifetime of the network. Remember, there were a lot of hypes around multiple hops wireless ad hoc networks not that long ago when the concept was first put into trial. Don’t get me wrong, the potential of such networks is still there. But, under the constraints of current underlying technologies, the deployment of these networks for the applications initially expected of them is not as simple as the name of these networks would have you believed. Work is currently still on-going in this area, so I won’t be surprised if the ZigBee stack is still someway away from being ready for some serious applications. What I’m more interested in is better tools to diagnose a wireless sensor network as at the moment troubleshooting a network of these little motes when something goes wrong is still painfully difficult.

Related blog posts:
Share and enjoy:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • email

Open source ZigBee implementation

open-ZB is an open source implementation of the IEEE 802.15.4/ZigBee protocols. Apparently the website has been around for over a year, but not sure how long the implementation has been made available. It doesn’t seem like there’s a sizeable community using it, so if you are thinking of using the code, don’t expect to receive much support should you find out later on that the implementation does not work the way it should be. So far I’m yet to see any credible documents reporting on the use of this implementation, so it’s difficult to know how stable the protocol stack is. Perhaps it’s still early stage?

Related blog posts:
Share and enjoy:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • email