|
|
|
|
|
|
by pharkmillups
4376 days ago
|
|
|
Hey Amscanne - There are two things we're trying to convey here (but rest-assured we're not trying to be misleading): 1. We can support a lot of connections. I mean a lot. This is based on our design, but truly limited by the receiving radio. 2. 50 square miles is optimal conditions. It's hard to quantify how bridges and radio enabled devices will work in populated metropolitan areas. These numbers are solely based on field testing, not in metro areas. |
|
|
That said, the technology page is not very clear.
The wording doesn't currently indicate this is idealized or limit conditions. Because you say it covers tens of thousands of devices over such a large area, I assumed this would be expected (like a cell tower). Your description actually fits very closely with a cell network. Why would a device that covers only my home need to support connections with tens of thousands of devices? Would it cover me and all my co-workers at the office 1 mile away (well within it's 4 mile range)? Or would I be expected to have a bridge at home and in the office? Is it like a Femtocell in a mall or like the ZigBee bridge sitting in my living room?
Given that picture, I'm genuinely curious about the capabilities. Immediately below that paragraph are bars that show a 700+ day battery life and a transmission power of 0.025mA. Are these for a totally different use case? If so, I'm confused. If not, it's amazing and I'm very exited. How is a transmission power of 0.025mA @ 915MHZ possible at a range of 4 miles? I would have assumed 1000x that (at least) would be necessary on unlicensed ZigBee spectrum. Similarly power would need to be amped up on the receive side,... meaning receive windows would be costly.