Creating an Effective Proximity Alarm Using Household Items
description
Transcript of Creating an Effective Proximity Alarm Using Household Items
CREATING AN EFFECTIVE PROXIMITY ALARM USING HOUSEHOLD ITEMS
By Sarah V.
ABOUT ME Music, math and science are my favorite subjects I plan on studying engineering in college Academics
Straight A student I have been placing in science fairs since 1st grade
Since 5th grade my projects have focused on Wi-Fi antenna design and wireless communication protocols
My interest was sparked by the need to improve the performance of my home wireless networking system
Belonged to an FLL team 6th – 7th grade and the team went to state each of those years
I convinced my parents to create the team I learned how to approach, solve and break down physical tasks and problems into simple
programming steps in NXTg I also learned how to research complicated topics including nanotechnology, energy
sources and climate change, and how to apply what I learned to solve problems in my community
Clubs Algebra II Team National Honor Society
Symphonic Orchestra I am a 2nd violinist Over Christmas Break we had the privilege of playing at the Midwest Conference
as 1 of 2 full orchestras in the nation that were chosen Schools
Full time 10th grade student at Satellite High School I now take Computer Programming I with Mr. Jordan on FLVS
I have been taking FLVS classes since the end of my 8th grade year
AN INTRODUCTION Purpose:
To create an alarm that will alert someone if they leave any items (or children) in a car
In 2010, more than 49 children died from being left in hot cars I had trouble with leaving my violin in my hot car in the overbearing Florida sun
Other Purposes Make sure that young children do not wander too far away Make sure that you luggage does not wander too far away
Design Criteria Constructed of items found around the house Lightweight, compact Reasonable range (defined as alarming within an easily retrievable
distance) Dependable (defined as alarming every time communication
between the devices is broken) Hypotheses:
If the master device (NXT) and slave device (i-gotU) are separated, then the master device will alarm when the Bluetooth signal is lost, alerting the user.
If the distance to alarm from each of the four sides of the NXT to the i-gotU is measured, the distances will be equal.
If the distance to alarm is based upon GPS values rather than Bluetooth signal loss, then the distance to alarm will be less variable.
BASIC BACKGROUND INFORMATION Bluetooth
Short range wireless communication technology Known for it’s low power consumption and low cost Uses the 2.4 GHz ISM (Industrial, Scientific, and Medical) frequency band Most devices can automatically connect up to other Bluetooth devices
Lego NXT Bluetooth (Uses a V2.0 class 2 device) enabled, programmable micro
computer made by the Lego cooperation Has an LCD window to display images/text and a speaker to play sound files Uses NXT-G and RobotC programming languages Typically used to build LEGO robots
i-gotU GPS Logger and Photo Tagger Bluetooth (Uses a V2.0 class 2 device) enabled GPS (Global Positioning
System) Can send GPS coordinates to another device via Bluetooth
RobotC Used to Program the NXT Closely related to the C-programming language (‘written’ not graphical programming
language) GPS (Global Positioning System)
Satellite based navigation system Most commercial users can expect at least +/- 10 meters Satellites send their time and location to a receiver (your GPS system) and the receiver
calculates its location Market Review
Several other proximity alarms were found on the internet
THE CONCEPT
Devices in Range – No Alarm
Devices Not in Range – Alarm
nXT
A B C USB
1 2 3
LEGO
4
i-gotU
i-gotU
nXT
A B C USB
1 2 3
LEGO
4
THE CONCEPT CONT.
MATERIALS & METHODSMaterials One HP G70-460US Notebook PC running RobotC One Lego Mindstorms NXT running RobotC One i-gotU USB GPS Logger and Photo Tagger (Mobile
Action, GT-200) The proximity alarm tests were conducted in:
an open field with few signal interferences (experimental control) in a suburban environment (home driveway to front door) with
typical signal interferences (Wi-Fi and physical obstacles) One 50 m tape measure was used to determine the
distance at which the Bluetooth signals were lostMethods A RobotC program for the NXT was written and debugged
The objective of the program was to monitor the Bluetooth signal between the NXT and i-gotU, and to alarm and display time and GPS coordinates of the i-gotU when the Bluetooth signal was lost
The program was tested and adjusted to optimize communication between the NXT and i-got-U. Figure 4 contains the program flow chart
MATERIALS & METHODS The optimum range and reliability of the proximity alarm were determined at the
soccer fields where there were few signal interferences (ex. physical obstacles and other wireless devices) Figure 1 contains a conceptual diagram of the signal path and equipment Figure 2 contains a Google Earth image of the field testing site The distance to alarm was measured forty times from each side (top, right, bottom, left) of
the NXT to the i-gotU In this scenario, the NXT remained stationary while the i-gotU was moved out of range The Interquartile Range (IQR) test was used to identify outliers in each data set (Donnelly,
2007) After the outliers were discarded, the average and standard deviation of each data set were
calculated A completely randomized one-way ANOVA and pairwise Sheffe tests were conducted to
determine if the Bluetooth signal strength (distance to alarm) was equal in all directions (sides) from the NXT
The range and reliability of the proximity alarm were then determined in a suburban environment (residential property) with typical signal interferences (Wi-Fi and physical obstacles) The i-gotU was placed in the middle of the back seat of a GMC Envoy with tinted windows The distance to alarm was measured forty times as the NXT was moved from the car to the
front door of the house Figure 3 contains the suburban house test site diagram The Interquartile Range (IQR) was used to identify outliers in each data set (Donnelly, 2007) After the outliers were discarded, the average and standard deviation of each data set were
calculated It is important to note that the GPS data in the house scenario corresponded to only
one location, the location of the i-gotU in the backseat of the car This data was used to analyze the variability of the GPS data and calculate distances for
comparison to the measured Bluetooth signal based distances
THE PROGRAM FLOW CHART
Reset NXT Bluetooth to Factory Settings
Turn on NXT Bluetooth
Configure NXT Bluetooth to Tone with Connect/Disconnect, use Default Password, and Set the Security PIN to 0000
Search for Bluetooth Devices
Connect to i-gotU Bluetooth
Check Bluetooth Connection Between Devices
Bluetooth Signal
Received (In Range)
Yes
No
Start
Increment Count
Display “In Range”, Count, and Position
Display Last GPS Position, Time, and “Out of Range”
Beep Twice
TESTING SITES OVERVIEW
SOCCER FIELD TESTING SITE
TESTING OCCURRED ALONG THE WHITE LINE. THE NXT WAS STATIONARY ON A POST AND THE I-GOTU WAS MOVED ALONG THE WHITE LINE.
HOUSE TESTING SITE
TESTING OCCURRED ALONG THE PATH TO THE FRONT DOOR OF THE HOUSE. THE I-GOTU (SHOWN) WAS LEFT IN THE CAR AND THE NXT WAS MOVED AWAY.
RESULTS: DATA EXAMPLE & SUMMARY TABLE
Data Table 1. Distance to Signal Loss in the Top DirectionLatitude Longitude
Trail # Distance Degrees Minutes Direction Degrees Minutes Direction Time Date
1 5 28 9.526 N 80 35.883 W 14:48:51 13-Mar
2 4 28 9.522 N 80 35.883 W 14:49:50 13-Mar
3 4 28 9.520 N 80 35.884 W 14:51:08 13-Mar
4 5 28 9.519 N 80 35.883 W 14:51:56 13-Mar
5 7 28 9.522 N 80 35.882 W 14:53:16 13-Mar
6 5 28 9.522 N 80 35.883 W 15:29:18 13-Mar
7 5 28 9.521 N 80 35.883 W 15:30:40 13-Mar
8 5 28 9.521 N 80 35.884 W 15:31:31 13-Mar
9 5 28 9.520 N 80 35.884 W 15:32:19 13-Mar
10 7 28 9.521 N 80 35.884 W 15:33:13 13-Mar
11 7 28 9.520 N 80 35.883 W 15:34:53 13-Mar
12 6 28 9.520 N 80 35.884 W 15:35:54 13-Mar
13 9 28 9.520 N 80 35.884 W 15:36:55 13-Mar
14 6 28 9.522 N 80 35.884 W 15:38:03 13-Mar
15 6 28 9.521 N 80 35.885 W 15:39:01 13-Mar
16 6 28 9.523 N 80 35.884 W 15:39:59 13-Mar
17 6 28 9.521 N 80 35.885 W 15:40:56 13-Mar
18 7 28 9.522 N 80 35.884 W 15:41:57 13-Mar
19 8 28 9.527 N 80 35.883 W 15:43:07 13-Mar
20 8 28 9.521 N 80 35.883 W 15:44:05 13-Mar
21 7 28 9.523 N 80 35.884 W 15:45:05 13-Mar
22 4 28 9.523 N 80 35.882 W 15:46:06 13-Mar
23 6 28 9.521 N 80 35.882 W 15:47:00 13-Mar
24 6 28 9.522 N 80 35.882 W 15:47:54 13-Mar
25 6 28 9.522 N 80 35.885 W 15:48:46 13-Mar
26 7 28 9.523 N 80 35.886 W 15:49:49 13-Mar
27 6 28 9.523 N 80 35.885 W 15:50:56 13-Mar
28 7 28 9.521 N 80 35.884 W 15:51:57 13-Mar
29 6 28 9.522 N 80 35.884 W 15:52:49 13-Mar
30 6 28 9.524 N 80 35.888 W 15:54:43 13-Mar
31 7 28 9.522 N 80 35.883 W 15:55:37 13-Mar
32 7 28 9.522 N 80 35.883 W 15:56:45 13-Mar
33 6 28 9.522 N 80 35.884 W 15:57:46 13-Mar
Ave. 6 9.522 35.884
St. Dev. 1 0.002 0.001
Data Table 7. Distance to Signal Loss Summary Table
Trail # Front Left BottomCalculated Distances Right House
1 5 19 52 18.6 37 5.82 4 21 52 48.3 38 5.83 4 39 52 37.4 36 5.54 5 41 52 22.2 37 5.55 7 35 53 27.8 38 5.36 5 32 55 13.1 24 5.57 5 31 54 18.5 40 5.38 5 32 51 20.4 39 5.39 5 32 54 22.2 40 6.0
10 7 33 53 26 40 5.511 7 34 56 16.8 36 5.512 6 37 55 27.9 30 5.313 9 44 55 22.2 40 5.314 6 35 56 31.6 40 5.315 6 37 56 22.2 28 5.316 6 37 55 22.3 31 5.517 6 47 57 24.1 32 5.318 7 32 54 29.8 37 5.019 8 34 54 29.7 35 5.320 8 38 54 44.6 40 5.321 7 37 53 31.5 38 5.522 4 36 52 31.5 38 5.323 6 48 52 31.5 38 5.024 6 33 49 24.1 37 5.825 6 30 52 27.8 35 5.826 7 37 50 22.2 40 5.327 6 20 49 22.2 36 6.028 7 37 54 51.9 37 5.029 6 38 52 22.2 40 5.830 6 44 49 27.8 47 5.531 7 41 53 25.9 23 5.832 7 44 53 42.7 49 6.033 6 24 53 20.6 52 6.034 44 57 40.5 5.535 40 53 35.2 5.836 5.337 5.538 5.239 5.540 5.8
Ave. 6 36 53 28 37 5St. Dev. 1.199691 7.005242 2.096876 9 5.904364 0.285771
RESULTS: STATISTICS – CALCULATED BY HAND BY RESEARCHER
Table 8. Measured Field and House Data Outlier Test
Calculating the Interquartral Range (IQR)
Field Data House
Top Left Bottom Right Q1 6 30.5 52 31.5 5.3Q3 7.5 38.5 54.5 40 5.8
IQR 1.5 8 2.5 8.5 0.5
Outlier Range
> 9.75 50.5 58.25 52.75 6.55
< 3.75 18.5 48.25 18.75 4.55
Number of Outliers in
Data7 5 5 8 0
Data Table 9. ANOVA: Single Factor Test
Summary
Groups Count Sum Average VarianceHypothesi
s
Front 33 205 6.22 1.43926 HO: μ1 = μ2 = μ3 = μ4
Left 35 1245 35.57 49.0734 H1 : not all μ's equal
Bottom 35 1859 53.12 4.39689
Right 33 1228 37.20 34.8615
Total 136 4537 33.36
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit α = 0.01
Between Groups 38639.8 3 12879.93331 570.594 2.34E-75 3.9335
Within Groups 2979.62 132 22.57284196
Total 41619.4 135
Reject HO
Data Table 10. Scheffe Test
Sample Pair FS FSC Conclusion
Top and Left 648.143 11.8005 Difference
Top and Bottom 1655.51 11.8005 Difference
Top and Right 701.878 11.8005 Difference
Left and Bottom 238.961 11.8005 Difference
Left and Right 2.01956 11.8005 No Difference
Bottom and Right 190.667 11.8005 Difference
RESULTS: GRAPHS
GPS DATAPlease note that the time, date, degrees, and direction were taken off in order to fit this summary table on this slide.
Direction and degrees remained constant (28 degrees N lat.; 80 degrees W longitude).
Data Table 11. GPS Distance Summary TableBottom Direction Data 0 Point
Trail # Distance Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude1 52 9.531 35.882 9.521 35.8832 52 9.547 35.881 9.521 35.8833 52 9.541 35.886 9.521 35.8814 52 9.533 35.883 9.521 35.8835 53 9.536 35.883 9.522 35.8836 55 9.528 35.884 9.522 35.8837 54 9.531 35.883 9.522 35.8838 51 9.532 35.883 9.522 35.8829 54 9.533 35.883 9.520 35.883
10 53 9.535 35.882 9.520 35.88311 56 9.530 35.882 9.521 35.88312 55 9.536 35.882 9.521 35.88313 55 9.533 35.883 9.521 35.88314 56 9.538 35.882 9.521 35.88315 56 9.533 35.883 9.520 35.88216 55 9.533 35.882 9.521 35.88317 57 9.534 35.883 9.521 35.88318 54 9.537 35.881 9.521 35.88319 54 9.537 35.882 9.521 35.88320 54 9.545 35.881 9.520 35.88321 53 9.538 35.883 9.520 35.88422 52 9.538 35.883 9.521 35.88323 52 9.538 35.883 9.521 35.88324 49 9.534 35.883 9.521 35.88425 52 9.536 35.883 9.523 35.88326 50 9.533 35.883 9.521 35.88427 49 9.533 35.883 9.522 35.88328 54 9.549 35.883 9.522 35.88429 52 9.533 35.883 9.521 35.88430 49 9.536 35.883 9.521 35.88331 53 9.535 35.883 9.521 35.88432 53 9.544 35.884 9.521 35.88433 53 9.532 35.885 9.521 35.88334 57 9.523 35.884 9.522 35.88435 53 9.540 35.883 9.521 35.88336 9.519 35.88337 9.520 35.88338 9.521 35.88339 9.520 35.88340 9.521 35.883
Ave. 53 9.536 35.883 9.521 35.883
St. Dev. 2 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.001
DISCUSSION Field Data
The field data represented a case of minimum signal attenuation from interferences (physical and wireless) The Bluetooth antenna in the NXT was directional (See Graph 1 and 2)
Distance to signal loss from each of the four sides of the NXT varied depending on which side of the NXT was facing the i-gotU
The results of the Completely Randomized One-Way ANOVA analysis confirmed that there was a statistical difference between the all the distances
The Scheffe tests determined that all the sides were statistically different from the each other except in the left and right directions
House Data The house data (home driveway to front door) represented a case with typical signal interferences (Wi-Fi and physical
obstacles)
It was found that the alarm would go off at the protected, recessed area around the front door (See Graph 3) This was significantly less than the corresponding bottom side distance to signal loss observed in the field tests
The 90% signal range loss between the open field and suburban house tests of the NXT/i-gotU alarm system was primarily due to attenuation from physical obstacles
The metal car body, tinted windows and vegetation (due to water content) have significant attenuation values and all contributed to the signal loss
Alarm Design and Operation Evaluation The NXT/i-gotU alarm system worked 200 out of 200 trials showing it was 100% dependable Significant alarm distance variability was noted in consecutive trials (See Graphs 1 and 2)
Alarm distance variability was also noted in commercial units Changing the RobotC program to alarm based on GPS calculated distances rather than Bluetooth signal
loss would not improve alarm distance variability (See GPS Data Slide) The GPS data exhibited significant variability and did not correlate well with the measured signal distances
Several types of proximity alarms were found on the internet (See Table 1) The NXT/i-gotU system was reliable and demonstrated comparable range, but it was larger, heavier, consumed
more power, and was more expensive than the commercial devices Due to these factors, it probably would not be as convenient to use as the other systems However, the NXT/i-gotU system did not have to be purchased and the components can be used for other
purposes
Name Mobility Basis Power Range Comments Price
Ear SystemDefined base area;
Base unit is stationary, tag is attached and tracked
Alarms when tagged item or person goes outside set limits;
Automatic notification to designated phone
Not Specified Up to 1 mile
Range is settable; Originally developed for the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard, currenty used to monitor impaired individuals; Can be used as
proximity alarm and to locate an individual or item within a mile radius
Not listed
Loc8tor LiteHandset with homing tags (2); Handset credit
card size (0.17 oz/ 5g)
Homing tags are attached to items; Automatic notification to designated phone
Handset uses two AA batteries - included Tags use two LR54 batteries - not
included
Up to 122 meters (400
feet)
Stated purpose to locate lost items rather than to notify that item is out of range of device, but might
be able to be used as proximity alarm - unclear$79.99
RFID Tag Alarm
Small mobile monitor (1.75" x 0.1") can clip to belt, key ring or pocket;
Small tag that adheres to valuable item
Tags are attached to items; Small monitor alarm when tag goes
out of range
States 6 mo. Battery Life; Monitor uses two
CR2032 - not included; Tag uses one CR2032 battery - not
included
Two range settings; Short range:
30 ft; Long range:
100 ft
Stated purpose is to secure items within your comfort zone to prevent theft
$39.95 - 59.95
Child Proximity Alarm
Small transmitter device (1.75" H, 1.5" L, 3/16" W) attached to item being protected;
Small receiver (2.5" H, 1.75" L, 3/16" W)Transmitter on item to be protected
Includes two CR2032 batteries
15 to 25 feet Discontinued
Child GuardTransmitter disguised as a panda bracelet with Velcro strap; Small receiver has a key ring clip
Panda bracelet is attached to item/child; Receiver alarms when item is out of
range
Battery included - no specifications
Settable from 3 to 21 feet
Sensor range is inconsistent; Off switch can easily be bumped into off position -
gives same triple beep as when the device is out of range
$25 - $30
New Child Guard
Transmitter disguised as a blue dog - can be worn as a necklace, bracelet or tag;
Small receiver equipped with key ring clips
Blue dog is attached to item/child; Receiver alarms when
item is out of range
Li Battery included - no specifications
Dial from 6 to 30 feet
Unclear if this is an upgrade of the previous Child Guard or just new packaging
$29 - $40
Anti-theft & Anti-loss Wireless Security
Luggage Alarm (TRA-237)
Small transmitter and receiver equipped with key ring clips; Transmitter 60 x 35 x 20 mm (LWH);
Receiver 50 x 32 x 19 mm (LWH)
3 modes of operation; Anti-loss mode - receiver beeps when transmitter is 3-5 m away, owner then
pushes an alarm button on receiver and transmitter will emit a loud alarm
Transmitter uses two CR2032 batteries - not
included; Receiver uses one CR2032 battery - not
included
Anti-loss range is 3-5 m;
Remote control range
Made to prevent theft of items such as luggage, purses, laptops, etc.
$20.99
Secu4 Blue Watchdog
Credit card sized alarm device paired with a cell phone
Watchdog emits a shrill alarm when separated from the cell phone
Stand-by time of 120 hours; 3.7 v LiPo battery;
Can be charged via recharger or USB
1-30 m configurable
alarm
Sells from the company's website along with a list of compatible phones
$95.00
NXT/i-gotUi-gotU is 46 x 41.5 x 14 mm (LWH) and 37 g; NXT is 11.1 x 7.2 x 4.7 cm
(LWH)
i-gotU is attached to item by strap; NXT is carried by person and alarms when item is out
range
NXT can use 6 AA or a rechargeable battery pack with wall charger;
i-gotU equipped with internal
rechargeable battery with USB charger cable
Open field range of up to
Devices must be turned on and communications established prior to use - usually takes a minute or
two
if purchased separately,
approximately $240
TABLES: MARKET COMPARISON
TABLES: EXAMPLES OF ATTENUATION VALUES OF COMMON CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
MaterialAttenuation Value
(dBm) ReferenceNotes
Plasterboard wall 3 (Geier, Beating Signal Loss in WLANs)
Glass wall with metal frame 6 (Geier, Beating Signal Loss in WLANs)
Cinder block wall 4 (Geier, Beating Signal Loss in WLANs)
Office window 3 (Geier, Beating Signal Loss in WLANs)
Metal door 6 (Geier, Beating Signal Loss in WLANs)
Metal door in brick wall 12.4 (Geier, Beating Signal Loss in WLANs)
Non-tinted glass 4-5 (Ogunjemilua, Davies and Grout) At 2.4 GHz
Wood door 4-5 (Ogunjemilua, Davies and Grout) At 2.4 GHzCinder block wall 4-5 (Ogunjemilua, Davies and Grout) At 2.4 GHz
Plaster wall 4-5 (Ogunjemilua, Davies and Grout) At 2.4 GHz
Brick wall 5-8 (Ogunjemilua, Davies and Grout) At 2.4 GHz
Marble 5-8 (Ogunjemilua, Davies and Grout) At 2.4 GHz
Wire mesh 5-8 (Ogunjemilua, Davies and Grout) At 2.4 GHz
Metal tinted glass 5-8 (Ogunjemilua, Davies and Grout) At 2.4 GHz
Concrete wall 10-15 (Ogunjemilua, Davies and Grout) At 2.4 GHz
Paper 10-15 (Ogunjemilua, Davies and Grout) At 2.4 GHz
Ceramic bullet-proof glass 10-15 (Ogunjemilua, Davies and Grout) At 2.4 GHz
Metals >15 (Ogunjemilua, Davies and Grout) At 2.4 GHz
Silvering (mirrors) >15 (Ogunjemilua, Davies and Grout) At 2.4 GHz
CONCLUSIONS
This project focused on creating a proximity alarm out of items found around the house that could warn the user if a heat sensitive object or child was left in a car
The NXT-igotU alarm system met the design criteria However, market research showed that while the system performed
comparably to commercially available systems, it was not as convenient or cost effective
The following is a summary of the project conclusions: The RobotC program was 100% reliable. The NXT/i-gotU proximity alarm successfully
alarmed in 200 out of 200 trails. The first hypothesis was supported. The field test results showed that the NXT’s Bluetooth was directional. The second
hypothesis was not supported. The alarm distances based on GPS data exhibited greater variability than the alarm
distances based on Bluetooth signal loss. Alarm variability would not be reduced by changing the RobotC program to alarm based on GPS calculated distances rather than Bluetooth signal loss. The third hypothesis was not supported.
In the suburban test, the NXT/i-gotU’s average signal range was 5.5m. The 90% loss in signal range compared to the field test (53m) was primarily due to physical obstacles.
Significant alarm distance (Bluetooth signal) variability was observed in both the field and suburban test data. Significant variability was also noted in commercial units.
Commercially available alarms were smaller, lighter, consumed less power and were cheaper than the NXT/i-gotU system. However, the NXT/i-gotU demonstrated comparable performance and its components can be used for other activities.
Future Studies The next phase of this project would be to create a proximity alarm out of a cell phone
and an i-gotU GPSThis would improve the convenience of the proximity alarm and possibly reduce the range variability as well due to the higher end electronic components in the phone. Using a phone could even increase the versatility of the system. A GPS equipped phone could be programmed to show the last known location of the i-gotU on a map and the phone’s current location.
BIBLIOGRAPHY & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my teachers for all their guidance and encouragement, and my parents for driving me and my equipment back and forth to the soccer fields. I couldn’t have done this project without them.
I would like to thank Wayne Van Sickle for his help and guidance with RobotC.
(2007). Patent No. 7259671.
About ROBOTC. (2009). Retrieved December 7, 2010, from ROBOTC: http://www.robotc.net/download/
Anderson, C. (2007, November 12). The Best Programming Language for Lego Mindstorms, Hands Down. Retrieved December 7, 2010, from WIRED: http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2007/11/the-best-progra
B&H. (n.d.). Loc8tor Lite. Retrieved January 12, 2011, from B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=747391&Q=&is=REG&A=details
Baker, S. M. (2009, April 22). BLuetooth Technology Gets Faster with Bluetooth 3.0. Retrieved December 21, 2010, from Bluetooth: http://www.bluetooth.com/English/Press/Pages/PressReleasesDetail.aspx?ID=16
Bernstein, D. (n.d.). Bluetooth (IEEE 802.15.1): An Introduction. Retrieved December 2010, from James Madison University: https://users.cs.jmu.edu/bernstdh/web/common/lectures/slides_bluetooth.php
Bluetooth and WLAN. (n.d.). Retrieved November 27, 2010, from Eurescom: http://www.eurescom.de/~pub-deliverables/p1100-series/p1118/d3/bltandwlan.html
Bluetooth. (2010). Basics. Retrieved November 27, 2010, from Bluetooth: http://www.bluetooth.com/English/Technology/Pages/Basics.aspx
Bluetooth Low Energy Technology. (2010). Retrieved December 21, 2010, from Bluetooth: http://www.bluetooth.com/English/Products/Pages/low_energy.aspx
Bluetooth Low Energy Technology FAQ. (2009, December). Retrieved December 21, 2010, from Bluetooth: http://www.bluetooth.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Low_Energy_FAQ_External_General_Public.pdf
Bluetooth SIG. (2010). About the Bluetooth SIG. Retrieved December 2010, from Bluetooth: http://bluetooth.com/English/SIG/pages/default.aspx
Bluetooth SIG Opens Qualification Program for Bluetooth Core Specifications Version 4.0. (2010, July 6). Retrieved December 21, 2010, from Bluetooth: http://www.bluetooth.com/english/press/pages/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?id=106
Bluetooth Wireless Networking Explained. (2010, May 15). Retrieved November 21, 2010, from TheTravelInsider: http://thetravelinsider.info/roadwarriorcontent/bluetooth.htm
Bourk, T. (n.d.). Preventing Bluetooth Interference. Retrieved November 27, 2010, from Cellular Online: http://www.cellular.co.za/technologies/bluetooth/bluetooth_preventing_interference.htm
C Plus Plus. (2009). Retrieved September 4, 2010, from http://www.cplusplus.com
C++ Reference. (n.d.). Retrieved 2010, from cplusplus.com: http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/
Child Guard Proximity Alarm. (n.d.). Retrieved January 6, 2011, from Brick House Security: http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/cguard24.html
Child Proximity Alarm. (n.d.). Retrieved January 6, 2011, from Defense Devices.com: http://defensedevices.com/child-safety-proximity-alarm.html
Chronister, V. (2010, November 28). (S. Van Sickle, Interviewer)
Coulton, P., & Edwards, R. (2007). S60 Programming: A Tutorial Guide. Chichester: J. Wiley & Sons.
Debugging on the Device Quick Start. (2010, September 17). Retrieved 2010, from Symbian Developer: http://developer.symbian.org/wiki/Debugging_on_the_Device_Quick_Start
DePriest, D. (n.d.). NMEA data. Retrieved November 28, 2010, from gpsinformation.org: http://gpsinformation.org/dale/nmea.htm
(2007). In R. A. Donnelly, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Statistics (2 ed., pp. 73-75, 182-183, 289-301). New York City, New York: Alpha.
Edwards, L., & Barker, R. (2004). Developing Series 60 Applications: A Guide for Symbian OS C++ Developers (Advanced Edition ed.). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Flatley, J. L. (2010, September 28). Blue Watchdog Bluetooth proximity alarm: 100 decibels of aural terror in a credit card-sized package. Retrieved November 27, 2010, from engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/28/blue-watchdog-bluetooth-proximity-alarm-100-decibels-of-aural-t/
Forum.Nokia. (2010, October 26). Nokia E63. Retrieved August 29, 2010, from Forum.Nokia: http://www.forum.nokia.com/Devices/Device_specifications/E63/
Franklin, C., & Layton, J. (n.d.). How Bluetooth Works. Retrieved November 27, 2010, from howstuffworks: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/bluetooth.htm
Geier, J. (2002, July 23). Beating Signal Loss in WLANs. Retrieved January 1, 2010, from Wi-Fi Planet Tutorials: http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/articles.php/1431101
Geier, J. (2002, July 2). Minimizing Bluetooth Interference. Retrieved September 2010, from Wi-Fi Planet: http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/1379911/Minimizing-Bluetooth-Interference.htm
Golmie, N., & Chevrollier, N. (n.d.). Techniques to Improve Blueooth Performance in Interference Environments. Retrieved November 21, 2010, from National Institute of Standards and Technology: http://www.antd.nist.gov/pubs/golmiemilcom.pdf
Gordon, J. (n.d.). How Do Bluetooth Devices Work? Retrieved October 2, 2010, from eHow: http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4925086_bluetooth-devices-work.html
GPS In More Detail. (n.d.). Retrieved January 12, 2011, from Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum: http://nasm.si.edu/gps/spheres.html
History of Bluetooth Technology. (2010). Retrieved December 2010, from Bluetooth: http://bluetooth.com/English/SIG/Pages/History_of_the_SIG.aspx
BIBLIOGRAPHY & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSHow Bluetooth Works. (n.d.). Retrieved November 27, 2010, from GSMFavorites.com: http://gsmfavorites.com/documents/bluetooth/works/
How Bluetooth Works - Signal Strength, Frequency, and Profiles. (n.d.). Retrieved November 21, 2010, from BlueTomorrow.com: http://www.bluetomorrow.com/about-bluetooth-technology/how-bluetooth-works/how-bluetooth-works-2.html
How Does GPS Work? (n.d.). Retrieved January 12, 2011, from Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum: http://nasm.si.edu/gps/work.html
How does wireless communication work? (2008, June 10). Retrieved November 28, 2010, from Energi: http://www.savingtrust.dk/consumer/products/energy-saving-equipment/wireless-equipment/how-does-wireless-communication-work
IEEE 802.15 WPAN Task Group 1 (TG1). (2004, Febuary 9). Retrieved December 2010, from IEEE 802.15: http://www.ieee802.org/15/pub/TG1.html
IEEE 802.15 WPAN Task Group 2 (TG2). (2004, May 12). Retrieved December 21, 2010, from IEEE 802.15: http://www.ieee802.org/15/pub/TG2.html
IEEE 802.15 WPAN Task Group 3 (TG3). (2009, June 9). Retrieved December 21, 2010, from IEEE 802.15: http://www.ieee802.org/15/pub/TG3.html
IEEE 802.15 WPAN Task Group 4 (TG4). (2010, January 27). Retrieved December 21, 2010, from IEEE 802.15: http://www.ieee802.org/15/pub/TG4.html
i-gotU Bluetooth GPS Travel & Sports Logger - GT-200e. (2009). Retrieved December 21, 2010, from Mobile Action: http://global.mobileaction.com/product/product_i-gotU_BT.jsp
Kernigham, B. W., & Ritchie, D. M. (1978). The C Programming Language (2 ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Könsgen, A. (2009). Bluetooth (IEEE 802.15.1). Retrieved December 2010, from Universität Bremen: Communication Networks: http://www.comnets.uni-bremen.de/typo3site/uploads/media/nswlan_ch07_0910.pdf
Lego Mindstorms Team. NXT Technology. In Lego Mindstorms User Guide (p. 11).
Light in the box. (n.d.). Anit-theft & Anti-loss Wireless Security Luggage Alarm (TRA-237). Retrieved 17 2011, January, from Light in the box.com: http://www.lightinthebox.com/Anti-theft---Anti-loss-Wireless-Security-Luggage-Alarm--TRA-237-_p97663.html
Liu, J. (2010, June 15). Review: Child Guard Proximity Alarm. Retrieved January 6, 2011, from Wired: http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2010/06/review-child-guard-proximity-alarm/
Liu, S. (n.d.). Bluetooth Technology. Retrieved November 27, 2010, from Progtutorials: http://progtutorials.tripod.com/Bluetooth_Technology.htm
Martin, J. A. (2002, September 5). Mobile Computing Tips: Bluetooth vs. Wi-Fi FAQ. Retrieved October 2010, from PCWorld: http://www.pcworld.com/article/103848/mobile_computing_tips_bluetooth_vs_wifi_faq.html Mathew, A., Chandrababu, N., Elleithy, K., & Rizvi, S. (2010). Interference of 802.11b WLAN and Bluetooth: Analysis and Performance Evaluation. International journal of Computer Networks & Communications , 2, 11.
Nokia. (n.d.). Symbian SDKs. Retrieved September 5, 2010, from Forum.Nokia: http://www.forum.nokia.com/Library/Tools_and_downloads/Other/Symbian_SDKs/
Null, J. (2010, October 3). Hyperthermia Deaths of Children in Vehicles. Retrieved December 5, 2010, from Golden Gate Weather Services: http://ggweather.com/heat/
Ogunjemilua, K., Davies, J. N., Grout, V., & Picking, R. (2009). An investigation into signal strength of 802.11n WLAN. Glyndwr University, University of Wales, Centre for Applied Internet Research (CAIR), Wrexham, UK.
Pacchiano, R. V. (2004, March 26). Bluetooth vs. Wi-Fi Technology. Retrieved 2010, from Small Buisness Computing.com: http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.com/webmaster/article.php/3331421/Bluetooth-vs-Wi-Fi-Technology.htm
Press & Analysists. (2010). Retrieved December 2010, from Bluetooth: http://bluetooth.com/English/Press/Pages/default.aspx
PROXIMITY ALARMS. (n.d.). Retrieved January 6, 2011, from Community Emergency Alert Response Services: http://www.communityears.com/proximity_alarms.htm
Proximity Sensors. (2009). Retrieved November 22, 2010, from Fargo Controls: http://www.fargocontrols.com/sensors.html
RFID Tag Alarm System. (n.d.). Retrieved January 6, 2011, from Defence Devices.com: http://www.defensedevices.com/rfid-tag-alarm-system.html
S60 Platform SDKs for Symbian OS, for C++. (2006, October 11). Retrieved August 31, 2010, from Forum.Nokia: http://www.forum.nokia.com/info/sw.nokia.com/id/4a7149a5-95a5-4726-913a-3c6f21eb65a5/S60-SDK-0616-3.0-mr.html
Society for Science & the Public. (2010). Rules & Guidelines. Retrieved November 28, 2010, from http://www.societyforscience.org/page.aspx?pid=312
Stichbury, J. (2005). Symbian OS Explained: Effective C++ Programming for Smartphones. West Sussex, England: J. Wiley & Sons.
The Associated Press. (2010, June 25). Deaths of Children in Hot Cars Hit Grim Record. Retrieved 2010, from CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/25/health/main6617376.shtml
Veness, C. (2010, January). Calculate distance, bearing and more between Latitude/Longitude points. Retrieved January 8, 2011, from Moveable Type Scripts: http://www.moveable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html
Weed, G. (n.d.). How Does Bluetooth Work? Retrieved October 2, 2010, from eHow: http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4564367_bluetooth-work.html
Wi-Fi™ and Bluetooth™ - Interference Issues. (2002, January). Retrieved 2010, from hp: http://www.hp.com/rnd/library/pdf/WiFi_Bluetooth_coexistance.pdf
Woodford, C. (2009, March 24). Bluetooth. Retrieved 2010, from Explain That Stuff!: http://www.explainthatstuff.com/howbluetoothworks.html