Right; what's the problems with having the communication device somewhere in the back pocket, a larger screen connecting via bluetooth (well, slow!), but which could be replaced with a smaller screen in different environment; that smaller screen might also be a camera... or maybe not, a camera works better if it is a kind of binocular - btw, providing a 3d picture.
Yes I have. But that's a solution to an entirely different problem. I'd want a bare minimum of exposed electrical contacts, and preferably designed to only be exposed to the matching contacts. Which might require some clever design of the power connectors.
For both this reason, and for bandwidth, I'd do all data and control possible on optical links. Due to the format of connecting them surface to surface, it would be slower and with more latency than with direct optical paths, but still probably preferable to hard wired. The bare minimum I could see designing it with is four connectors: Power bus + Power bus ground optical up optical down I don't know if the power would be able to be controlled via the optical data path. A couple of the modules (like the display, or drives) might need extra data paths.
Comments 4
Reply
1) more secure than wireless
2) less interference than wireless
3) able to use the large battery of the larger device
4) (as mentioned) bandwidth
Reply
Reply
For both this reason, and for bandwidth, I'd do all data and control possible on optical links. Due to the format of connecting them surface to surface, it would be slower and with more latency than with direct optical paths, but still probably preferable to hard wired. The bare minimum I could see designing it with is four connectors:
Power bus +
Power bus ground
optical up
optical down
I don't know if the power would be able to be controlled via the optical data path.
A couple of the modules (like the display, or drives) might need extra data paths.
Reply
Leave a comment