Update of /cvsroot/firebug/firebug/doc/spie2004
In directory sc8-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv13181
Modified Files:
spie_2004.tex
Log Message:
Minor changes.
Index: spie_2004.tex
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/firebug/firebug/doc/spie2004/spie_2004.tex,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -C2 -d -r1.2 -r1.3
*** spie_2004.tex 20 Nov 2003 18:08:48 -0000 1.2
--- spie_2004.tex 21 Nov 2003 01:04:31 -0000 1.3
***************
*** 1,5 ****
\documentclass[]{spie}
!
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{chicago}
--- 1,5 ----
\documentclass[]{spie}
! \input{comment}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{chicago}
***************
*** 192,195 ****
--- 192,197 ----
theoretical analysis of it.
+
+
The basic idea of their algorithm is as follows.
Each node communicates with its neighbors
***************
*** 208,211 ****
--- 210,215 ----
number of nodes goes to infinity, is shown.
+
+
\paragraph{West et al.}~\citeyear{west:b2001}
***************
*** 223,226 ****
--- 227,232 ----
than 1 meter, the range severely degraded.
+
+
Some of the suggestions that they make to
expand current sensor network implementations
***************
*** 254,257 ****
--- 260,265 ----
their position.
+
+
They employ two techniques for associating signal
strength measurements to distance. Both techniques
***************
*** 267,270 ****
--- 275,280 ----
strength received.
+
+
The measurements for both these approaches were
collected outdoors with very little interference,
***************
*** 286,289 ****
--- 296,301 ----
nodes to be in radio proximity of every other node.
+
+
The ``scatternet'' tree is rooted at a network hub, which
executes most of the scatternet algorithm to build routes for
***************
*** 300,303 ****
--- 312,316 ----
+
The complexity of building the tree increases
exponentially with the number of nodes, which the authors
***************
*** 411,414 ****
--- 424,428 ----
\section{Methodology}
+
This presents an outline of field experiments on a
soft-deployment of a sensor network in the Claremont
***************
*** 418,421 ****
--- 432,436 ----
of sight, smooth terrain.
+
Testing sensor networks in an outdoor setting has
been attempted mostly in scenarios dealing with
***************
*** 439,442 ****
--- 454,464 ----
\subsection{Mote variability test}
+ Mechanical deployment of motes will most likely
+ result in motes located at different heights from
+ the ground surface, which may affect the transmission
+ range. In turn, the transmission range influences the
+ areal extent of the network, thus the number of motes
+ required to obtain a certain coverage density.
+
Due to manufacturing processes,
each mote has slightly different transmission and
***************
*** 464,495 ****
\section{Results}
! Put all the data from all the experiments here.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
! \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{figs/tempfig.eps}
! \caption{Reception probability of links in a network
! of line topology.}
! \label{fig:linetopo}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
- The first set of experiments measured the success rate
- for packet transmission for several sizes of networks
- with line topologies, in several different terrains.
- The networks consisted of 1,2,4 and 8 nodes, spaced
- equally, in open, brushy, and forested terrain.
- Motes from the Mica2 and Dust platforms were tested.
- The results indicate that height above the
- ground is an important factor in packet
- reception capability.
\section{Discussion}
Interpret all the data from the previous section here.
Say what is important and why it's important.
\section{Summary and conclusions}
--- 486,529 ----
\section{Results}
!
!
! \subsection{Ground level transmission}
!
!
! Our first experiment investigated the range of
! motes located on the ground in optimal terrain:
! a nearly level, grassy field located on the
! University of California, Berkeley, campus.
! The field has a slight dip to the west and
! contains a broad shallow depression approximately
! 80 meters across. The base station was deployed
! at one end of the field, and motes were deployed
! along a Keson survey tape at 5 meter increments.
!
!
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
! \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{figs/turfrange.eps}
! \caption{Reception distances for motes transmitting from
! ground level to a mote receiving at ground level.}
! \label{fig:turfrange}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
+
+
Interpret all the data from the previous section here.
Say what is important and why it's important.
+ The results indicate that height above the
+ ground is an important factor in packet
+ reception capability.
+
\section{Summary and conclusions}
***************
*** 504,507 ****
--- 538,544 ----
\bibliographystyle{spiebib}
+
+ \begin{comment}
+
\appendix
***************
*** 762,766 ****
\end{center}
\end{table}
!
--- 799,803 ----
\end{center}
\end{table}
! \end{comment}
|
