All posts tagged: iot

Wearable computing – the use of personal computers, displays and sensors worn on one’s person – gives us the potential for advancement in human-computer interaction compared to traditional personal computing – for example the ability to have constant access and interaction with a computer – and the Internet, whilst going about our daily activities.

This could be considered the ultimate in multitasking – the use of your computing device at any time without interrupting your other activities. For example, the ability to read an email or retrieve required information while walking or working on other tasks. Wearable computing potentially offers much greater consistency in human-computer interaction – constant access to the computer, constant connectivity, without a computing device being used in an on-and-off fashion in between other activities.

Once contemporary example of this is the new Google Glass, which represents an advanced, sleek, beautifully designed head-mounted wearable computer with a display suitable for augmented-reality applications – or just as an “ordinary” personal head-mounted display. Even before its public release, the frenzy surrounding Google Glass amongst technology enthusiasts demonstrates the potential level of market demand for wearable computers.

However, with a price of at least US$1500 price tag of Google Glass, (at least for its “Explorer Edition” beta version) this leads many to consider what potential might exist for the deployment of wearable computing and wearable sensor-network technologies – however at a lower cost.

One example is the category known as “Smart Watches” such as the Sony SmartWatch and Pebble Technology’s “Pebble” e-Paper watch – which both offer constant, on-the-go access to information from the Internet – and thus become a member of the Internet of Things – at a glance of the wrist. Text messages and email notifications are amongst the most simple, common examples of data that can be pushed to a smart watch, but the display of information from a multitude of other Internet-connected data streams is possible.

With the growing popularity and increasing hardware capabilities of smart phones, it is increasingly taken for granted that a smart phone carried on one’s person can act as a gateway between the Internet (connected via the cellular networks) and other smaller, lower-power wearable computer or sensor devices worn on the body and connected back to the smartphone via standard data links such as WiFi or Bluetooth. In using the smart phone as an Internet connection, the size, price and weight of the wearable device can be significantly reduced – which also leads to a considerable reduction in cost.

Furthermore, apart from providing mobile Internet connectivity, the smart phone can also provide a large display and an amount of storage capacity – which can be harnessed for the logging, visualisation and display of data collected from a network-connected sensor node wearable on one’s body, or a whole network of such sensor nodes distributed around different personal electronic devices carried on the person and different types of physical sensors around the body.

The increasing penetration of smart phones in the market and the increasing availability and decreasing cost of wireless radio-networked microcontroller system-on-chips, MEMS
sensors and energy efficient short-range wireless connectivity technologies such as Bluetooth 4.0 are among some of the factors responsible for increasing the capabilities of,
and decreasing the cost of, wearable computing and wearable Internet-of-Things and sensor platforms.

Speed and position loggers, GPS data loggers and smart pedometers intended for logging and monitoring athletic performance, such as the Internet-connected, GPS-enabled,
Nike+ system; along with biomedical instrumentation and sensor devices such as Polar’s Bluetooth-connected heart rate sensors are other prominent examples of wearable Internet-of-Things devices which are attracting increasing consumer interest on the market today.

Combined with display devices such as smart watches, smart phones and head-mounted displays such as Google Glass. these kinds of wearable sensors create a complete wearable machine-to-machine Internet-of-Things network that can be self-contained on one’s person. Which leads us to the next level of possibilities – what do your customers want a device to do? And how can it be accomplished? And do you have the resources or expertise to design, test and bring such a system to the market?

It isn’t easy – there’s a lot of technology to work with – however it can be done with the right technology parter. Here at the LX Group we have the experience and team to make things happen. With our experience with sensors, embedded and wireless hardware/software design, and ability to transfer ideas from the whiteboard to the white box – we can partner with you for your success.

We can create or tailor just about anything from a wireless temperature sensor to a complete Internet-enabled system for you – within your required time-frame and your budget. For more information or a confidential discussion about your ideas and how we can help bring them to life – click here to contact us, or telephone 1800 810 124.

Published by LX Pty Ltd for itself and the LX Group of companies, including LX Design House, LX Solutions and LX Consulting, LX Innovations.

Although we have recently been focusing on the systems and hardware that can be used in various Internet-of-things applications, there’s much more to learn and understand. One particular aspect is the way in which devices send and receive data between themselves and servers – and an example of that is MQTT.

Message Queue Telemetry Transport, or MQTT, is an open protocol for machine-to-machine (M2M) communications that enables the transfer of telemetry-style data in the form of messages from a network of distributed devices to and from a small message “broker” server – whilst maintaining usefulness over high-latency, expensive or bandwidth-constrained networks. This publish/subscribe messaging transport protocol is designed to overcome the challenges of connecting the rapidly expanding physical world of sensors and actuators as well as personal computers and mobile devices.

The origin of MQTT goes back to the late 1990s, where co-inventor Andy Stanford-Clark of IBM became immersed in M2M communication whilst working with industry partners to mine sensor data from offshore oil platforms, to inform better preventative and predictive maintenance. One of those industry partners was Arlen Nipper of Arcom, an expert in embedded systems for oilfield equipment. Together, Stanford-Clark and Nipper wrote the initial version of MQTT in 1998, and their open-source messaging software has continued to be improved over the following years.

Until recently, one of the challenges limiting widespread development of IoT technologies has been the lack of a clearly accepted open standard for message communication with embedded systems. Today, however, MQTT looks set to play an increasingly significant role in facilitating the Internet-of-Things. In much the same way that the HTTP standard paved the way for the widespread adoption of the World Wide Web as a tool for the sharing of people-to-people information on the Internet, MQTT could set the stage for the machine-to-machine equivalent of the WWW.

MQTT is particularly well matched with networks of small, distributed, lightweight, and pervasive devices – not just mobile phones and personal computers, but embedded computers, sensors and actuators – which can make up the “Internet of Things”. The MQTT protocol specification enables a publish/subscribe messaging model in a very lightweight way, useful for connections with remote devices where a small code footprint is required – low-cost 8-bit micro controllers, for example – and/or where network bandwidth is at a premium.

There is also another standard for sensors – MQTT-S, for which this specification is aimed at embedded devices on non-TCP/IP networks, such as ZigBee/802.15.4 wireless sensor mesh networks. MQTT-S is an extension of the MQTT protocol aimed at wireless sensor networks, extending the MQTT protocol beyond TCP/IP infrastructures for non-TCP/IP sensor and actuator networks. Furthermore, MQTT is already widely supported by servers and brokers including IoT implementations such as cosm, Thingspeak, nimbits, and more.

MQTT is already used in a wide variety of embedded systems. An example documented by IBM demonstrates a pacemaker that communicates via RF telemetry to an MQTT device in the home of a patient – allowing nightly data uploads to the hospital for analysis. This allows recovering patients to leave hospital earlier to recover at home whilst still being monitored by medical professionals. Or if an unexpected event occurs, the system can immediately alert the hospital and emergency services without any patient interaction.

Furthermore IBM has recently announced its’ new “MessageSight appliance”, designed to handle heavy-duty real-time sharing of large amounts of data between sensors and devices and using the MQTT protocol to do so. Finally, IBM and Eurotech have bought MQTT to the open standards process of OASIS – the Organisation for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards. OASIS is a non-profit international consortium that drives the development, convergence and adoption of open standards for the global information society.

The OASIS standardisation process started in March 2013, with the goal of establishing MQTT as an open, simple and lightweight standard protocol for M2M telemetry data communication. The newly established OASIS MQTT Technical Committee is producing a standard for the MQTT Protocol – together with requirements for enhancements, documented usage examples, best practices, and guidance for use of MQTT topics with commonly available registry and discovery mechanisms.

Although MQTT does seem to be championed by IBM, the OASIS recently called for industry representatives earlier this year to sponsor the formation of its MQTT Technical Committee, and was answered by Cisco, the Eclipse Foundation, Eurotech, IBM, Machine-To-Machine Intelligence, Red Hat, Software AG and TIBCO. The group will take the MQTT 3.1 specification, donated to the committee by IBM and Eurotech where it was originally developed, and work to standardise and promote its adoption it as an open standard.

In defining MQTT standards and making them open for all, this allows its’ use and will hopefully guarantee a future standard allowing interaction with devices from all suppliers and manufacturers who choose to work with it. It’s a standard that holds a lot of promise for the future of an efficient and affordable Internet-of-things.

At the LX Group we have a wealth of experience and expertise in the IoT field, and can work with the MQTT standard, hardware and software to solve your problems. Our goal is to find and implement the best system for our customers, and this is where the LX Group can partner with you for your success.

Published by LX Pty Ltd for itself and the LX Group of companies, including LX Design House, LX Solutions and LX Consulting, LX Innovations.

Continuing from our article last week which examined the Twine wireless sensor blocks, we now move forward and explore another recent addition to the Internet-of-Things marketplace in more detail – the “Electric Imp”. Although the name sounds somewhat toy-like, the system itself is quite the opposite. It’s a unified hardware, software and connectivity solution that’s easy to implement and quite powerful. It offers your devices WiFi connectivity and an incredibly simple development and end-user experience.

