With the freezing of the NB-IoT core protocol in mid-June, the low-power wide-area network (LPWAN) further unveiled its mystery. Although NB-IoT has not yet started commercial use, it can be seen from the support of the entire industry that both industry and capital are accumulating strength. The commercial process of LPWAN is still under investigation, but previous forecasts for this industry have been verified to some extent. In the past, the Internet of Things think tank and the national low-power wide-area network industry alliance continue to collect the latest views in this field at home and abroad for industry reference and discussion. As a “heterogeneous†in the LPWAN space, Ingenu has been publishing a sharp view in the industry. Today we will recommend an article from the Ingenu CTO a few months ago to see what views have been verified in this article and which ideas are still being explored. Existing unlicensed spectrum LPWAN technology In the field of low-power wide-area networks, many companies have introduced competitive connectivity solutions. There are two technologies that are more concerned than other methods in the market, namely Sigfox and Lora. From a technical point of view - technologies other than Sigfox/Lora are similar or inferior - so we only focus on Sigfox and Lora. Based on the thinking of the basic principles of these technologies, we believe that Sigfox, Lora or any other ultra-narrowband (UNB) approach will be eliminated from the use of public networks. Although Lora and UNB may still have momentum in private network applications, we can use basic principles to prove that the capacity of these methods is not applicable to public networks, and we have already quantified these methods. Just as it is impossible to build a cellular network outside of wireless telephony, it is equally unreliable to build a wide-area IoT network using technology that is superior to the garage door remote control switch (Sigfox/Lora). In addition, based on the fundamental lack of support for scalable multiple access schemes and limited available spectrum, once the network capacity is exhausted, no matter how much additional infrastructure can't solve the problem. The technology will encounter a catastrophic dilemma and the entire system will not work stably. Several traditional operators are evaluating some of these approaches. This is very commendable, which also shows that they understand that a better way of serving billions of devices should always be considered. Many operators are aware of billions of devices plus the resulting data values, and their processing schemes may not be "off-the-shelf" traditional cells that impose excessive burdens on IoT devices. However, given the ability of these operators to evaluate wireless technologies, we believe they will conclude that Sigfox/Lora methods are not scalable. Due to the very low monthly communication costs required for IoT devices, network operators using Sigfox or Lora will lose money even if their communication base stations are running at full capacity. The demand for traditional cellular alternatives seems to have left many smart people with hopes of suspicion and optimism. However, based on our analysis, we firmly believe that if the Internet of Things chooses those options, then the ecosystem of the Internet of Things will suffer negatively. These networks fail because of the difference in revenue from traditional cellular. No matter how you define the Internet of Things, this is unacceptable. Existing cellular network problems Of course, the existing traditional cellular still has its use, and there is a lot of existing coverage. This is certainly not a new technology, and cellular coverage has been around for decades. In terms of the relevance of traditional cellular, there are two types of IoT devices: IoT devices that are traditionally barely serviced by the Internet and IoT devices that are not served. This is not surprising, as revenue is primarily comprised of voice and data revenue. The specific reasons for the poor service used by a few IoT devices are as follows: • Heavy certification burden. The certification fee is generally $50-100k per carrier. • High cost. Module cost and monthly cost (MRC) are too expensive for most low-power, wide-coverage applications, and the cheapest LTE module is currently priced at $40. • Short battery life. Many of these devices must be used continuously for more than 20 years without replacing the battery, and the cells have never been optimized for this battery life. • “Sunsetâ€. The sunset of the spectrum (such as the disappearing 2G) is always possible, and the sunset will destroy the return on investment (ROI) of the connection. Do we need new cellular network coverage? At present, the Cellular Standards Organization (3GPP) is working hard to develop a family of low-power and wide coverage standards, and the target device is an Internet of Things device without traditional cellular services. They inexplicably believe that immediate failures will lead to future success: starting with poor service for relatively few devices and good services for billions of IoT devices they have never served. Some press releases incorrectly claim that these networks are coming, but the fact is that the standards have not yet been drafted. We are not surprised that early indications suggest that the proposed cellular low-power wide coverage approach is moving in the wrong direction: • Standards are constantly emerging. The Cellular Standards Agency is investing more than 150 people to write low-power, wide-coverage standards. Several standards will emerge one after another – six months apart: LTE-M, EC-GSM, NB-LTE, and then the 5G IoT will begin in the first quarter of 2016. This is crazy: the release of the press release is based on standards that do not yet exist and is still at the earliest stage of research. Which one or which will the IoT ecosystem support? What is really certain is that the risk of sunsetization of equipment that needs to be used for 5, 10 or even 20 years should have been reduced, but it is increasing. • Complexity. The LPWAN standard and the operators that adopt it will face a lengthy and expensive certification process that is more complicated than the 2G equipment's cumbersome certification process, the need to introduce new spectrum support, and the application and module vendors to place bets and bet on the technical terminology that emerges one after another. Which one has more opportunities to be supported by operators (perhaps divination) after more than 20 years. • Priority. For operators, LPWAN technologies such as LTE-M/NB-LTE cannot affect the benefits of previous voice and data services. For IoT devices, this means that the network can be suspended for any time it is handed over to voice/data users - the standard agency ridicules it called QOS. The fact is that operators have clearly stated to the 3GPP standards body from the outset that low-power wide-coverage technologies such as LTE-M and NB-LTE must have configurations that can change the low-power wide coverage spectrum to meet voice/data requirements when needed. . • LTE is a poor choice for the Internet of Things. The development of LTE seems to be the path chosen by low-power wide coverage cellular, although LTE was not created for this purpose. Although many of the above opinions are harsh, but when we try our best to pursue LPWAN, should we calm down and think about the logic?
Introduction
SCOTECH manufactures a full
range of amorphous metal transformers, the core is made of amorphous metal with
thickness 0.025mm which result in lower eddy current losses than CRGO core
transformer, the core loss is around 70-80% of the regular CRGO core
transformer, they are low loss energy saving transformers and environment friendly.
Scope of supply
Primary
voltage up to 35KV
Rated
power: up to 5MVA
Standards
SCOTECH`s
amorphous metal transformers are designed and manufactured in accordance with
all major international standards (IEC, ANSI, UL, etc.)
Why SCOTECH
Long
history- Focus on transformer manufacturing since 1934.
Technical
support – 134 engineers stand by for you 24/7.
Manufacturing-advanced
production and testing equipment, strict QA system.
Perfect
service-The complete customer service package (from quotation to energization).
Amorphous Transformer,Amorphous Core Transformer,Amorphous Alloy Transformer,Amorphous Metal Transformer Jiangshan Scotech Electrical Co.,Ltd , https://www.scotech.com
