Talk:Bluetooth Low Energy

Untitled

Again this stupid challenging the style of reporting and writing. Yes, it might be biased to read about news and novelties, as market did not prove survivability. But Darwin did not report that criticaster have a longer standing in evolution. Look, an encyclopedia is not a museum. Hence it is highly appreciated, when 1. state of the art 2. moves in the world e.g. of technologies 3. specifics of a novelty are reported in the context of an encyclopedic article. May flash stroke all those Wikipedia policemen who like to complain about style deficiencies and being at the very same time obviously unable and unwilling to contribute to improvement. Keep your ugly minds out (not all reporting is advertisement) and your lazy hands off (only improving is helpful). Wireless friend (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific? Which edits and/or editors are you complaining about? I don't understand what you're getting at. --Imroy (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Specifically: Such editors placing the just the comment tags do not contribute to contents, but apparently just pollute the pages.Wireless friend (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Complaints and no contribution?

Thanks to the authors for the wide span of contents. And shame to the interested parties that complain and do not contribute. Two months passed and no contribution recognized. Do it better or keep hands off. Tags deleted. Wireless friend (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

They will never contribute. They call themselves "wikignomes." Check out their cutesy little wikipedia page. They take pride in editing for form without knowing anything about the content. Unfortunately many of them massively misinterpret the very rules they're trying to enforce so their net effect is to litter the pages they visit with useless little piles of gnome shit. Wikipedia apparently has no mechanism to police them.

Freedom of information act

I took the freedom to remove the "too technical" complaint tag. Who on Earth is afraid of reading specification data? I am so happy to read more than the ordinary "more or less" statements with reference to Charles Darwin or Carl Linnaeus. Wonderful Wireless friend (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Total time to send data

That line on the table doesn't mean much without defn. I *think* it means best time to connect, send one byte, and disconnect again William M. Connolley (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Market Demand

Might I suggest this section be reworded? It's quite hard to follow at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.100.24 (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the material was obviously written by non-native english speakers --- my guess is they are east Europeans or Russians. The rambling, disconnected sentence structures suggest Russians (Putin's speeches, translated to English, are almost unintelligible and completely unbearable. Rooskies like to use long phrases as adjectives --- very annoying). I could go through this article and fix it but I have better things to do and even when fixed the page will still suck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.186.204 (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Range of BLE?

The top of the article and the first table talks about BLE having a range of 50 m, while the second table talks about it having 200 m. Which one would be correct? A scan of the specifications from bluetooth.org doesn't give any straight answers (not that it should, given the multitude of factors that affects range of wireless signals), but I'd be inclined to believe it to be 50 m more than 200 m, since it is 'Low Energy' (Classic Bluetooth being 100 m for Class 1, as a comparison). I'll change the 200 m to 50 m for now, to reduce confusion. If there are references to the contrary, please revert and update! SiriusExcelsior (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidently you already know that if we don't define the statistics assumed for propagation attenuation, co-channel interference, etc., etc., then 50 m = 200 m. It's just commercial puffery and I kind of like keeping both figures --- it shows they're both bullshit, whoops I mean guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.186.204 (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for that. I'm not aware of any clear comparisons. Note that BLE has 2 MHz wide channels and a wider frequency deviation, so a greater range than BT is entirely likely. "Low Energy" doesn't refer to the radiative power of the device at all - perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere - and the difficulty of conveying what was actually meant - that it would use less battery power - is responsible for some of the renames William M. Connolley (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have tested BLE112 devices with an iPhone 4S and reliably get about 100M through walls, so would expect 200M in free air. --Phooto (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

mA is not a unit of power

I noticed that the table gives power in units of mA (milliamperes), which of course can't be correct. I suspect the writer meant mW (milliwatts), though if that's the case, then it's not clear where s/he got the "15" figure or "power consumption" as the row heading, as the Bluetooth spec document only specifies output power (measured at the antenna terminal), and gives it as .01 to 10 mW (-20 to +10 dBm).

I'd like to update the table, but the row also contains information about NFC, which is based on ISO standards to whose documents I don't have access unless I purchase them (and they're expensive). I'll leave it to someone who already has that information to make the needed changes.