That’s a big call, however the system comprises of a relatively simple hardware solution and software development environment that has a low financial and learning entry level yet is quite customisable. Like other systems it comprises of a hardware and software component, so let’s examine those in more detail.

Hardware – Unlike other IoT systems such as Twine or cosm, the Electric Imp has a very well-defined and customisable hardware structure that is both affordable and incredibly compact. Almost all of the hardware is in a package the size of an SD memory card, and the only external parts required are a matching SD socket to physically contain and connect with the Imp card with your project, and supporting circuitry for an Atmel ATSHA204 authentication chip which enables Imp cards to identify themselves as unique unitsin the system.

Connection to the cloud service is via a secure 802.11b/g/n WiFi network and supports WEP, WPA and WPA2 encryption, however due to the size of the Imp there isn’t an option for a wired connection. The external support schematic is made available by the Imp team so you can easily implement it into almost any prototype or existing product. But how?

Imagine a tiny development board with GPIO pins, an SPI and I2C-bus, a serial UART, and a 16-bit ADC inside your project that is controlled via WiFi – this is what the Imp offers. It’s quite exciting to imagine the possibilities that can be introduced to existing projects with this level of control and connectivity. From remote control to data gathering, system monitoring to advanced remote messaging systems – it’s all possible. Furthermore, due to the possibility of completely internal embedding of the Imp system inside your product, system reliability can be improved greatly as there’s no points of weakness such as network cables, removable parts or secondary enclosures.

Software – As each Imp is uniquely identifiable on the Imp cloud service, you can use more than one in any application. Furthermore, your Imp firmware is created and transmitted to each Imp card online – which allows remote firmware updates as long as the Imp has a network connection; and a cloud-based IDE to allow collaboration and removes the need for customised programming devices, JTAGs, or local IDE installations. This saves time, money, development costs and offers a more portable support solution.

The firmware is written in a C-like language named “Squirrel”, which is created using the aforementioned online IDE. Once uploaded to the Imp card the firmware can still operate if it loses a network connection – or if a run-time error occurs and a network is available, the details will be sent back to the IDE. This allows developers the ability to remotely debug Imp applications in real-time – saving on-site visits and unwanted client-supplier interactions.

Furthermore, Imps have an inbuilt LED which can be utilised to display status modes if an application fails or other information which can be used to a clients’ benefit, helping them describe possible issues if a network connection isn’t available. There is a detailed language description, a wide range of tutorials and example code to help developers get started – and although some features are still in the beta-stage, the core advertised features are available at the time of writing.

If you’re interested in moving forward with the Electric Imp, we can guide you through the entire process, from understanding your needs to creating the required hardware interfaces and supplying firmware and support for your particular needs. The up-front hardware cost is much lower than other systems, and with volume pricing the implementation costs can be reduced further.

Our goal is to find and implement the best system for our customers, and this is where the LX Group can partner with you for your success. We can create or tailor just about anything from a wireless temperature sensor to a complete Internet-enabled system for you – within your required time-frame and your budget. For more information or a confidential discussion about your ideas and how we can help bring them to life – click here to contact us, or telephone 1800 810 124.

Published by LX Pty Ltd for itself and the LX Group of companies, including LX Design House, LX Solutions and LX Consulting, LX Innovations.

Moving on from our examination of Hardware design directions for Internet-of-Thing solutions, we now turn to the software portion of the solution. As there was many hardware options to consider, there is also a variety of choices to select from when looking for a service to collect data from and interact with your hardware. Each have their own features, costs and drawbacks – however these factors and more are subject to the goals of your project.

Nevertheless each have their own distinctive features, so let’s examine three existing and experienced market players in more detail. The first is known as “cosm”, however previously called “pachube”. Cosm is flexible in that you can use your own hardware designs or existing hardware from other vendors, and no hardware licensing is required. You can prototype very easily with cosm using inexpensive development platforms such as NXP’s mbed or even an Arduino-compatible board. This allows your hardware team to get started straight away.

However the service is mainly for capturing and organising “feeds” of data from connected devices, and this can be done for zero cost. There are other options that allow device management and provisioning, however they are in beta stage at the moment. Nevertheless the cosm platform is effective and excellent for capturing data from remote devices for analysis and action – and with very low start-up and running costs it’s great for experimenting or proof-of-concept prototypes.

