Human Chips

[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.