Baskin-Robbins only has 31 flavors, Atmel has 505

Actually these days even Baskin-Robbins has more, but not 505 like Atmel. That’s a lot. While some are AVR, both 8-bit and 32-bit, others are various flavors of ARM (all 32-bit) ranging from older parts like the ARM9 to various flavors of Cortex ranging from the M0 (tiny microcontroller with no pipeline or cache) up to A5. Of course, the ARM product line goes all the way up to 64-bit Cortex-A57 and so on — but they are not in any sense of the word microcontrollers and are really only used in SoCs and not standalone products.

But with 505 choices, how do you pick one? Fortunately, Atmel has made it easy for you to navigate the various flavors. With the help of the company’s MCU product finder, you now have the ability to input your hard constraints, while the tool will narrow down the choices. For example, if you want your microcontroller to have at least 64 Kbytes of flash, then there are only 257 out of the 505 that will suit your needs. For each parameter, users can set minimums and maximums — except for the yes/no choices.

When it comes to the selection process, there are several things that you can constrain:

• Flash memory (0 to 2Mbytes)
• Pin count (6 to 324)
• Operating frequency (1 to 536MHz)
• CPU architecture (pick from 8-bit AVR, 32-bit AVR, ARM 926 and 920, ARM Cortex M0, M3, M4, A5)
• SRAM (30 bytes to 256 Kbytes)
• EEPROM (none to 8 Kbytes)
• Max I/O pins (4 to 160)
• picoPower (yes or no)
• Operating voltage (various ranges from 0.7V to 6V)
• Operating temperature (various from -20oC to 150oC)
• Number of touch channels (none to 256)
• Number of timers (1 to 10)
• Watchdog (yes or no)
• 32KHz real time clock (yes or no)
• Analog comparators (0 to 8)
• Temperature sensor (yes or no)
• ADC resolution (8 to 16 bits)
• ADC channels (2 to 28)
• DAC channels (0 to 4)
• UARTs (0 to 8)
• SPI (1 to 12)
• TWI (aka I2C) interface (none to 6)
• USB interface (none, device only, host+OTG, host and device)
• PWM channels (0 to 36)
• Ethernet interfaces (none to 2)
• CAN interfaces (none to 2)

Wow, that’s a lot of options! But after a couple of dozen selections, you can narrow down your choice to something manageable. Here’s how the interface will appear:

Say for instance, I wanted to pick a microcontroller, an ARM Cortex of some flavor. Already choices are down to 189. I want 32K to 128K of flash (now down to 73 choices). I want it to run at an operating frequency of at least 64 MHz (now down to 10). I want 4K of SRAM (turns out all 10 choices already have that much). I need 4 timers. I am now down to 2 choices:

These two choices are the ATSAM3S1C and the ATSAM3S2C — both ARM Cortex-M3s. The first has 64K of flash and the second 128K. I can click on the little PDF icon and access a full datasheet for these microprocessors. If I don’t like the choices and I have some flexibility on specs, then obviously I can go back and play with the parameters to get some new options.

I can click on the “S” to order samples. However, in order to do this, you must already have an Atmel account. Or, with just another click on the shopping cart icon, I can obtain a list of distributors throughout various geographic regions, where I can actually place an order. It even tells me how many each of them have in stock!

For those of you ready to start searching, you can find the Atmel Microcontrollers Selector here.

This post has been republished with permission from SemiWiki.com, where Paul McLellan is a featured blogger. It first appeared there on March 2, 2014.

For I have seen the shadow of the curved touchscreen

Last year’s CES was the modern technology equivalent of the voyage of Ferdinand Magellan, proving beyond any shadow of doubt displays no longer can be thought of as only flat. While the massive curved 105-inch TVs shown by LG and Samsung drew many gawkers, the implications of curved touch displays are even wider.

At DAC 50 there were more than a few chuckles and some mystified looks when Samsung’s Dr. Stephen Woo spent a lot of his keynote address highlighting flexible displays as one of the challenges for smarter mobile devices (spin to the 27:41 mark of the video for his forward-looking comments). I think if we had polled that room at that second, there would have been two reactions: 1) yeah, right, a flexible phone, or 2) hmmmm, there must be something else going on. His comments should have provided the clue the flat display theory was about to dissolve:

Is there any major revolution coming to us? My answer to that is yes. I’m afraid that we as EDA, as well as the semiconductor industry, are not fully appreciating the magnitude of the revolution.

Woo showed the brief clip from CES 2013 introducing the first Samsung flexible display prototype, hinting that while exciting, it is still a ways from practicality. Why? He went on to explore the rigid structure of the current high volume smartphone – flat display, flat and hard board with flat and hard chips, and a hard case. I have some unpleasant recollections of trying chips on flex harnesses in the defense industry, and the problems become non-trivial with bigger parts and shock forces coming into play, not to mention manufacturing costs.

We might be getting thrown off by the limiting context of a phone as we know it. A gently curved but still fixed display poses fewer problems in fabrication using current technology. Corning has announced 3D-shaped Gorilla Glass, and Apple, LG, and Samsung are all chasing curved display fabrication and gently curved phone concepts today.

The real possibilities for smaller curved displays jump out in the context of wearables and the Internet of Things. The missing piece from this discussion: the touch interface. Flexible displays present a challenge well beyond the simplistic knobs-and-sliders, or even the science of multi-touch that allows swiping and other gestures. Abandoning the relative ease of planar coordinates implies not only smarter touch sensors, but algorithms behind them that can handle the challenges of projecting capacitance into curved space.

 

Atmel fully appreciates the magnitude of this revolution, and through a combination of serendipity and good planning is in the right place at the right time to make curved touchscreens for wearables and the IoT happen. With CES becoming an almost-auto show, it was the logical place to showcase the AvantCar proof of concept, illustrating just what curves can do for touch-enabled displays in consumer design. (Old web design axiom, holds true for industrial design too: men tend to like straight lines and precise grids, women tend to like curves and swooshes – combine both in a design for the win.)

The metal mesh technology in XSense – “fine line metal” or FLM – means the touch sensor is fabricated on a flexible PET film, able to conform to flat or reasonably curved displays up to 12 inches. XSense uses mutual capacitance, with electrodes in an orthogonal matrix, really an array of small touchscreens within a larger display. This removes ambiguity in the reported multiple touch coordinates by reporting points independently, and coincidentally enables better handling of polar coordinates following the curve of a display using Atmel’s maxTouch microcontrollers.

 

Now visualize this idea outside of the car environment, extended to a myriad of IoT and wearable devices. Gone are the clunky elastomeric buttons of the typical appliance, replaced by a shaped display with configurable interfaces depending on context. Free of the need for flat surfaces and mechanical switches in designs, touch displays can be integrated into many more wearable and everyday consumer devices.

Dr. Woo’s vision of flexible displays may be a bit early, but the idea of curved displays looks to be ready for prime time. The same revolution created by projected capacitance for touch in smartphones and tablets can now impact all kinds of smaller devices, a boon for user experience designers looking for more attractive and creative ways to present interfaces.

For more on the curved automotive console proof of concept, check out Atmel’s blog on AvantCar.

What do you think of the emergence of curved displays and the coming revolution in device design? How do you see curved touchscreens changing the way industrial designers think of the user interface on devices? Looking out further, what other technological improvements are needed?

This post has been republished with permission from SemiWiki.com, where Don Dingee is a featured blogger. It first appeared there on January 10, 2014.

Does your smartphone’s touchscreen support moisture touch?

Recently, I met an Atmel maXTouch customer whose smartphone brand is well recognized by consumers in West and East Africa, competing against smartphones made by global brands like Samsung and Nokia. When the customer selected our touchscreen controller for their smartphone product, they needed two features that were very important for African consumers: robust moisture performance and strong noise immunity. This is hardly a surprise as many African countries have unreliable power supplies, and surge protection is important for electronic devices; additionally, the warm climates in most African countries make robust moisture performance a basic requirement for touchscreen controllers to handle sweaty fingers, palms and faces. When the touchscreen controller has trouble in combating charger noise or moisture presence on the touchscreen, a symptom called “ghost touch” would occur – in other words, when the touchscreen automatically triggers a false touch without the presence of a finger contact at that specific location.

With Adaptive Sensing technology, Atmel’s maXTouch T-series scans the touchscreen of a smartphone using both mutual-capacitance and self-capacitance sensing.

Mutual-capacitance enables true multi-finger touch operations, such as multi-finger gestures and rotations used in gaming apps. However, self-capacitance sensing is much less sensitive to the presence of moisture or water droplets than mutual-capacitance. Atmel’s Adaptive Sensing technology combines the analog signals of both self-capacitance and mutual-capacitance, allowing the embedded maXTouch microcontroller to intelligently determine moisture presence through obvious differences in both measurement deltas for corresponding touch locations. As seen in the example below, here a maXTouch device combines both set of signals to eliminate false touch (a.k.a. ghost touch) typically associated with the presence of moisture on a touchscreen.

I should point out that a smartphone with an excellent water-resistant rating does NOT necessarily mean that it has a robust moisture performance for its touchscreen. Here is a tidbit of consumer feedback on a premium smartphone with IP58 rating:

In comparison, the OEM customer designs smartphones for African consumers that can offer excellent touch performance with the presence of moisture, thanks to our maXTouch T-series. The maXTouch mXT640T series of touchscreen controllers dynamically switches into a Self-Capacitance based single-touch mode when touches are detected in the presence of significant water. This meaning, the normal touch functionality of a mXT640T touchscreen will be maintained for as long as possible before eventually switching to a single touch operation to maintain reliable operation and prevent false touch conditions. The picture below illustrates how we set the bar for superior water/moisture performance in the market:

All in all, a touchscreen powered by Atmel’s maXTouch T-series controllers can support true multi-finger operations with the presence of moisture. Even in a rainy condition where water falls down to your smartphone, the system dynamically maintains reliable touch operations and prevents false touches, so that when you press a speed-dial for Uber in the rain, your phone will not innocently call your ex-girlfriend instead.

 

Accelerate your evaluation of Atmel 802.15.4 wireless solutions from your desktop

You have probably come across this scenario before: Management or the marketing department approaches you asking you to add wireless functionality to an existing product, or to develop a new product that needs to be able to support a wireless link. Today, there are many wireless technologies and options to consider.

It is also quite possible that marketing has already made part of that decision for you.

The marketing requirement may stipulate that you use Wi-Fi, Zigbee, 6lowpan or Bluetooth low energy (BLE). Or, maybe marketing has no idea what is required, and just tells you to implement a wireless link!

So, after a number of meetings and conference calls, you decide to use a solution that is based upon 802.15.4. This could include Zigbee, 6lowpan, Wireless HART, ISA100.11a, Openwsn, Lwmesh, among many other wireless stack solutions that all require an 802.15.4 compliant transceiver.

At this point you would need to decide if your solution, or the protocol you’ve selected, will operate in the 2.4 GHz band or in a SubGhz band. There are times when you will need to do some experimentation or RF performance evaluations to determine which RF band to use in your particular situation.

When evaluating Atmel 802.15.4 wireless solutions, the first tool you should turn to is Wireless Composer. Provided as an extension to Atmel Studio 6.x, the Wireless Composer is a free tool. In order to make it simple, each of the current Atmel 802.15.4 evaluation kits/platforms comes with a Performance Analyzer firmware application pre programmed into the kit. Running on the evaluation kit, this Performance Analyzer firmware is designed to communicate with both the Atmel Studio and Wireless Composer extension.

Some of the capabilities of Wireless Composer include:

• Energy Scan: Scan selected or all available 802.15.4 channels

• PER (Packet Error Rate) Testing: Transmit and receive 1000’s of frames at a specific TX power level and RF channel and then review the results for errors (dropped bits/frames) while also evaluating throughput metrics.

• CW Test Modes: Place a device in a Continuous test mode to monitor emissions with a spectrum analyzer or other RF test equipment

• Antenna Evaluation: Provide a Large Digital Display to allow testing antenna radiation pattern’s at distances of up to around 3 meters from the device connected to the laptop PC.

• Range Testing: Gather and log range data generated from a  wireless link set up between two nodes — this data includes RSSI (ED signal strength) and LQI (signal quality) from both sides of the RF link.

Here are a few additional example screen captures, available from within Wireless Composer.

Energy Detection Scan Mode:

Screenshot of Wireless Composer, an extension of Atmel Studio 6.x – Energy Detection Scan

Have you ever wanted to set up some RF tests and wanted to know if there were other transmissions already taking place on the channel you intended to test on ?  Maybe your colleagues  are performing tests in another section of the lab or building, or maybe at home you have Wi-Fi or Bluetooth or home automation devices operating in close proximity to where you want to run some experiments.  The ED scan mode, as shown here, allows you to get a quick glimpse of what RF activity is happening around you. You can do a one time scan or you can configure the test to continuously scan one or all channels and repeat this until you stop the test.

PER Test:

A common RF test to perform on a packet based wireless communication system is a PER (Packet Error Rate) test.

This test mode allows you to configure operation on a particular channel, at a specific TX power level, using a selected antenna option. You are then provided the ability to set the number of bytes to send in a transmitted frame, and to set how many frames you are going to send during the test. All of these parameters are configured in the left hand Transceiver Properties Pane, as shown in the capture below. Once the test is performed, the right hand window provides data regarding the results of the test.

This can be useful for confirming RX sensitivity parameters, and data throughput characteristics under different conditions. Here is an example of sending 1000 frames and achieving zero errors using a frame length of 20 bytes.

Screenshot of Wireless Composer, an extension to Atmel Studio 6.2 – Packet Error Rate test mode

 

Continuous Transmission Test Mode:

If you have attempted to develop a wireless RF product before, you know that a considerable amount of time will be spent performing regulatory pre – scan certification testing. This typically involves configuring your device to transmit a continuous wave RF emission on a particular RF channel using a specified amount of Transmit power. The RF emissions are monitored using a spectrum analyzer or other RF test equipment. To help save time and provide a useful tool, Wireless Composer provides a Continuous Transmission Tab that allows selection of a few different tests of this type.

In the example shown below, an unmodulated CW test transmission has been started on channel 16 using a TX power level of +4dBm. These are no results reported here, because all measurement results would come from observing the RF test equipment that monitors the RF emissions.

Screenshot of Wireless Composer, an extension to Atmel Studio 6.2 – Continuous Wave test mode

 

Antenna Evaluation Range Test Numerical Display:

For any wireless product, the antenna is one of the most important sections of the design. A great radio with a poor antenna results in poor product performance, while a mediocre radio with a great antenna can end up with very good performance. So, one of the tasks for any wireless product developer is to understand the characteristics and performance of his antenna design. This may be some type of on board antenna like a ceramic chip antenna, or a pcb trace antenna, or it just may be connecting an external antenna to an RF connector mounted on the product’s pcb. Many on board antenna designs are shortened quite a bit to reduce the footprint or space required by the antenna. This usually will affect the performance of the antenna in a negative way, or at a minimum create directivity to the antenna’s radiation pattern. A nice capability of Wireless Composer is the ability to allow you  to place the device connected to the PC, running Wireless Composer, on a table or tripod at a specific height above the floor in an open indoor or outdoor area. Then, in the range test tab within Wireless Composer, select “Numerical “ as the display mode. This will then display a screen as shown below.

One would then take a battery operated mobile node about three meters away from the PC display and watch the values being displayed for ED/RSSI and LQI change as you rotate or change the orientation of the antenna with respect to the unit at the other end of the link. This display shows the LQI and ED/RSSI values at both ends of the link and can be used to examine any changes in antenna pattern, as the device orientation is changed. Knowing what orientation provides the best signal levels will later help you understand how to position the unit when mounting it at its final location. You will also acquire information on how to set up additional range tests where you could be up to one mile away, and all you have is a blinking led to indicate whether or not you still have communications with the unit under test.

Screenshot of Wireless Composer, an extension to Atmel Studio 6.2 – Range Test Numerical Display

 

Range Test Log With Multiple Markers (Push Button Marker Recording):

Wireless Composer also has a range test mode for logging signal level and quality to a PC display or to an Excel file, as shown in the screen capture below.

When two paired devices are configured in this range test mode, the unit connected to the PC will periodically (about every two seconds to conserve battery life) send a beacon type frame to the mobile unit, at which point the mobile unit will send back a reply to the logging device. This activity can also be seen in the screen capture below.

The LQI and ED (average RSSI) levels for each side of the wireless link are recorded with a time stamp to an Excel file.

Have you ever tried to do an RF range test by yourself? If you have, then you know that it sometimes can be difficult to set up a test, such that you can leave one node at a fixed location and take the other battery operated mobile unit to various locations where you want to gather signal level and link quality information.

This is especially true when your simple wireless device lacks any type of user interface, or display attached to it, as in the case of a wireless sensor, or an simple evaluation board. This becomes even more difficult if you are doing LOS (line of sight) measurements outdoors. The performance analyzer app only assumes you have access to two IO pins — one is typically an input for a push button or jumper, while the other is an output for an LED.

Outdoor LOS measurements may allow you to achieve distances of hundreds of meters, as well as one or more miles in the SubGhz RF bands.

To make this measurement task a lot easier, the performance analyzer app has the ability to enable you to press a button on the battery operated portable unit that you have in your hand, and have this RF device send an RF frame back to the unit connected to the PC that is doing the logging; as a result, that marker frame is recorded into the log, allowing you to place marker indicators for time and place in the log file. This will enable you to determine where you have been when you return to review the log data.

For instance, you could press the button once while at a specific location in room A, and then press it twice in for a location in room B. Or, if you are outdoors you could press the button and insert markers at various distances as you move away from the logging unit. Then, all you would have to write on your notepad while doing the test would be the name of your location (or the distance at which you were away from the logging unit) and the number of times you pressed the button at that location.

Upon your return to examine the recorded log, you’ll have all of the necessary information to understand the recorded results, including where in space and time the measurements were made.

See the example below:

Screenshot of Wireless Composer, an extension to Atmel Studio 6.2 – – Recorded Logs

 

For each of the supported wireless platforms, Atmel Studio contains complete example projects with source files for the performance analyzer application. When you are finished making measurements on an Atmel evaluation board that you used to help make device selection or RF band selection decisions, you can then use this same application with possibly some minor modifications to support your own final hardware design with regards to the IO assignments for a push button or led. This performance analyzer application along with Wireless Composer have proven to be very useful when performing tests on first prototype boards, and even for use in performing FCC or other governmental regulation pre-scan testing.

Interested in learning more? You can access Wireless Composer here and Atmel Studio here.

 

 

Making space available to everyone

I’m Brian and one of the Founders of Infinity Aerospace. In 2012, our company developed and marketed an Arduino powered platform for easily conducting custom experiments autonomously on board the International Space Station. We called it Ardulab and it was well received in the space industry. In essence, the Ardulab is a small microcontroller with an Atmel chip as the brain that’s enclosed by a space ready aluminum chassis. The Ardulab is an Atmel powered machine that’s won the faith of organizations like NASA and Stanford because of its advanced capabilities in a small form factor and its reliability.

Brian Rieger, Co-Founder of Ardulab (Source: Infinity Aerospace)

The microcontroller is heavily modified from a basic Arduino to be compatible with the Space Station computers, and the chassis adheres to a compliant form factor (10cm cube). The microcontroller only uses about 10% of the internal volume of the chassis, leaving the rest for an experiment to be installed.

Powering your Ardulab up for the first time, then get to know all the features and functions. (Source: Ardulab.com)

Fast forward to present day; Ardulab users include prominent space organizations like NASA-JPL, NanoRacks, and Stanford University. In addition, the overseer organization of the International Space Stations’ National Lab, CASIS, created a program called the National Design Challenge that funds k-12 schools to use Ardulabs in their science classrooms to build an experiment and then launch them to the Space Station. We couldn’t be more proud that the Ardulab product has catalyzed so many positive activities within the space community.

The Ardulab Chassis. (Source: Ardulab.com)

Up until today, the Ardulab had a minimum purchase price of $2,000 and was sold directly from us. This allowed us to recuperate the cost of design and development of the Ardulab as well as the incremental manufacturing cost of each unit. Unfortunately, this limited who could use the Ardulab and gain access to its features – features that make it very easy to conduct experiments autonomously on the Space Station. We realized this was a departure from the fundamental philosophy behind Ardulab; to give as many people as possible the tools and information they need to be successful in space.

The overseer organization of International Space Stations’ National Lab, CASIS, created a program called the National Design Challenge that funds k-12 schools to use Ardulabs in their science classrooms to build an experiment and then launch them to the Space Station. (Source: Wikipedia)

We are so excited to share that the Ardulab is now completely open-source. To support this, we’ve launched a brand new website (www.ardulab.com) where anyone can learn about Ardulab, download the plans with a click of a button, and follow the provided guidance that will take anyone from idea to space experiment. A middle school class in Houston Texas used the Ardulab to create a space ready experiment in 6 months, I can only imagine what the space community at large will create with full access to the Ardulab technology.

Interested? You can explore Ardulab in more depth on its official website.

 

Implementing Haptics: Defining and driving the actuator are major challenges

For the system designer, adding haptics capability and tactile feedback to a system is both easy and difficult. In general, the sensor has little or moderate impact on the BOM, space, and cost, while the software has no BOM and minimal cost implications. But the embedding hardware drive circuitry and the physical actuator require considerable assessment of design issues, power consumption, PC board and enclosure real estate as well as the cost dimension.

There are four key elements to implementing a haptics function in a system design:
1) The sensor, which may not be needed, depending on the system,
2) The software, which decides what output waveform is needed,
3) The hardware driver for the haptics actuator, and
4) The actuator itself.

These four blocks interact to close the loop and meet the unique requirements of haptics functionality. This article will take a deeper look at the sensor, hardware driver and the actuator in a haptics system.

The Sensor

While many haptics functions have or add a sensor to sense a physical parameter, others do not need a sensor function at all. For example, in a basic gaming system the software determines what the user is seeing and doing and generates outputs such as controller rumble that correspond to the action. Other systems make use of existing sensors, and only need to add additional software and output drive. For example, the Atmel AT42QT1085 QTouch microcontroller is specifically designed to use with the existing capacitive-touch sensors of a screen. (Fig. 1) It embeds software to interpret the user’s finger actions on various screen sliders, buttons and wheels, and then decides the appropriate response.

Fig. 1: The Atmel AT42QT1085 QTouch microcontroller is designed to work with a standard capacitive-sensing touchscreen and function as the interface between the panel and system, by assessing the meaning of the user’s finger swipes. (Source: Atmel)

More complicated designs need a haptics-specific sensor as their signal and data source with the use of multi-axis accelerometers to determine the motion of a game controller or robotic control. This accelerometer is almost always a MEMS device, and may provide a digitized output directly or an analog one that the system microcontroller must digitize. Fortunately, the resolution, accuracy and speed requirements are relatively modest: 8 to 10 bits at just several hundred samples per second or less.

Not all haptics inputs are based on motion and position. Some also sense the temperature of a user’s hands, which can be done with an inexpensive diode-based sensor or a low-cost easy-to-interface IC, such as a member of the Analog Devices AD590 family.

Driver and Actuator

In order to understand the hardware driver needed, a design engineer first must know what sort of haptics actuator will be used. This is one of the most difficult choices because the laws of physics clearly show that such actuation implies motion, and motion means “work,” so power needs to be delivered in the form of current and voltage. Each of the four most common actuators has pros and cons that affect the trade-off decision.

The design team must not only weigh the characteristics of the actuator, but also its unique electronic drive requirements. In contrast, the software that controls each actuator is relatively simple; OEMs can write their own code, they may be able to get it directly from the actuator vendor, or it may be available as a licensed library from the IC vendor or third-party sources, similar to what is done for audio sound-effect clips.

The four most common actuator options in use are:

1) An eccentric rotating mass (ERM) is a tiny motor with an off-balance rotating weight. The ERM is low cost since it is used for “rumble” effects in high-volume applications such as gaming controllers. The operating current is in the 150-mA range, and it vibrates between 100 and 200 Hz. The response time of the ERM is somewhat slow (50 ms), so it is not a good choice of keyboard or button response. The ERM’s size is approximately 10 mm long with a 5 mm swing of the eccentric mass.

2) The linear resonant actuator (LRA) is a motor-like component that looks like small puck, typically about 10 mm in diameter and 4 mm thick. LRAs vibrate a single frequency between 100 and 200 Hz, with a response that is somewhat faster than ERMs, at about 30 msec. They are more costly than ERMs but need less current (about 75 mA) for actuation as well as an AC drive signal.

3) Piezoelectric modules can provide high vibration fidelity due to their fast response time (5 ms) over a wide frequency range of approximately 150 to 300 Hz, and thus are a good choice for typing feedback applications. They come in a long, relatively slim form factor, about 3.5 mm square and 40 mm long. Piezo modules are high performance actuators that can be used to create realistic haptic effects and can be applied in smartphones or tablets. Although they draw no more aggregate power than ERMs or LRAs, they do need a relatively high current pulse of 300 mA at around ±75 V (often derived from a 3 V supply). Piezo modules are a highly capacitive load, which the interface IC must be able to drive. Although they are ceramic-based transducers and might be assumed to be brittle, they are actually rugged due to their small mass and layered construction.

4) The electroactive polymer (EAP) actuator is a thin, flat, durable panel that is less than 1 mm thick. It requires a somewhat complex mounting arrangement on a sled to act in conjunction with the associated movable mass. Due to its fast response time of just a few milliseconds and resonance at around 100 Hz, it is a good choice for touchscreen feedback and is most commonly found in top-of-the-line smartphones. The biggest challenge with EAPs is that they require a drive voltage of approximately 800 V, which means a sophisticated and somewhat costly boost power supply subsystem.

There is no simple “best” answer for providing tactile haptics feedback to the user, as each actuator type has unique and sometimes complex electronic drive requirements. IC vendors have responded to this need with a variety of drivers that bridge the voltage/current differential between the conventional low voltage and currents of most systems and the needs of the various actuators.

For example, Texas Instruments offers the DRV2605 driver for ERM and LRA actuators, using the I2C bus for the processor interface (Fig. 2). It embeds a smart-loop architecture, which simplifies achieving auto-resonant drive for the LRA as well as feedback-optimized drive for the ERM. This feedback feature provides automatic overdrive and braking, which in turn allows creating a simplified input-waveform model, along with reliable motor control and consistent motor performance. An audio-to-haptics mode automatically converts an audio input signal to consistent haptic effects. There is also no need to design haptic waveforms with this IC, since the vendor offers a royalty-free library of over 100 haptics effects. An evaluation kit and board aids design and experimentation (Fig. 3).

Fig. 2: Texas Instruments offers the DRV2605 haptic driver IC for LRA and ERM transducers; it incorporates features which help eliminate the design complexities of haptic motor control, and also has an available library of royalty-free haptics drivers. (Source: Texas Instruments)

Fig. 3: For those unfamiliar with either haptics in general, or specific software and hardware issues related to LRAs and ERMs, the available DRV2605EVM-CT evaluation kit eases the implementation process and reduces the design-in time for the DRV2605 haptic driver. (Source: Texas Instruments)

For piezo transducers, driver components such as the Texas Instruments DRV2667 are available (Fig. 4). Like the ERM/LRA driver IC, it interfaces to the processor via the I2C bus, but the similarities end there. It integrates a 105 V boost switch, power diode, fully differential amplifier, and digital front-end including waveform synthesizer. Its output is designed for capacitive loads. For example, it can drive a 330 nF load at 100 Vp-p and 300 Hz, and a 680 nF load at 50 Vp-p, also at 300 Hz. As with most haptics drivers/transducers, vendors offer evaluation kits (Fig. 5), so designers can explore operating characteristics and subtle design issues of these somewhat unique electrical-to-motion transducers.

Fig. 4: For piezo actuators, the DRV2667 from Texas Instruments provides the fast-slewing high-voltage drive into a capacitive load that is required by this actuator technology. (Source: Texas Instruments)

Fig. 5: Evaluation kits such as the DRV2667EVM allow designers to easily interface to and drive a piezo transducer and thus understand its special operating characteristics. (Source: Texas Instruments)

Other vendors are also seeing the broad and still not-fully defined opportunities for haptics technology; Avnet now distributes Samsung Electro-Mechanics’ line of LRAs.

There’s no doubt that adding haptics to a design adds another dimension to the user experience and human machine interface (HMI). For system designers, haptics technology also brings new challenges of actuator considerations, associated drive circuitry, and increases in space as well as power requirements.

This post was written by Bill Schweber and originally published in Avnet’s Technical Articles. For more engineering resources from Avnet, please visit their Design Zones. 

Report: A flexible future in store

Do you ever look at your mobile device and think it’s just too rigid? Do you wish your phone would rest ever so nicely in the palm of your hand, or even fit a bit better in that back pocket? Fortunately, a growing number of tech giants have and with that comes the next wave of mobile device innovation.

According to recent reports, it appears that the flexible electronic market is growing with demand on the rise. As previously discussed on Bits & Pieces, market research firm DisplaySearch has revealed that the share of flexible smartphones in the overall smartphone market is expected to reach 40% in 2018, up from merely 0.2% last year. In other words, it’s projected that four out of 10 smartphones will be flexible over the next couple of years. This should come with little surprise following recent analysts forecasting the flexible display market to surpass the $3.89 billion threshold by 2020 – growing at an impressively high CAGR from 2014 to 2020.

As seen in recent months, flexible electronic devices have started penetrating various markets, such as consumer electronics, medical and healthcare, and power and energy, automotive, and defense. Subsequently, the global flexible electronics market is expected to reach $13.23 billion by 2020, at an estimated CAGR of 21.73%. In addition, the emerging consumer electronics market is predicted to grow at a CAGR of 44.30% in the forecast period, with North America leading the pack, followed by Europe and APAC.

A new report from research firm IDTechEx has also detailed that the market for flexible OLED screens will rise to over $16 billion by the year 2020. Currently, new technologies — like smart watches and OLED TVs — are driving this uptick in consumer interest. The study projects that the OLED market will grow 43% by the year 2020, contingent upon the adoption of OLED technology by the general public. Whether these flexible screens are utilized on the newest smartphones, the technology needs to become the cultural norm if this new data is to ring true. Ferret notes that smart watches and fitness bands are currently driving the OLED market, but the relatively small screen size on these devices will not create the projected profit margins that the report detailed.

Still, when looking at the possibilities of flexible OLED screens, there seems to be no limit to their application. The ridged nature of current screens has restrained the creativity of technology developers over the last century; however, with the influx of flexible screens and products, it will be surely be interesting to see what comes next. Time will only tell, but we’re certainly inching closer to the day where users will be able to fold their devices.

 

The evolution and DNA of the Internet of Things

The Internet of Things (IoT), as noted in previous Bits & Pieces articles, is really just a concept at this point because the “things” are undefined. As those “things” become more defined, the IoT’s things stop being just things and become something. So, the main question right now: What are those things going to be? Perhaps the IoT should more accurately be called the “IoXT” with “X” being the variable describing what that particular thing actually is. An example could be the Internet of wearable fitness trackers, factory robots, home automation, smart appliances, vehicle to vehicle communication, traffic control… well, you get the picture. The X can (and will) be many different things.

Clearly, for the IoT to be meaningful, the X must be identified in detail. The IoT must evolve from the ultra-general (i.e. “things”) to specific applications, components, systems, and integrated circuits, among others. There appears to be an emerging need for a classification hierarchy to describe the IoT as it differentiates and evolves. The Linnaeus classification model that is used in biology to describe living “things”, comes to mind. The same classification process can apply to silicon-based things and not just carbon-based things (beings).

Do you see the connection?

                           

In a silicon-based classification regime, the term “IoT” would probably lie somewhere between phylum and family. Though it is not entirely clear exactly where yet, that does really not matter at this point; however, what matters is that engineers and product managers must push product definition to the genus and species levels for the IoT to ever truly matter.

In the early stages of IoT’s evolution, there could easily be a type of Cambrian explosion with the genesis of an insane number of new devices covering a wide spectrum of applications that from the truly inspired to the ridiculous. Economic Darwinism would later surely take over to narrow down the numbers overtime with many going extinct and others continuing to adapt into world-changing “things.”

Because the IoT’s silicon building blocks (i.e. the DNA of IoT) are getting into place, it will become very easy to create, modify, and adapt countless smart, sensing, secure, communicating devices. That ease of design is what is making IoT’s potential staggering, and why so many companies (especially silicon companies) are aggressively pursuing the IoT market.

As for the numbers, Gartner believes 26 billion devices will have connectivity by 2022, while Ericsson and Cisco both forecast the number being even higher at 50 billion units by 2020 and 2022, respectively. McKinsey Global Institute (MGI)  expects IoT to have an economic impact of $2.7 to $6.2 trillion by 2025. Gartner notes that IoT suppliers will generate incremental product and service revenue exceeding $300 billion in 2020, resulting in over $1.9 trillion in global economic value-add in diverse end-markets. According to IDC, the installed base of IoT will be 212 billion by the end of 2020, with 30.1 billion of that being connected autonomous things.

The following chart from McKinsey Global Institute details their view of the impact from various economic categories. Note that healthcare is the largest, which makes perfect sense given the affinity of bio-sensors, continuous monitoring, wearable devices, and wireless communication. Subsequently, it is no accident that the major mobile platform and consumer product companies are pursuing bio-metric capabilities for wearable products.

With an increasing demand for medical care as populations age in Western countries, remote telemedicine to cover under-served populations makes great sense. Telemedicine could easily revolutionize medical care, and connected-sensing devices could revolutionize telemedicine. There is little to hold the growth of medical sensing and communicating networks back, especially since governmental agencies are on a mission to extend the provision of health care universally. Perhaps this is a perfect storm.

Health networks will be joined by networks of many types; each of those will be driven by the ability to create IoT devices from their four main building blocks:

1. Brains (MCU)
2. Wireless Communications
3. Sensors of Various Types
4. Security.

Devices with those fundamental IoT building blocks will differentiate on each of those four axes depending upon what they need to do. Some of the types of networks that could show up and drive the IoT’s evolution are noted below:

• M2M:  Machine to Machine network
• V2V: Vehicle to Vehicle network
• Personal medical network
• PAN: Personal area network (wearable network)
• Home entertainment network
• Personal social network.
• Home automation/security network
• Personal fitness network.
• Car infotainment network
• Highway sensor network
• Hazardous material sensing network
• Smart appliance network
• Augmented reality network
• Multi-screen network
• Energy management network

There are of course others, too.

One last thing: The dirty little secret of the IoT is that there probably cannot be such a thing as the Internet of Things if those things are not secure. That is where devices like Atmel CryptoAuthentication ICs play an important, if not catalytic role. Making sure that the nodes in the various networks are authentic and that the data being transmitted have not been tampered with is what CryptoAuthentication devices do. It is easy to see why security is important when there are billions of things keeping track of you, right?

So, authentication may in actual fact be the sine qua non (“without which there is nothing”) of the IoT.

Or, to put it another way: No security? No IoT for you.

 

The IoT is developing a head of steam

According to new data released by Evans Data Corporation, 17% of current developers are working on applications for the connected Internet of Things.

The amorphous platform of IoT is still yet to be concretely defined, yet many see the system of connected devices and items as a wave of the future. The Evans Data report also reveals that another 23% of developers plan to begin building IoT applications within the next six months.

The survey also found that 31% of IoT developers most associate cloud computing with IoT, followed by real-time event processing (26%), big data (17%) and machine to machine (15%).

Without question, the Internet of Things will continue to be an emerging and evolving market. Though there may not be a determined path for this trend to take but as development moves forward, “The Internet of Things will be as exciting and vibrant as it is frustrating and tricky,” Wired‘s Klint Finley reminds us.

“Beyond the cutesy stuff, there are some fascinating enterprise-scale applications that are emerging — such as GE’s concept of the Industrial Internet, in which major components such as aircraft engines and generator turbines are outfitted with sensors that can radio performance data back to their makers. This is where the IoT will have a real impact, and it will be interesting to see where developers take these kinds of capabilities,” writes ZDNet‘s Joe McKendrick.

With 212 billion connected devices expected to arrive within the next few years, Atmel recently joined forces with tech leaders Broadcom, Dell, Intel, Samsung and Wind River to establish a new industry group focused on improving interoperability and streamlining connectivity. The newly-unveiled Open Interconnect Consortium (OIC) looks to define a common communications framework based on industry standard technologies to wirelessly connect and intelligently manage the flow of information among personal computing and emerging Internet of Things (IoT) devices, regardless of form factor, operating system or service provider.

No matter what the future holds, the evolution of device connectivity over the next few years will be intriguing to say the least, while Atmel will continue to play a key role in the building of the Internet of Things. If you want to view the entire Evans Data Report, you can view the document here.

Report: Smart home market is prepared to surge

According to a new report from NextMarket Insights, the research firm expects the U.S. smart home market to grow from the current size of $1.3 billion to $7.8 billion in 2019.

The report finds that more and more consumers are willing to become their own home technology managers. Product accessibility has also become a factor in the rising smart home market, with products like Nest and Dropcam becoming highly affordable and easy to use. As evident with Google’s $3.2 billion acquisition of Nest, the smart home market is certainly on the rise.

“Early generations of smart home products were expensive and often required a professional installer,” Michael Wolf, Chief Analyst at NextMarket Insights, suggests. “Over the past few years, new technologies have made the smart home more affordable and approachable for the average consumer.”

The adoption of products like Nest, and the backing of corporations like Apple and Google can only mean this market is ready to grow at a rapid pace. Michael Wolf agrees with this sentiment noting that these products will “create additional momentum for the consumer-managed smart home over time.”

Additionally, it is also worthwhile to note that many younger individuals are more prone to equipping their home with smart energy devices. Products — such as programmable thermostats, smart lighting and smart power outlets — are becoming the norm in the modern-day home. New studies from research firm Parks Associates reveal that 1 in 10 homeowners between the ages of 25-34 have at least one smart energy device, as compared to just 7% of the rest of the homeowner population.

“Younger consumers also own multiple devices at higher rates — 4% own five or more smart energy management devices, and they are the majority of those most willing to purchase a smart home system,” indicated Tom Kerber, Director of Research, Home Controls & Energy at Parks Associates.

Many new competitors are also seeking to capitalize on this growing market, as industry giants like ADT, Comcast, and Staples are all looking to begin marketing smart home products. Furthermore, home improvement stores, which have long sold hammers, nails and tools people need to DIY around the house, have now begun selling sensors, WiFi-enabled appliances and software to enable their customers to monitor and control their homes all from their mobile devices. With the emergence of the smart home, The Washington Post recently reported that established retailers Home Depot and Lowe’s have begun to bring the Internet of Things to do-it-yourselfers.

Though, Kerber believes that one single product in a home is not how the future of this market will unfold, he suggests the “successful solutions long-term will be able to work together as part of a smart home system.”

The smart home shift doesn’t stop with the United States; take the United Kingdom for instance. One in nine UK households will contain at least one smart system by the end of this year, rising to over one in four households after five years, according to new research from Strategy Analytics.

In fact, the total European smart home market is expected to reach $13.81 billion by 2020 at a double digit CAGR from 2013 to 2020. According to that RnRMarketResearch report, the key drivers for the European market are the regulatory initiatives and the mandatory measures taken by European Union, and the comfort and the security ensured by the smart homes systems. The foray of smart appliances, such as washing machine, refrigerators, air conditioner units, vacuum cleaners and televisions, into the smart home ecosystem are also expected to drive the market.

“All in all, my connected home system was the best purchase I made since switching to a self-driving car,” Flutter Wireless’ Taylor Alexander recently declared.

Interested in exploring the smart home ecosystem in more depth? Access the entire NextMarket insights report here, while you can review Parks Associates’ research here.