The next service we consider is “Thingspeak”. This is a fully open-source IoT platform that designed for data feeds and interaction with hardware in both directions. You can also import existing data collected before implementation. Although Thingspeak is open-source, it does provide security via API keys and user authentication. Rules can be created that react when data reaches a certain value or parameter – which cause twitter messages, can trigger hardware or other devices via a connected PC.

You can also export all captured data in .csv file format for ease of local analysis or system transfer. Due to the openness of the system, there’s a great variety of tutorials and examples available for Microsoft .NET, Arduino, python, processing and other environments – which will help your team get up to speed. And currently the service is no-charge. With these factors in mind, Thingspeak can provide a simple solution however more direct enquiries with the organisation would need to be made with relation to long-term changes in costings.

Finally we take a look at “Nimbits”. This service provides the usual cloud-based data gathering, analysis and so on – but using the Google Apps. This offers an incredibly reliable server, integration with Google Docs and other related software tools. As with Thingspeak, Nimbits is fully open-source and allows import and export of your own data. Nimbits offers integration with social media such as facebook and twitter.

The service is free for up to 1000 API calls per day, and then one cent per 1000 calls. Therefore you can again try it for free, or at a very low cost. Getting started is simple, with a range of tutorials on data capture, and interaction or messaging based on circumstances. It does require more coding than cosm or Thingspeak, however this isn’t an insurmountable challenge.

The IoT industry is growing, and even as we write this more services are being introduced and demonstrated. It can be difficult to choose which service to use, as they’re all quite young and untested over the long term, so having hardware and plans that can span two or more different services is essential for the longevity and sustainability of your IoT project.

Here at the LX Group we can discuss and understand your requirements and goals – then help you navigate the various hardware and other options available to help solve your problems. We can create or tailor just about anything from a wireless temperature sensor to a complete Internet-enabled system for you. For more information or a confidential discussion about your ideas and how we can help bring them to life – click here to contact us, or telephone 1800 810 124.

LX is an award-winning electronics design company based in Sydney, Australia. LX services include full turnkey design, electronics, hardware, software and firmware design. LX specialises in embedded systems and wireless technologies design. https://lx-group.com.auPublished by LX Pty Ltd for itself and the LX Group of companies, including LX Design House, LX Solutions and LX Consulting, LX Innovations.

When designing hardware to integrate with an Internet-of-Things solution, or an entire solution – it can be easy for the design team to focus on the software, server and control system due to the ease of prototyping and the availability of experienced people. It’s a common philosophy that once the software is “sorted out” – the hardware can be easily designed to work with the system. Thus it can be tempting for organisations who move towards IoT solutions to focus on the software more than the hardware as it may seem at the outset to be more complex and more difficult part of the system.

However hardware design cannot be overlooked or resources in that field minimised. There is much more to consider than just what “the hardware will do” – the consideration of which type of IoT system to work with needs to be executed – and in conjunction with that the choice of which hardware design path to take.

After deciding on which IoT platform to design your hardware for, the choice of hardware design path is crucial to the success of your IoT implementation. Even if you’re developing for internal use, or offering hardware or turnkey systems to customers – the choice of hardware design can play a part in the long-term success or failure of the system.

When we say the “choice of hardware design” it is not the actual type of device (however that can also play a part in success or failure) or design tools used to create something – it is the choice between one of hardware design paths. That is, will you choose proprietary hardware interface designs from an existing supplier; create your own hardware and protect the intellectual property with copyright and possible patent protection; or open-source your design to some degree to allow input and contribution from internal and external customers? There are pros and cons to each method, so let’s examine them in some more detail.

Existing design – This is the easiest option for your design team, as the hardware interface to the required IoT system has been designed, tested and ready for integration into your hardware. To resell your own devices based on an external system can require licence or royalty payments to the system provider, however this will often be returned “in kind” with marketing support, referrals and leads from the system provider. However you’re at the mercy of the success or failure of the host system – which could leave you with outdated and useless hardware that can be at least difficulty to modify or at worst a total write-off.

Internal, protected design – With this option you have access to the required interface design from the IoT system provider that allows you to create your own hardware instead of buying or licensing technology from the provider. It gives you total control over the hardware design – including possible modularity between the IoT interface hardware and the product itself, in case of system failure (as mentioned previously). Furthermore you have complete control of the design, maintain all IP, and can market your designs as an exclusive product that’s compatible with the system. However all design, support and revisions will happen in-house.

Open-source – After a few minutes searching on the Internet it may seem that almost everyone is open-sourcing their designs to allow all and sundry to review, modify, critique and sometimes re-manufacture their products. This method is preferable if you are offering paid access to the server-side infrastructure or you are happy to allow others to create devices that compete with your own hardware to quickly allow customer take-up of your IoT system. Furthermore you can build a community around users of your system, which can reduce the support load and generate good-will. However taking this path in essence abandons revenue from hardware sales and any intellectual property your team have created. Finally, larger customers may see this product as insecure (even if it offers encrypted data transmission) due the openness of the designs.

Published by LX Pty Ltd for itself and the LX Group of companies, including LX Design House, LX Solutions and LX Consulting, LX Innovations.

Moving forward from our last instalment about the recent rise of the Internet of Things, in this article we’ll start to examine some of the major IoT systems that are already on the market in order to help determine which of them may be suitable for integration into your next or current project. At this time this isn’t an exhaustive list – however the three systems examined below each offer a wide variety of functionality which is implemented in different ways.

The first system is the “Electric Imp”. This is a simple yet powerful client hardware and cloud service system with a focus on simple implementation. The hardware consists of a device which is the same physical format as an SD memory card, and a unique identification IC which is fitted to your product. The Electric Imp card contains an industry-standard 802.11b/g/n WiFi transceiver and antenna, and a Cortex-M3 microcontroller with GPIO, I2C and SPI bus support and more.

The physical size of the hardware makes the Imp system relatively simple to integrate into existing and new products, and the hardware cost can be well under Au$30 in volume. To make things happen, software for the Electric Imp is created using an online IDE which is then transmitted to the required Imp via the Internet. This software allows your product to interact with web services, servers, smart phone applications and more. Furthermore the software can be updated and broadcast without any user operations, allowing bug-fixed and new features to be seamlessly rolled out.

However the Electric Imp is still in “developer” mode – considered as a late beta. Nevertheless it offers an inexpensive and theoretically trouble-free option for IoT integration. For more information, visit the Electric Imp website.

The second system is “Ninja Blocks” – developed locally in Australia, and finding global success. The Ninja Block is based around a combination of a BeagleBone Linux computer and a customised Arduino-compatible – and connected to the Internet. The system allows interaction with a cloud service (the “platform”) and variety of customised devices such as temperature and motion sensors, and also allows connection to commercially-available devices such as RF-wireless power outlets and alarm sensors.

Devices communicate with the Ninja Block via RF or USB cable, and the cloud interaction is provided by the cloud-based Ninja Platform. Once new devices are added to the Ninja Block, they are recognised by the cloud-based platform and the end user can create rules which interact with sensors and actuators. Furthermore smartphone applications can be developed for local interactions. Finally, the Ninja Blocks system is designed for the end-user in mind, allowing your customers to either create their own rules for your products – however you can also integrate your own API.

Due to the success of the system it is envisaged that a market for devices to interact with the Ninja Blocks will grow – and thus the opportunity lies in creating new products to interact with the system. Furthermore the system hardware has been open-sourced, allowing much faster and cheaper device design. For more information visit the website.

The final system we examine is the “ioBridge” system. This is the most mature of the three systems examined, and possibly spans the gap between the Electric Imp and Ninja Blocks. Almost any kind of device can be designed to integrate into the ioBridge systems, and as with the other two work with cloud-based servers/services and local mobile applications.

One benefit of the ioBridge service is the established development environment and the ioBridge company can create bespoke web applications for your product that integrates their hardware. However as it was before the “rush of Open Source” the ioBridge system is closed-source and licensing is required to create devices to work with it. If you’re looking for an IoT system this may not be the most cost-effective hardware solution, unless your product is designed specifically for customers already entrenched in the ioBridge ecosystem. For more information visit their website.

Although the Internet of Things may sound simple, and the goal is to be for the end user – as product developers there is much to take into account. The market hasn’t even come near the point of maturity – however all the options available are exciting and have great possibilities for automation, connectivity and making customers’ lives easier. Just as the manufacturers of video recorder units had competing standards in the 1980s, so do the IoT systems of today. It is too early to decide the winner, however each system has its’ pros and cons for each of your applications.

Here at the LX Group we can discuss and understand your requirements and goals – then help you navigate the various IoT options available to help solve your problems. We can tailor anything from a modified sensor to a complete Internet-enabled system for you. For more information or a confidential discussion about your ideas and how we can help bring them to life – click here to contact us, or telephone 1800 810 124.

Published by LX Pty Ltd for itself and the LX Group of companies, including LX Design House, LX Solutions and LX Consulting, LX Innovations.