Re:3-D printed plastic objects that can communicate with WiF...
by TeMPOraL on Wednesday December 06, 2017 @05:02PM
(#15865426)
> I thought maybe I am missing something, but I see that the objects are encoded with bit and transmits.
I think you're confusing three or four different projects at this point, whose only common property is that they operate on the energy of an incoming 2.4GHz signal (the "backscatter" thing).
The project that is the topic of discussion in this whole HN thread is the one that uses a 3D-printed plastic mechanism that changes the way an antenna (incidentally, 3D-printed too, out of a filament that mixes copper and plastic) reflects an incoming signal. There is a binary pattern, but it's encoded in the cog-like thing in the mechanism.
It's pretty much like sending light signals with a mirror, except it's reflecting radio waves. The way they use technical terms in this article (and the original paper) is problematic, and I believe your confusion in this subthread is a perfect example of why the abuse of "Wi-Fi" references is a problem.
Re:3-D printed plastic objects that can communicate with WiF...
by baldfat on Wednesday December 06, 2017 @05:59PM
(#15865948)
No read the paper once. I did and I learned a ton and than I commented. When people don't read the material and assumptions are made is how you get into these arguments.
I think you're confusing three or four different projects at this point, whose only common property is that they operate on the energy of an incoming 2.4GHz signal (the "backscatter" thing).
The project that is the topic of discussion in this whole HN thread is the one that uses a 3D-printed plastic mechanism that changes the way an antenna (incidentally, 3D-printed too, out of a filament that mixes copper and plastic) reflects an incoming signal. There is a binary pattern, but it's encoded in the cog-like thing in the mechanism.
It's pretty much like sending light signals with a mirror, except it's reflecting radio waves. The way they use technical terms in this article (and the original paper) is problematic, and I believe your confusion in this subthread is a perfect example of why the abuse of "Wi-Fi" references is a problem.