[Firebug-cvs] firebug/doc/spie2004 spie_2004.tex,1.2,1.3

[<do...@us...>]

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}