Human Chips

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I HAVE ONE IN MY CAR TW. THERE IS NO GODDAMN BATTERY IN IT.

Fine. Where are the numbers you used to "know"? How do you know it has no battery? I have a date time clock chip from Dallas Semiconductor - mid 1980s - that maintained data and time without a battery. Surprise. A battery was built into the integrated circuit. DS1287 if I remember the numbers.

If it is an RFID, then you can tell us why. Currently no facts - especially no numbers - are provided to prove you have an RFID operating at 900 Mhz for . All we have is you insistance. We had same from George Jr. Back then, I was one of the few who demanded numbers - and therefore declared 5 years ago that I did not believe those claims. Why? Claims were made without numbers and with gusto. Gusto without numbers? A big red flag that creates more suspicion.

If your transponder is an RFID, well, how do you know? If I was making the claim, I would have done something like provide the URL for the 900 Mhz RFID that is for sale. We don't even have that. Claims must also be accompanied by reasons for why we know. That is the fundamental lesson from George Jr's WMD claims. Do you know only because someone told you? Or do you do as I do? Demand more so that the claim has credibility.

That Dallas Semiconductor IC was a direct replacement for the date time clock in IBM PC-ATs. But it maintained date time without a battery. Was it also RFID? No. Tiny battery was part of the IC. 1980s technology.

Numbers suggest that what you call an RFID is not. How would we say otherwise? Facts with numbers. Gusto tells us nothing useful.

BTW, I also have one additional advantage. Met the guy who installed EZ Pass which is why I knew those transponders required batteries and how EZ Pass can work south of Delaware. But you claim your have RFID for the car - no battery. OK. Show me. No reason for emotion. I am only asking for what any good engineer even outside of Missouri would demand. Supporting facts that put credibility to a claim. Show me. Where are the numbers?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Here, have a link. And another.

As best I can tell (I had to get numbers that were not provided and should have been provided), both examples under ideal conditions are readable up to 10 meters. This will be significantly reduced when conditions are not perfect (ie orientation of RFID antenna, interference from adjacent systems, directional antenna not pointed directly at RFID device). For automotive purposes, 10 meters may be a minimum for reliable operation. The RFID device ideal numbers would therefore be maybe 30 meters so that it works reliable in 10 meters. Neither RFID device claims that. Both claim only 10 meters under ideal conditions.

These latest devices are a significant improvement over what I had seen years ago. UHF devices were reliable for a meter. Utilized where the reader was adjacent to that RFID tag and where RFID tag was not moving at 30 MPH (ie shipping dock).

10 meters is marginal for detecting an RFID device inside a car where adjacent metal within one wavelength (one foot or less) of the tag adversely affects antenna operation and where a moving car must remain inside that 10 meters during the entire 'charge and read' process.

Motorola datasheet for best 'state of art' RFID does suggest that RFID for vehicles is approaching reality. Based upon numbers from both datasheets, UHF RFID appears to be reliable maybe for 3 meters. Technology at an ideal 10 meters today is only approaching usefulness. Unless better numbers can be provided (not just an ideal best case number), then those datasheets still don't suggest UHF RFID operates reliable for moving cars.

Having done the work, then what I was asking for and what should be provided up front was located - supporting facts and numbers. No numbers or other supporting facts meant the claim was not trustworthy.

Current numbers suggest the technology is, at best, marginal for implementation in that harsh and moving environment (assuming toll booths are not reconstructed to optimize UHF performance).

Many ifs. None acceptably possible without numbers. The point was never to argue about RFIDs here. The important point: a claim of something 'more advanced than currently exists' was made without supporting facts. Only provided was a report written by a newspaper reporter who typically has little technology grasp and probably less idea what RFID is when he started his report.

No information that even implied the reporter (or his editor) knew what RFID was. If he did, then implementing RFID at UHF frequencies should have been noted as a major change from current technologies. Other systems (such as EZ Pass) could not use RFID even at lower frequencies. RFID in such harsh environments just was not sufficiently reliable.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

I was wrong

[Undertoad]

My EZ Pass battery failed, but I noticed. Turns out there was a "bad batch" of batteries that only wound up lasting 2 years.

[yesman065]

Radio-frequency identification
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Low-frequency (LF: 125 – 134.2 kHz and 140 – 148.5 kHz) and high-frequency (HF: 13.56 MHz) RFID tags can be used globally without a license. Ultra-high-frequency (UHF: 868 MHz-928 MHz) cannot be used globally as there is no single global standard. In North America, UHF can be used unlicensed for 902 – 928 MHz (±13 MHz from the 915 MHz center frequency), but restrictions exist for transmission power. In Europe, RFID and other low-power radio applications are regulated by ETSI recommendations EN 300 220 and EN 302 208, and ERO recommendation 70 03, allowing RFID operation with somewhat complex band restrictions from 865–868 MHz. Readers are required to monitor a channel before transmitting ("Listen Before Talk"); this requirement has led to some restrictions on performance, the resolution of which is a subject of current research.

[Mr. Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by tw

As best I can tell (I had to get numbers that were not provided and should have been provided), both examples under ideal conditions are readable up to 10 meters.

Hi.

I'm Clodfobble's husband. For years now, she has participated in lively conversations with many people on the Cellar. Some of these interested me greatly, but for years now, I have never once posted, nor even really read the threads. I want to mention this to provide background and perhaps a little weight to what I'm about to say:

You, sir, are a moron.

My wife's post was was stating that TX Tag was an RFID device, which you dismissed because you were not personally familiar with TX Tag, but instead based your assumptions (a dangerous thing for an engineer), on the older EZ Pass technology. You stated that the reporter must be a "technically naive reporter", when in fact you were the technically naive one. A simple google search for TX Tag gave the Wikipedia article which validated the manufacturer as Transcore's eGo product. A quick click there gave the frequencies for these devices. You want to complain about the ranges? Fine. Go ahead. But I might note that the TX Tag is a passive 900Mhz RFID system, currently in use. I'm willing to bet that the engineers that tested the system are happy that the tags are responsive within a range acceptable for operation on the tollways (which are certainly greater than 3 meters, but probably less than 10). But then again, no one was asking about that.

It's OK to be wrong. Sure, it hurts your street cred a little, and all the younger engineers start eyeing you like they're going to challenge you for dominance in the RF engineering pack, but it's much less painful then continually driving the wrong point home over and over again.

So ends my first (and probably last) Cellar post.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clodfobble

So ends my first (and probably last) Cellar post.

Welcome to the Cellar Mr. Clodfobble.
Thanks for the input. I could see why you would be reluctant to post here, or anywhere she knows about. She's a very smart chick and if you flub, she'd cut you to ribbons. That could be bad, when you just can't hit the close button to escape.
That said, your post didn't sound like one prone to flubs, so please resist the temptation to protect your genitals and stick around. Please.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clodfobble

You want to complain about the ranges? Fine. Go ahead. But I might note that the TX Tag is a passive 900Mhz RFID system, currently in use.

'We again have proof that Saddam had WMDs.'

If that product does exist as an RFID for monitoring cars through toll booths, then Mr Clodfobble could provide numbers or a citation. Currently we only have his emotionally laced insistence that it is true. And that is the credibility lesson from a lying president. One whose knowledge comes only from ‘I feel I know’ need not provide credible sources. Where are those facts and numbers? Why so much emotion when simple citations could have answered the question?

When numbers suggest it does not exist, does Mr Clodfobble provide numbers and citations - or get emotional?

I did his work. Some new RFID electronic tolls booths in the UHF range work reliable if the vehicle stays under 20 MPH. RFID was not the point. Mr Clodfobble made claims without providing one reason to believe him. That should never happen now that we all learned why a mental midget president could lie same way about WMDs .

Clodfobble finally provided a citation only after being pushed. Numbers in her citation said RFID still is not sufficient for tolls booths. She did not do the required work - cite those numbers. I had to find numbers from her citation. Clodfobble was called on making claims she could not even confirm with underlying facts or a grasp of the simple technology. Her proof was same that a president used to prove Saddam was importing yellow cake from Niger.

Get those simple facts was not difficult. RFID for electronic toll collection is a recent achievement that requires a vehicle to pass through slowly. That information was available at responsible sources such as RFID Times Magazine. Only required was something to make Clodfobble's post credible. So why so much silly emotion?

Amazing how many still want to believe the first thing they are told rather than demand confirmation - the numbers. Amazing how many get childish emotional when they don't provide necessary citations.

"Mission Accomplished taught everyone this: "I know only because I 'know' means I know nothing". Attached emotion only implies a credibility problem. Basic facts were so easily avaiable. Why instead so much childish emotion?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

I was wrong

C'mon tw, you can do it... be a man.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

C'mon tw, you can do it... be a man.

Did you know I am a woman? Wait. Mr tw will reply with anger. It is what he does best.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

Did you know I am a woman? Wait. Mr tw will reply with anger. It is what he does best.

Oh I get it now - the "tw"o of you share the email and the rest of us never know to whom we're talking. Very nice - I can see clearly now, the rain is gone. Wait a minute - we need proof - cite complete sources and images for confirmation,

[BigV]

Oh no, no, no, no. Please. Please don't make that your last post. Look, I understand the appeal of going out on top, but I urge you to resist that siren call. Please stay. Please post. Don't go.

Honestly, welcome to the cellar, Mr CF. Any friend of CF's is a friend of mine. I personally welcome your debut, and your rebuts (if any). Plus, we could use some more brains and wit around here, god knows I'm draggin down the curve.

Ok.

Well, I guess that covers it. Since the cellar is a community property cyber state, I think you can claim the spousal exemption to the test. Oh, and that was a great opening post. See ya round the rodeo.

[steambender]

TW was correct for the class of tags called passive, and that includes the mobile speedpass readers you can put in your car. Those use an antenna positioned above the gas pump to imterrogate the widget you're supposed to mount in a window. The NY/NJ/PA EZpass tags are active...they have a battery and transmit when asked to...gives them a lot more range. I'm pretty sure the Mobile speedpass car gizmos are passive. I use the keyfob one, and used to have a NYS EZpass. and I design stuff like this for a living.

In theory, you could get an RFID tag to work from many miles (think military radar which identifies targets from a long distance away solely on interpreting echoes, even when the object in question doesn't want to be identified.) The issue is only one of economics: power, range, number crunching, safety.

I have credit cards that are chipped, my company badge is an RFID tag, my cellphone reports GPS position to E911, and a 802.11 LAN can do geolocation if you program it appropriately.

remember that the only time time your cellphone or laptop is "off" is when you remove the battery..all other times they are exploitable by malicious code

[steambender]

I forgot...frequency selection is also economics and physics, there are no unique or optimum RFID frequencies until you start placing operating constraints on the system.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by steambender

I forgot...frequency selection is also economics and physics, there are no unique or optimum RFID frequencies until you start placing operating constraints on the system.

Which was the point from the start. It is only a matter of time until the physics can be exploited to increase the range and power of the signal. In fact, it would not surprise me at all if it is not already been done.