Marktomory (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I too was unable to repair the table. So I deleted that row. Actual power during transmit will vary, anyway, and isn't terribly interesting. There is a sort-of implicit conversion of mA into power, since you tend to know the voltage you're running off, but that isn't very helpful either William M. Connolley (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It currently says "1 is the reference". This is absolutely meaningless without units or anything else. It might be more useful (or at least interesting) to include an energy-per-bit measurement when that data becomes available. Really anything besides a unitless number, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.84.245.129 (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Wibree

An editor claimed on a Bluetooth edit summary that wibree as a name is obsolete. If so, it might be good for it to be noted here. But... do we actually need a separate article? In any event, I removed the wibree link from the Bluetooth page, as it linked directly to the BLE article. Shajure (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Another editor said in an edit summary Please actually read before reverting. Perhaps that editor might consider apologising before we take the discussion any further William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Bluetooth Low Energy renamed to Bluetooth SMART

From several newsletters, e.g. from rutronik.com I get the impression, that Bluetooth Low Energy was renamed to Bluetooth SMART? Is this correct? Should the article be renamed from Bluetooth low energy to Bluetooth SMART? Addtional info e.g. [1] Michilans (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is more a matter of rebranding than renaming, though I'm not sure. The core spec edition 4.0 explicitly calls it Bluetooth Low Energy, so I think that remains its "real" name William M. Connolley (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It's only some additionally (silly) marketing name for single mode BLE devices.--62.159.30.170 (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Bluetooth SMART Ready : replaces Bluetooth 4.0, Bluetooth SMART replaces Bluetooth Low Energy. Call it silly, but that's what the Bluetooth SIG have done. https://www.bluetooth.org/Marketing/SmartMarks/overview.htm Phooto (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to the following page on the Bluetooth website: http://www.bluetooth.com/Pages/low-energy.aspx. It would seem that they refer to the technology as "Bluetooth low energy technology", and the devices which use the technology as "Bluetooth Smart Devices", and "Bluetooth Smart Ready Devices". I paid particular attention to the capitalisation of the above quotes. I think it rests, then, that the article name remains "Bluetooth low energy", or perhaps "Bluetooth low energy technology", if anyone thinks that's better. Nitwon (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Samsung Galaxy S2

The referenced link to Samsung Galaxy S2 specifications lists Bluetooth 3.0+HS, while I believe Bluetooth Low Energy is a part of Bluetooth 4.0? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.136.66 (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think the S3 is the first Samsung phone to support BT SMART. Phooto (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thing is that I currently have a DevKit on my desk from NordicSemi. The nRF51822 which is BLE single mode. There are Apps out there for Android and iOS. I found that it works on IPhone 4S (stated as BT Smart Ready) and above (iOS5 and iOS6). And the problem with Andoid and BLE is known. Somehow it works with the Samsung GS3. It seems that Samsung implemented some sort of API which allows the app of NordicSemiconductor (called nRF Utility) actually to work on the Galaxy SIII. If anyone of you are interested in it, search the app in the Google Play store. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.112.126.34 (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

GATT Profiles

Seeing as these are core to BT SMART operation, should there be a section about GATT here? Phooto (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Downloading software updates

I found this section very confusing, hard to even discern the author's intent. Don't want to edit it without understanding though, can anyone chime in? Teslacuted (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Its so garbled that its hard to know what its saying. Here it is:

Presuming the availability of the low energy enabled chip and low energy protocol stack on the target device, the respective applications with existing and deployed devices may be opened to Bluetooth low energy technology by updates. This will enable the Bluetooth software defined radio to receive signals from Bluetooth low energy devices. However, the capability to communicate in duplex mode is limited with the defined frequency allocation schemes for Classic Bluetooth technology. The common appliances such as mobile phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs) and personal computers (PCs) may then receive as host devices for complex applications the signals transmitted from Bluetooth low energy devices. Bluetooth low energy technology hence may extend any personal area network according to the intentions with IEEE 802.15 (WPAN) to network personally carried simple devices with other appliances for complex local applications as well as for gateway support to transfer information to other networked entities.

It might be trying to say that if you update your host stack, in principle you could also DFU your BlueTooth chip to do BLE, if your chip supports DFU. In practice, this is unrealistic. Its also got no refs, so probably better removed William M. Connolley (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

BLE can't reuse existing chips though, only 'dual mode' chips can decode the signals, meaning there's little a firmware update can do. This is a common misconception (blame the SIG), if the rest of the paragraph is based on that then should we leave it out? I'm a wiki-novice so I don't know procedure. Teslacuted (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Other examples of compatible devices

I think this should be trimmed / deleted William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - it wouldn't make any sense for any other LPRF protocol. Teslacuted (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The list would be tedious to impossible to keep accurate. It should be removed, or eliminate constantly changing categories like mobile phones. TheMaestro73 (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

In need of a makeover?

This page seems a bit rambling, and says the same thing in different ways e.g. there are two slightly contradictory comparison tables. What the hell does "unilateral estimation serves for good discrimination of cohesion in operational context" mean, anyway?

I propose to take an axe to this page, and extract the useful content into the following sections:

• Positioning
  • Comparison with Classic Bluetooth
  • Comparison with other technologies
  • Typical Applications
• History and branding
• Implementation
  • Chipsets
  • Consumer devices
• Technical details

Please comment here if you're have a particular attachment to the current layout of the page. I'll hold off if you make your objections clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IanHarvey (talk • contribs) 11:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This has now been started. I've had a big shuffle of the existing content, although I haven't modified or deleted any of the text. Each section (particularly 'Positioning' and 'Applications') now needs individual attention. IanHarvey (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Implementation section

I've just taken a big axe to this section as threatened, hope you like it.

Anyway, my thoughts are:

• This mustn't turn into a series of advertisements, or attempt to be a comprehensive directory of a particular type of product - that way lies madness.
• However, a few example of each type of device are quite useful, as it gives the reader a sense of what actual companies are doing with the technology.
• I have tried to check that each of the devices listed actually mention LE compatibility, or at the very least "4.0". Some of the existing references didn't convince me so were removed.

IanHarvey (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Other deletions

I've deleted 'Operational Advantage', 'Keeping Pace' and 'Standardisation', as I felt they didn't say anything meaningful:

• BLE is a simple star network topology, so the many links to different network types in 'Operational Advantage' were, IMO, misleading.
• Some of the text suggested this was in some way based on or related to IEEEE 802.15 standards: this is not my understanding. I'm willing to be corrected here, but you'll need to provide references.

I'm also confused by the current 'comparison with NFC', as the two technologies are wildly different. For instance, there doesn't appear to be (e.g. on the GATT profiles page) any LE profile which addresses NFC-type applications such as mass transport, stored-value cards, or entry badges. Somebody convince me otherwise, please?

IanHarvey (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Status on Android

Is it worthwhile to list all manufacturers sdks? HTC also has had support for BLE for some time. I am generalizing the Samsung reference to include multiple manufacturersTheMaestro73 (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

So, it looks like Samsung are dropping their own BLE SDK in favour of Google's in Android 4.3 and later. I heard about this by email from Samsung; there's also a small note in the middle of http://developer.samsung.com/ble next to 'Migration Guide'. I'm not sure what HTC are doing. IanHarvey (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Security

I removed the section on security because the only provided source looked of questionable reliability, though it's an important topic to address that the article would do well to have. Does anyone have any corroborating information to add? Samyulg (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Bluetooth LE not using DSSS?

Under Radio interface it is mentioned, that BLE uses DSSS instead of FHSS. Is that really correct? The mentioned source of this information is outdated I think (it is from 2011).

In the latest specification V 4.2 on page 16 to 20 (chapter 1.2 OVERVIEW OF BLUETOOTH LOW ENERGY OPERATION) you can find: Like the BR/EDR radio, the LE radio operates in the unlicensed 2.4 GHz ISM band. The LE system employs a frequency hopping transceiver to combat interference and fading and provides many FHSS carriers. LE radio operation uses a shaped, binary frequency modulation to minimize transceiver complexity. The symbol rate is 1 megasymbol per second (Ms/s) supporting the bit rate of 1 megabit per second (Mb/s).

Further you cannot find anything about DSSS in the latest specification for BLE (only for AMP). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sla1580 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

A reasonable question. See https://www.bluetooth.org/docman/handlers/downloaddoc.ashx?doc_id=237781 section 5.2:

5.2.1 FCC: FCC classifies Bluetooth BR/EDR as a FHSS system; however, Bluetooth LE does not fulfill these requirements[2]. Instead, FCC classifies Bluetooth LE as a system using digital modulation techniques, where [2] is: "Frequency hopping spread spectrum systems (FHSS) in the 2400-2483.5 MHz are in FCC 15.247(1) (iii) required to a) use at least 15 channels and b) when hopping, the transmission also must comply with a 0.4 second/channel maximum dwell time."

BLE uses 15 channels (errm, except when advertising) but (I think) doesn't always fulfil b? Because any one connection interval, which cuold be long, uses the same channel? I don't really know BLE so I'm guessing; but bluetooth.org definintely thinks its not-FHSS; 5.2.2 is ETSI saying its DSSS. I think that this is a regulatory-opinion thingy, so you would not expect to find it in the spec William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure, that BLE uses only 15 channels? I have checked that and in the latest standard at Vol 6, Part A page 15 you can find:

The LE system operates in the 2.4 GHz ISM band at 2400-2483.5 MHz. The LE system uses 40 RF channels. These RF channels have center frequencies 2402 + k * 2 MHz, where k = 0, ..., 39.

That is also what I know. I have also checked some literature now and those are also talking about FHSS in connection with BLE. See for (one) example Getting Started with Bluetooth Low Energy, page 16 first par. after the figure.