www.techaneesh.blogspot.com.

Saturday, January 28, 2017

What you should know about flexible displays.

      What you should know about flexible mobile displays.


Samsung, LG, and others have been showing off flexible displays and even a prototype phone for years, but it's only now that bendy screens are going commercial.

Samsung's Galaxy Round and LG's G Flex raise a lot of questions about what a flexible display is and isn't, what the word really means, and just what kinds of benefits a bendable display would bring to a smartphone or any other gadget.

What is a flexible display anyway?

Colloquially, "display" means the thing you see when you look at your phone and navigate around. But more technically, display refers to the electronic material that sits beneath the glass or plastic cover (the part you actually touch) and is responsible for lighting up your phone.

So when Samsung and LG (or anyone) talk about a flexible display, they're talking about the organic light-emitting diode, or OLED, layer -- located beneath the cover glass -- that's now made using flexible materials (like plastic) rather than rigid glass.
Companies like LG and Samsung have spent years demoing flexible displays that sit on their own outside of any device. These eye-catching products faithfully show off the interface you're supposed to see -- say a grid of icons -- without bending or breaking. Samsung's Galaxy Round represents the first time that a phone maker is bringing a flexible display to market, followed by the LG G Flex.

Why would anyone want a flexible display anyhow? What are the benefits?

As CNET has noted before, the benefits for a curved display like the Round and Flex aren't immediately clear, though one could be increased readability and less glare from a curved display.

There are some pretty significant benefits for displays that can flex. For one, they could be less prone to breakage when dropped, largely because they might use plastic, which has some give, instead of glass. Plastic also can make the devices thinner and lighter, and it can allow for products in different shapes beyond the standard rectangular screen.
Note that this may not always be the case. Even plastic can break if you stress it enough, and glass-makers are also designing flexible glass, but more on that below.
Still, the durability issues raises the question: Why not just make a regular phone with a plastic display? We'll likely see that too, some experts say, but there are some things a flexible display can do that others can't.

While some gadget-watchers are incredulous about the practicality of a scrollable phone, others see the benefit in trying to make them anyhow. NPD DisplaySearch analyst Paul Semenza is one of them. "I don't think anyone developing them knows the value of curvature or flexibility yet," he told CNET.
Imagine being able to fold up your phone or tablet and put it in your pocket, or unroll a screen to serve as a map. These could even be incorporated into clothing or jewelry or other items where the screen needs to have some give. The future potential for flexible displays is huge if hurdles are overcome, even though we may not yet know exactly what their uses will be.
What are the hurdles to making a flexible smartphone?
It takes much more than a bendy screen to make a phone you can flex. Right now, batteries and other circuitry are unyieldingly straight. The durability of a bendable phone and its internal parts are also in question. Depending on the design, you may need to have a flexible display, cover material (like plastic or glass), arching batteries, and forgiving silicon.

Some of this is already in the works. LG announced new battery tech for three kinds of juice packs that can curve, squeeze into tight spaces, and even contort like a pretzel. Time will tell if these produce and hold enough charge to competitively power a smartphone.
In addition, devices can be designed so they have a sort of rigid spine that stores the components that can't be flexed, while the rest of the gadget moves freely. We know that these various flexible designs are possible based on concept devices shown by Samsung and others.

Along with making the guts flexible comes another big challenge -- manufacturing these devices and displays at high volumes. Phones that move will undoubtedly cost more than standard smartphones when they first hit the market, but after the industry nails down more efficient manufacturing, the cost to make the phones will surely drop, along with their sticker price.
Even though the Galaxy Round and G Flex's displays are curved, not bendable, they're undoubtedly still tough to manufacture efficiently at high volumes.
Which is better, flexible OLEDs or LCDs?
When companies show off displays being curved, bent, folded, or rolled, they're typically using OLED. While it's possible to curve an LCD, it's not as easy or as effective as curving OLED, according to the experts we spoke with.
Are the flexible phone screens made of glass? 
We wish we could tell you for sure, but we just don't know yet. Samsung isn't sharing specific details, and Corning (makers of Gorilla Glass) declined to comment. There's some speculation that Samsung would be using a plastic polymer screen, but it appears more likely that the Round, for one, has a thin layer of glass that has been bent into a curved shape.

So everyone will just switch to plastic, right?
Switching to a plastic display would certainly allow a device to be truly flexible, but plastic comes with its own problems. It has different properties than glass, which means manufacturers have to find ways to use it without compromising the screen's crystal-clear image quality or responsiveness.
One big issue for plastic is that it's semipermeable, which could allow air and water to leak into the device. To avoid this, companies can coat the plastic and apply barrier layers, and some have experimented with glass/plastic hybrids. While there are still some hurdles to overcome, industry watchers say it's only a matter of time -- and money -- before this is no longer an issue.
What else is a flexible display good for?

Although we have yet to determine just how practical or even desirable a smartphone is that you can bend and twist, there are some good, practical uses for display technology that can be formed into S-curves and still respond to touch. Here's one: a wraparound touch display that covers the band of a smartwatch or other wearable. And here's another: an all-touch car dashboard that spills far beyond the confines of its usual 8-inch rectangular home.

Monday, January 16, 2017

New Li-Fi technology 100 times faster than the currently available Wi-Fi

New LiFi technology 100 times faster than the currently available Wi-Fi



What is Li-Fi ?


Light Fidelity or Li-Fi is a Visible Light Communications (VLC) system running wireless communications travelling at very high speeds.



Li-Fi uses common household LED (light emitting diodes) lightbulbs to enable data transfer, boasting speeds of up to 224 gigabits per second.


Subsequently, in 2017 after four years of research, Haas set up company pure LiFi with the aim 'to be the world leader in Visible Light Communications technology'.


How it works


Li-Fi and Wi-Fi are quite similar as both transmit data electromagnetically. However, Wi-Fi uses radio waves while Li-Fi runs on visible light.
As we now know, Li-Fi is a Visible Light Communications (VLC) system. This means that it accommodates a photo-detector to receive light signals and a signal processing element to convert the data into 'stream-able' content.
An LED lightbulb is a semi-conductor light source meaning that the constant current of electricity supplied to an LED lightbulb can be dipped and dimmed, up and down at extremely high speeds, without being visible to the human eye.

For example, data is fed into an LED light bulb (with signal processing technology), it then sends data (embedded in its beam) at rapid speeds to the photo-detector (photodiode).
The tiny changes in the rapid dimming of LED bulbs is then converted by the 'receiver' into electrical signal.

How it works.



Li-Fi vs Wi-Fi


While some may think that Li-Fi with its 224 gigabits per second leaves Wi-Fi in the dust, Li-Fi's exclusive use of visible light could halt a mass uptake. 

Li-Fi signals cannot pass through walls, so in order to enjoy full connectivity, capable LED bulbs will need to be placed throughout the home. Not to mention, Li-Fi requires the lightbulb is on at all times to provide connectivity, meaning that the lights will need to be on during the day.
What's more, where there is a lack of lightbulbs, there is a lack of Li-Fi internet so Li-Fi does take a hit when it comes to public Wi-Fi networks.


In an announcement yesterday, an extension of standard Wi-Fi is coming and it's called Wi-Fi HaLow.
This new project claims to double the range of connectivity while using less power. Due to this, Wi-Fi HaLow is reportedly perfect for battery powered devices such as smartwatches, smartphones and lends itself to Internet of Things devices such as sensors and smart applications. 

The future of Li-Fi


In November 2014, Li-Fi pioneers pureLiFi joined forces with French lighting company Lucibel aiming to bring out Li-Fi enables products, by the end of 2017.

pureLiFi already have two products on the market: Li-Flame Ceiling Unit to connect to an LED light fixture and Li-Flame Desktop Unit which connects to a device via USB, both aiming to provide light and connectivity in one device. 
Plus, with faster connectivity and data transmission it’s an interesting space for businesses. The integration of internet of things devices and Li-Fi will provide a wealth of opportunities for retailers and other businesses alike. For example, shop owners could transmit data to multiple customers' phones quickly, securely and remotely. 
Li-Fi is reportedly being tested in Dubai, by UAE-based telecommunications provider, du and Zero1. Du claims to have successfully provided internet, audio and video streaming over a Li-Fi connection.

Li-Fi Lamp.




What's more, reports suggest that Apple may build future iPhones with Li-Fi capabilities. A Twitter user found that within its iOS 9.1 code there were references to Li-Fi written as 'LiFiCapability' hinting that Apple may integrate Li-fi with iPhones in the future. 
Whether or not Li-Fi will live up to its hype is yet to be decided. Watch this space...

Watch This video for more details about Li-Fi .



                             

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Mobile Radiation, Health Effects

Mobile Radiation, Health Effects.



Recent Researches on Mobile Phones Effects...



Why is there concern that cell phones may cause cancer or other health problems?

There are three main reasons why people are concerned that cell phones (also known as “mobile” or “wireless” telephones) might have the potential to cause certain types of cancer or other health problems:

  • Cell phones emit radiofrequency energy (radio waves), a form of non-ionizing radiation, from their antennas. Tissues nearest to the antenna can absorb this energy.
  • The number of cell phone users has increased rapidly. As of December 2014, there were more than 327.5 million cell phone subscribers in the United States, according to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association. This is a nearly threefold increase from the 110 million users in 2000. Globally, the number of subscriptions is estimated by the International Telecommunications Union to be 5 billion.
  • Over time, the number of cell phone calls per day, the length of each call, and the amount of time people use cell phones have increased. However, improvements in cell phone technology have resulted in devices that have lower power.

What is radiofrequency energy and how does it affect the body?

Radiofrequency energy is a form of electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be categorized into two types: ionizing (e.g., x-rays, radon, and cosmic rays) and non-ionizing (e.g., radiofrequency and extremely low frequency, or power frequency). Electromagnetic radiation is defined according to its wavelength and frequency, which is the number of cycles of a wave that pass a reference point per second. Electromagnetic frequencies are described in units called hertz (Hz).

How is radiofrequency energy exposure measured in epidemiologic studies?

Epidemiologic studies use information from several sources, including questionnaires and data from cell phone service providers. Direct measurements are not yet possible outside of a laboratory setting. Estimates take into account the following:




  • How “regularly” study participants use cell phones (the number of calls per week or month)
  • The age and the year when study participants first used a cell phone and the age and the year of last use (allows calculation of the duration of use and time since the start of use)
  • The average number of cell phone calls per day, week, or month (frequency)
  • The average length of a typical cell phone call
  • The total hours of lifetime use, calculated from the length of typical call times, the frequency of use, and the duration of use.

What has research shown about the possible cancer-causing effects of radiofrequency energy?

Radiofrequency energy, unlike ionizing radiation, does not cause DNA damage that can lead to cancer. Its only consistently observed biological effect in humans is tissue heating. In animal studies, it has not been found to cause cancer or to enhance the cancer-causing effects of known chemical carcinogens (6–8). The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is carrying out a large-scale study in rodents of exposure to radiofrequency energy (the type used in cell phones). This investigation is being conducted in highly specialized labs that can specify and control sources of radiation and measure their effects. Preliminary results from this study were released in May 2016.
Researchers have carried out several types of epidemiologic studies to investigate the possibility of a relationship between cell phone use and the risk of malignant (cancerous) brain tumors, such as gliomas, as well as benign (noncancerous) tumors, such as acousticneuromas (tumors in the cells of the nerve responsible for hearing), most meningiomas (tumors in the meninges, membranes that cover and protect the brain and spinal cord), and parotid gland tumors (tumors in the salivary glands).


Where can I find more information about radiofrequency energy from my cell phone?

The FCC provides information about the specific absorption rate (SAR) of cell phones produced and marketed within the last 1 to 2 years. The SAR corresponds with the relative amount of radiofrequency energy absorbed by the head of a cell phone user (29). Consumers can access this information using the phone’s FCC ID number, which is usually located on the case of the phone, and the FCC’s ID search form.

How common is brain cancer? Has the incidence of brain cancer changed over time?

Brain cancer incidence and mortality (death) rates have changed little in the past decade.
In the United States, 23,770 new diagnoses and 16,050 deaths from brain and othercentral nervous system cancers are estimated for 2016.
The 5-year relative survival for brain cancers diagnosed from 2005 through 2011 was 35 percent (30). This is the percentage of people diagnosed with brain cancer who will still be alive 5 years after diagnosis compared with the survival of a person of the same age and sex who does not have cancer.
The risk of developing brain cancer increases with age. From 2008 through 2012, there were fewer than 5 brain cancer cases for every 100,000 people in the United States under age 65, compared with approximately 19 cases for every 100,000 people in the United States who were ages 65 or older (30).

Why are the findings from different studies of cell phone use and cancer risk inconsistent?

A limited number of studies have shown some evidence of statistical association of cell phone use and brain tumor risks, but most studies have found no association. Reasons for these discrepancies include the following
  • Recall bias, which can occur when data about prior habits and exposures are collected from study participants using questionnaires administered after diagnosis of a disease in some of the participants. It is possible that study participants who have brain tumors may remember their cell phone use differently from individuals without brain tumors. Many epidemiologic studies of cell phone use and brain cancer risk lack verifiable data about the total amount of cell phone use over time. In addition, people who develop a brain tumor may have a tendency to recall cell phone use mostly on the same side of the head where their tumor was found, regardless of whether they actually used their phone on that side of the head a lot or only a little.
  • Inaccurate reporting, which can happen when people say that something has happened more or less often than it actually did. People may not remember how much they used cell phones in a given time period.
  • Morbidity and mortality among study participants who have brain cancer. Gliomas are particularly difficult to study, for example, because of their high death rate and the short survival of people who develop these tumors. Patients who survive initial treatment are often impaired, which may affect their responses to questions. Furthermore, for people who have died, next-of-kin are often less familiar with the cell phone use patterns of their deceased family member and may not accurately describe their patterns of use to an interviewer.
  • Participation bias, which can happen when people who are diagnosed with brain tumors are more likely than healthy people (known as controls) to enroll in a research study. Also, controls who did not or rarely used cell phones were less likely to participate in the Interphone study than controls who used cell phones regularly. For example, the Interphone study reported participation rates of 78 percent for meningioma patients (range 56–92 percent for the individual studies), 64 percent for glioma patients (range 36–92 percent), and 53 percent for control subjects (range 42–74 percent) (11).
  • Changing technology and methods of use. Older studies evaluated radiofrequency energy exposure from analog cell phones. However, most cell phones today use digital technology, which operates at a different frequency and a lower power level than analog phones. Digital cell phones have been in use for more than a decade in the United States, and cellular technology continues to change (9). Texting, for example, has become a popular way of using a cell phone to communicate that does not require bringing the phone close to the head. Furthermore, the use of hands-free technology, such as wired and wireless headsets, is increasing and may decrease radiofrequency energy exposure to the head and brain.
  • How to avoid and methods of use.