Tony Havelka wrote: > > > Why Compact FLASH for 802.11b? > > ------------------------------ > > Because 802.11b is not a good solution for any portable > > device period. This leaves options like putting in a GSM > > radio for certain applications, or BlueTooth or ZigBee, which > > make a lot more sense for the real world. 802.11b is such a > > power hog, the only portables with big enough batteries are > > lap-tops, and even then it won't last a single shift > > (8-hours) on one charge. For real-world applications, > > carrying a Sears Die-Hard car battery along isn't acceptable! > > I agree, the CF form factor is becoming more widely supported. You can get > almost anything on a CF card now. > > -Tony 2 QUESTIONS =========== #1 Has anyone seen any 900 MHz low-power radios in a Compact FLASH config? #2 Would anyone be interested in a 900 MHz low-power radio in a Compact FLASH configuration with idle power around 1mA And TX power <10% of the best WiFi units (~17mA), and a range up to at least 1 km with a decent antennae? Anticipated price <<$100- Brian -- Subscription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject of "subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" toWear-Hard Mailing List Archive (searchable): http://wearables.blu.org Please, *PLEASE* don't subscribe through a forward/expander/false domain
From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail