2022
DOI: 10.1109/mce.2021.3096795
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Wearable Freedive Computer With Acoustic Communication

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1
1
1

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As seen in Table 6 , two such wearables fall back on a 2-part solution in which the transmitter or receiver is attached to the back, and the diver simply connects a wearable to the device on their back [ 54 , 55 ]. Furthermore, apart from those in a study by Bube et al [ 56 ], none of the wearables can reach a range of more than 20 m, which is not sufficient for meaningful use. Additionally, the data rate also decreases considerably as the communication range increases.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 60%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As seen in Table 6 , two such wearables fall back on a 2-part solution in which the transmitter or receiver is attached to the back, and the diver simply connects a wearable to the device on their back [ 54 , 55 ]. Furthermore, apart from those in a study by Bube et al [ 56 ], none of the wearables can reach a range of more than 20 m, which is not sufficient for meaningful use. Additionally, the data rate also decreases considerably as the communication range increases.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 60%
“…As soon as underwater communication wearables can be made to be cheaper and more compact, other subaspects, such as the collection of vital parameter data, will automatically improve. The first promising step toward a more cost-effective and compact device with an acceptable communication range has already been presented [ 56 ]. A wearable device with data transmission capabilities can be manufactured commercially through consistent and further developments that are based on previous approaches.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Safety device [173] 14m Polymer/PMMA (Lexan, Acryl, Plexiglas, etc.) communication [191], [193], [194] 1.5m, 18m, 250m HUD [204], [205] 10 , [206], [209] 300m, 45m (100m), N.A. ,95m (300m) Safety device [176], [167], [168], [171], [172], [177], [180], [183] 30m (80m), 11m (200m), 3m (90m), 10.5m (200m), 45m, 3m (90m), 300m, N.A., potting compound HUD [207] 11 , [209], [210] 9m, 95m (300m), 130m tempered glass Interaction [199] 50m not specified Safety device [175], [182] 30m, 9m As expected, across all examined studies, the depth tested is well below the theoretical respectively the construction depth (Figure 13.…”
Section: Housing and Sealingmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Studies covering underwater communication devices, two of them fall back on a two-part solution, in that the transmitter / receiver is attached to the back and the diver simply connects a wearable to the device on the back [188], [189]. Furthermore, apart from [193], none of the wearables can reach a range of more than 20m, which is not sufficient for a meaningful use until now. Conversely, however, the data rate also decreases significantly with the range.…”
Section: Underwater Communicationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation