On Jan 8, 9:45=A0am, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <53ded77f-29f0-4307-a923-e6e4afac23d3
> @r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, m...@linnix.info-for.us says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 11:14 am, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> > > > linnix skrev 2011-01-06 21:51:
>
> > > >> On Jan 6, 11:25 am, "langw...@fonz.dk"<langw...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>
> > > >>> On 6 Jan., 05:10, linnix<m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
>
> > > >>>> On Jan 5, 7:48 pm, Mostafa Kassem<m.kassem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>> On 1/5/2011 10:09 PM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>> There is a network of ~100 wireless sensors, communicating to =
a
> > > >>>>>> single
> > > >>>>>> host. All sensors are located within ~50..100m from the host i=
n the
> > > >>>>>> typical urban environment. Ideally, it would be desirable to p=
oll
> > > >>>>>> each
> > > >>>>>> sensor at least 10 times/sec. When polling the sensors, we hav=
e to
> > > >>>>>> get
> > > >>>>>> just several bits of the status information from each sensor.
>
> > > >>>>>> Problem: as sensors are battery powered, the average power
> > > >>>>>> consumption
> > > >>>>>> of the entire communication part of a sensor is limited to ~ 1=
0mW
> > > >>>>>> max.
>
> > > >>>>>> Is there a wireless technology/modules on the market that woul=
d allow
> > > >>>>>> such power budget?
>
> > > >>>>>> Would it be possible to develop such technology using existing
> > > >>>>>> transceiver ICs or modules?
>
> > > >>>>>> (Cost, operating band, compliance, acceptance, etc. are outsid=
e of
> > > >>>>>> consideration at this point).
>
> > > > The ATmega128RFA1 (ZigBee + 128kB Flash AVR) uses about 26 mW durin=
g
> > > > transmission and a little bit lower during reception.
>
> > > Dear Ulf @ All,
>
> > > I reviewed several low power wireless chipsets from different vendors=
.
> > > They typically drain about 20mA @ 3.3V when in the active Rx or Tx mo=
de,
> > > and less then 1mA in sleep. Switching from sleep to active incurs the
> > > overhead of several milliseconds; unfortunately none of the transceiv=
ers
> > > retain the bit synchronization between the packets; there is no easy =
way
> > > to synchronize the nodes to the master to a fraction of the bit
> > > interval. As noted by David and Mark, it could be possible to fit the
> > > 10mW constraint if the system cycle time is several seconds; but it i=
s
> > > hardly feasible with the cycle time < 1 sec.
>
> > This requirement is very difficult to achieve. =A0Just curious, what
> > application requires such tight timing?
>
> I can envision one: =A0A security system where an intrusion sensor is
> triggered and the master system then wants to zoom a surveillance
> camera in on that particular location. =A0If the system has a latency
> of 10 seconds, you might get a high-res picture of a broken window
> minus the ski-masked perp.

In that case, single on-off transmitters might be more cost
effective.  You can have all sensors transmitting the same frequency
and any one can trigger all cameras in the group.  Gate/garage
transmitters are dirt cheap.

In article <53ded77f-29f0-4307-a923-e6e4afac23d3
@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, me@linnix.info-for.us says...
> 
> On Jan 7, 11:14&#4294967295;am, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> > > linnix skrev 2011-01-06 21:51:
> >
> > >> On Jan 6, 11:25 am, "langw...@fonz.dk"<langw...@fonz.dk> &#4294967295;wrote:
> >
> > >>> On 6 Jan., 05:10, linnix<m...@linnix.info-for.us> &#4294967295;wrote:
> >
> > >>>> On Jan 5, 7:48 pm, Mostafa Kassem<m.kassem...@gmail.com> &#4294967295;wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> On 1/5/2011 10:09 PM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>> There is a network of ~100 wireless sensors, communicating to a
> > >>>>>> single
> > >>>>>> host. All sensors are located within ~50..100m from the host in the
> > >>>>>> typical urban environment. Ideally, it would be desirable to poll
> > >>>>>> each
> > >>>>>> sensor at least 10 times/sec. When polling the sensors, we have to
> > >>>>>> get
> > >>>>>> just several bits of the status information from each sensor.
> >
> > >>>>>> Problem: as sensors are battery powered, the average power
> > >>>>>> consumption
> > >>>>>> of the entire communication part of a sensor is limited to ~ 10mW
> > >>>>>> max.
> >
> > >>>>>> Is there a wireless technology/modules on the market that would allow
> > >>>>>> such power budget?
> >
> > >>>>>> Would it be possible to develop such technology using existing
> > >>>>>> transceiver ICs or modules?
> >
> > >>>>>> (Cost, operating band, compliance, acceptance, etc. are outside of
> > >>>>>> consideration at this point).
> >
> > > The ATmega128RFA1 (ZigBee + 128kB Flash AVR) uses about 26 mW during
> > > transmission and a little bit lower during reception.
> >
> > Dear Ulf @ All,
> >
> > I reviewed several low power wireless chipsets from different vendors.
> > They typically drain about 20mA @ 3.3V when in the active Rx or Tx mode,
> > and less then 1mA in sleep. Switching from sleep to active incurs the
> > overhead of several milliseconds; unfortunately none of the transceivers
> > retain the bit synchronization between the packets; there is no easy way
> > to synchronize the nodes to the master to a fraction of the bit
> > interval. As noted by David and Mark, it could be possible to fit the
> > 10mW constraint if the system cycle time is several seconds; but it is
> > hardly feasible with the cycle time < 1 sec.
> 
> This requirement is very difficult to achieve.  Just curious, what
> application requires such tight timing?

I can envision one:  A security system where an intrusion sensor is
triggered and the master system then wants to zoom a surveillance
camera in on that particular location.  If the system has a latency
of 10 seconds, you might get a high-res picture of a broken window
minus the ski-masked perp.


Mark Borgerson

On Jan 7, 4:35=A0pm, Ulf Samuelsson <u...@invalid.atmel.com> wrote:
> Vladimir Vassilevsky skrev 2011-01-07 20:14:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>
> >> linnix skrev 2011-01-06 21:51:
>
> >>> On Jan 6, 11:25 am, "langw...@fonz.dk"<langw...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 6 Jan., 05:10, linnix<m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jan 5, 7:48 pm, Mostafa Kassem<m.kassem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 1/5/2011 10:09 PM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> There is a network of ~100 wireless sensors, communicating to a
> >>>>>>> single
> >>>>>>> host. All sensors are located within ~50..100m from the host in t=
he
> >>>>>>> typical urban environment. Ideally, it would be desirable to poll
> >>>>>>> each
> >>>>>>> sensor at least 10 times/sec. When polling the sensors, we have
> >>>>>>> to get
> >>>>>>> just several bits of the status information from each sensor.
>
> >>>>>>> Problem: as sensors are battery powered, the average power
> >>>>>>> consumption
> >>>>>>> of the entire communication part of a sensor is limited to ~ 10mW
> >>>>>>> max.
>
> >>>>>>> Is there a wireless technology/modules on the market that would
> >>>>>>> allow
> >>>>>>> such power budget?
>
> >>>>>>> Would it be possible to develop such technology using existing
> >>>>>>> transceiver ICs or modules?
>
> >>>>>>> (Cost, operating band, compliance, acceptance, etc. are outside o=
f
> >>>>>>> consideration at this point).
>
> >> The ATmega128RFA1 (ZigBee + 128kB Flash AVR) uses about 26 mW during
> >> transmission and a little bit lower during reception.
>
> > Dear Ulf @ All,
>
> > I reviewed several low power wireless chipsets from different vendors.
> > They typically drain about 20mA @ 3.3V when in the active Rx or Tx mode=
,
> > and less then 1mA in sleep. Switching from sleep to active incurs the
> > overhead of several milliseconds; unfortunately none of the transceiver=
s
> > retain the bit synchronization between the packets; there is no easy wa=
y
> > to synchronize the nodes to the master to a fraction of the bit
> > interval. As noted by David and Mark, it could be possible to fit the
> > 10mW constraint if the system cycle time is several seconds; but it is
> > hardly feasible with the cycle time < 1 sec.
>
> > Next question: are there any off-the-shelf wireless modules that could
> > allow for the ~1/100 duty cycle operation with ~10ms packets with the
> > average power consumption ~10mW ?
>
> If you are desperate for good power figures, then
> you should consider running at 1.8V.
>
> The ATmega128RFA1 power consumption in sleep is 0.4 mA * 1.8V
> so less than 1 mW.
> With 30 mW during transmit, you can have a duty cycle of almost 33%
> to still achieve

I read the whole datasheet for Atmega128rfa1.  Other than the standard
AVR stuffs, there is not much information on the RF controller.
Perhaps someone can answer my questions:

1. Is the Radio permanently attached to the UART?

2. Is the Radio permanently attached to the SPI?

3. Can the radio be enable/disable on demand?

4. Can the transmitter power be adjusted/changed?

5. Can the frequency be adjusted/changed?

Are there other docs to address these issues?

On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 01:35:18 +0100, Ulf Samuelsson
<ulf@invalid.atmel.com> wrote:

>Link budget is 103,5 dBm which is also quite good.
>If you can live with a link budget of 97,5 (still better than most 
>competition), then the transmit power goes down to < 15 mW.

While it might be possible to calculate the link budget for an
interplanetary space link with an accuracy of a fraction of an dB,
such accurate (and successful) predictions in ground based systems
should IMHO be awarded with the Nobel prize :-).

In real world urban conditions, the path loss will typically increase
by 10-15 dB each time the distance doubles (contrary to 6 dB for free
space).

I first assumed that you are simply talking about the difference
between the Tx/Rx power, but the figures does not make any sense.

If 103.5 dBm actually refers to -103.5 dBm receiver sensitivity and
the thermal noise at room temperature id -174 dBm/Hz thus bandwidths
larger than 1 MHz should be assumed, much larger than the OP needed
(10-50 kHz at most).

On Jan 7, 9:59 am, Chris_99 <cgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 8:21 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 11:58 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > hamilton wrote:
> > > > On 1/5/2011 8:09 PM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
> > > >> There is a network of ~100 wireless sensors, communicating to a single
> > > >> host. All sensors are located within ~50..100m from the host in the
> > > >> typical urban environment. Ideally, it would be desirable to poll each
> > > >> sensor at least 10 times/sec. When polling the sensors, we have to get
> > > >> just several bits of the status information from each sensor.
>
> > > >> Problem: as sensors are battery powered, the average power consumption
> > > >> of the entire communication part of a sensor is limited to ~ 10mW max.
>
> > > >> Is there a wireless technology/modules on the market that would allow
> > > >> such power budget?
>
> > > >> Would it be possible to develop such technology using existing
> > > >> transceiver ICs or modules?
>
> > > >> (Cost, operating band, compliance, acceptance, etc. are outside of
> > > >> consideration at this point).
>
> > > >> Vladimir Vassilevsky
> > > >> DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
> > > >>http://www.abvolt.com
>
> > > > What is the real time requirement ?
>
> > > > TinyOS maybe what your looking for.
>
> > > > A google search for "wireless sensor networks" found this:
> > > >https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wireless_sensor_network
>
> > > > as well as almost 1 million others.
>
> > > > hamilton
>
> > > Idiot
>
> > Why does anyone respond to this guy?  When others ask questions rather
> > than give even the least answer or any encouragement he derides them.
> > When he asks questions and others respond, if he doesn't like the
> > response, he derides them rather than thanking them and moving on or
> > even just ignoring them.
>
> > Why does anyone think this guy deserves any sort of response when he
> > is asking for help?
>
> > Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Actually, even though the OP is a bit surly, his point-of-view and
> statements are often very valuable to me.
> Secondarily, I also thought the "1 million google responses" thing was
> small-brained since the
> post started out looking for very low power wireless and not wireless
> in general.

"A bit surly"???  You mean like Ted Bundy was a bit rough on women, or
the Japanese are a bit aggressive with whales, or the way the Taliban
is a bit ugly with women?  Yeah, otherwise they are all really great
guys and there is no reason to not accept their bad side.  Heck,
everyone has a bad side, no?

Rick

Vladimir Vassilevsky skrev 2011-01-07 20:14:
>
>
> Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>
>> linnix skrev 2011-01-06 21:51:
>>
>>> On Jan 6, 11:25 am, "langw...@fonz.dk"<langw...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6 Jan., 05:10, linnix<m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 5, 7:48 pm, Mostafa Kassem<m.kassem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/5/2011 10:09 PM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a network of ~100 wireless sensors, communicating to a
>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>> host. All sensors are located within ~50..100m from the host in the
>>>>>>> typical urban environment. Ideally, it would be desirable to poll
>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>> sensor at least 10 times/sec. When polling the sensors, we have
>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>> just several bits of the status information from each sensor.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Problem: as sensors are battery powered, the average power
>>>>>>> consumption
>>>>>>> of the entire communication part of a sensor is limited to ~ 10mW
>>>>>>> max.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there a wireless technology/modules on the market that would
>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>> such power budget?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Would it be possible to develop such technology using existing
>>>>>>> transceiver ICs or modules?
>>>>
>>>>>>> (Cost, operating band, compliance, acceptance, etc. are outside of
>>>>>>> consideration at this point).
>>>>
>>>>
>> The ATmega128RFA1 (ZigBee + 128kB Flash AVR) uses about 26 mW during
>> transmission and a little bit lower during reception.
>
> Dear Ulf @ All,
>
> I reviewed several low power wireless chipsets from different vendors.
> They typically drain about 20mA @ 3.3V when in the active Rx or Tx mode,
> and less then 1mA in sleep. Switching from sleep to active incurs the
> overhead of several milliseconds; unfortunately none of the transceivers
> retain the bit synchronization between the packets; there is no easy way
> to synchronize the nodes to the master to a fraction of the bit
> interval. As noted by David and Mark, it could be possible to fit the
> 10mW constraint if the system cycle time is several seconds; but it is
> hardly feasible with the cycle time < 1 sec.
>
> Next question: are there any off-the-shelf wireless modules that could
> allow for the ~1/100 duty cycle operation with ~10ms packets with the
> average power consumption ~10mW ?
>

If you are desperate for good power figures, then
you should consider running at 1.8V.

The ATmega128RFA1 power consumption in sleep is 0.4 mA * 1.8V
so less than 1 mW.
With 30 mW during transmit, you can have a duty cycle of almost 33%
to still achieve


Link budget is 103,5 dBm which is also quite good.
If you can live with a link budget of 97,5 (still better than most 
competition), then the transmit power goes down to < 15 mW.

Did not check the Atmel ZigBit modules (which are two chips solutions)
but they should be similar in power consumption.


>
> Vladimir Vassilevsky
> DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
> http://www.abvolt.com
>
>
>
>



-- 
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson
These are my own personal opinions, which may
or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB

On Jan 7, 11:14=A0am, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> > linnix skrev 2011-01-06 21:51:
>
> >> On Jan 6, 11:25 am, "langw...@fonz.dk"<langw...@fonz.dk> =A0wrote:
>
> >>> On 6 Jan., 05:10, linnix<m...@linnix.info-for.us> =A0wrote:
>
> >>>> On Jan 5, 7:48 pm, Mostafa Kassem<m.kassem...@gmail.com> =A0wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 1/5/2011 10:09 PM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
> >>>>>> There is a network of ~100 wireless sensors, communicating to a
> >>>>>> single
> >>>>>> host. All sensors are located within ~50..100m from the host in th=
e
> >>>>>> typical urban environment. Ideally, it would be desirable to poll
> >>>>>> each
> >>>>>> sensor at least 10 times/sec. When polling the sensors, we have to
> >>>>>> get
> >>>>>> just several bits of the status information from each sensor.
>
> >>>>>> Problem: as sensors are battery powered, the average power
> >>>>>> consumption
> >>>>>> of the entire communication part of a sensor is limited to ~ 10mW
> >>>>>> max.
>
> >>>>>> Is there a wireless technology/modules on the market that would al=
low
> >>>>>> such power budget?
>
> >>>>>> Would it be possible to develop such technology using existing
> >>>>>> transceiver ICs or modules?
>
> >>>>>> (Cost, operating band, compliance, acceptance, etc. are outside of
> >>>>>> consideration at this point).
>
> > The ATmega128RFA1 (ZigBee + 128kB Flash AVR) uses about 26 mW during
> > transmission and a little bit lower during reception.
>
> Dear Ulf @ All,
>
> I reviewed several low power wireless chipsets from different vendors.
> They typically drain about 20mA @ 3.3V when in the active Rx or Tx mode,
> and less then 1mA in sleep. Switching from sleep to active incurs the
> overhead of several milliseconds; unfortunately none of the transceivers
> retain the bit synchronization between the packets; there is no easy way
> to synchronize the nodes to the master to a fraction of the bit
> interval. As noted by David and Mark, it could be possible to fit the
> 10mW constraint if the system cycle time is several seconds; but it is
> hardly feasible with the cycle time < 1 sec.

This requirement is very difficult to achieve.  Just curious, what
application requires such tight timing?

Ulf Samuelsson wrote:

> linnix skrev 2011-01-06 21:51:
> 
>> On Jan 6, 11:25 am, "langw...@fonz.dk"<langw...@fonz.dk>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 6 Jan., 05:10, linnix<m...@linnix.info-for.us>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 5, 7:48 pm, Mostafa Kassem<m.kassem...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> On 1/5/2011 10:09 PM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> There is a network of ~100 wireless sensors, communicating to a 
>>>>>> single
>>>>>> host. All sensors are located within ~50..100m from the host in the
>>>>>> typical urban environment. Ideally, it would be desirable to poll 
>>>>>> each
>>>>>> sensor at least 10 times/sec. When polling the sensors, we have to 
>>>>>> get
>>>>>> just several bits of the status information from each sensor.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Problem: as sensors are battery powered, the average power 
>>>>>> consumption
>>>>>> of the entire communication part of a sensor is limited to ~ 10mW 
>>>>>> max.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Is there a wireless technology/modules on the market that would allow
>>>>>> such power budget?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Would it be possible to develop such technology using existing
>>>>>> transceiver ICs or modules?
>>>
>>>>>> (Cost, operating band, compliance, acceptance, etc. are outside of
>>>>>> consideration at this point).
>>>
>>>
> The ATmega128RFA1 (ZigBee + 128kB Flash AVR) uses about 26 mW during 
> transmission and a little bit lower during reception.

Dear Ulf @ All,

I reviewed several low power wireless chipsets from different vendors. 
They typically drain about 20mA @ 3.3V when in the active Rx or Tx mode, 
and less then 1mA in sleep. Switching from sleep to active incurs the 
overhead of several milliseconds; unfortunately none of the transceivers 
retain the bit synchronization between the packets; there is no easy way 
to synchronize the nodes to the master to a fraction of the bit 
interval. As noted by David and Mark, it could be possible to fit the 
10mW constraint if the system cycle time is several seconds; but it is 
hardly feasible with the cycle time < 1 sec.

Next question: are there any off-the-shelf wireless modules that could 
allow for the ~1/100 duty cycle operation with ~10ms packets with the 
average power consumption ~10mW ?


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

On Jan 7, 10:07=A0am, Ulf Samuelsson <u...@invalid.atmel.com> wrote:
> linnix skrev 2011-01-06 21:51:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 6, 11:25 am, "langw...@fonz.dk"<langw...@fonz.dk> =A0wrote:
> >> On 6 Jan., 05:10, linnix<m...@linnix.info-for.us> =A0wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 5, 7:48 pm, Mostafa Kassem<m.kassem...@gmail.com> =A0wrote:
>
> >>>> On 1/5/2011 10:09 PM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
> >>>>> There is a network of ~100 wireless sensors, communicating to a sin=
gle
> >>>>> host. All sensors are located within ~50..100m from the host in the
> >>>>> typical urban environment. Ideally, it would be desirable to poll e=
ach
> >>>>> sensor at least 10 times/sec. When polling the sensors, we have to =
get
> >>>>> just several bits of the status information from each sensor.
>
> >>>>> Problem: as sensors are battery powered, the average power consumpt=
ion
> >>>>> of the entire communication part of a sensor is limited to ~ 10mW m=
ax.
>
> >>>>> Is there a wireless technology/modules on the market that would all=
ow
> >>>>> such power budget?
>
> >>>>> Would it be possible to develop such technology using existing
> >>>>> transceiver ICs or modules?
>
> >>>>> (Cost, operating band, compliance, acceptance, etc. are outside of
> >>>>> consideration at this point).
>
> >>>>> Vladimir Vassilevsky
> >>>>> DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
> >>>>>http://www.abvolt.com
>
> >>>> Zigbee?
>
> >>> Anything but low power.
>
> >> it of course depends on how you use it but if zigbee isn't low power
> >> what is then?
>
> > ZigBee takes around 50mW to 100mW, so it won't be low power by
> > itself. =A0If OP can limit RF duty to less than 10%, then it might be
> > possible.
>
> The ATmega128RFA1 (ZigBee + 128kB Flash AVR) uses about 26 mW during
> transmission and a little bit lower during reception.
>

Atmega128RF runs at 8MHz with 30mW and 16MHz with 50mW.
EM351 (128K ARM M3) runs at 24MHz with 50mW.

But Atmega128RF is not available on Digikey yet.

linnix skrev 2011-01-06 21:51:
> On Jan 6, 11:25 am, "langw...@fonz.dk"<langw...@fonz.dk>  wrote:
>> On 6 Jan., 05:10, linnix<m...@linnix.info-for.us>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 5, 7:48 pm, Mostafa Kassem<m.kassem...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>>> On 1/5/2011 10:09 PM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>>
>>>>> There is a network of ~100 wireless sensors, communicating to a single
>>>>> host. All sensors are located within ~50..100m from the host in the
>>>>> typical urban environment. Ideally, it would be desirable to poll each
>>>>> sensor at least 10 times/sec. When polling the sensors, we have to get
>>>>> just several bits of the status information from each sensor.
>>
>>>>> Problem: as sensors are battery powered, the average power consumption
>>>>> of the entire communication part of a sensor is limited to ~ 10mW max.
>>
>>>>> Is there a wireless technology/modules on the market that would allow
>>>>> such power budget?
>>
>>>>> Would it be possible to develop such technology using existing
>>>>> transceiver ICs or modules?
>>
>>>>> (Cost, operating band, compliance, acceptance, etc. are outside of
>>>>> consideration at this point).
>>
>>>>> Vladimir Vassilevsky
>>>>> DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
>>>>> http://www.abvolt.com
>>
>>>> Zigbee?
>>
>>> Anything but low power.
>>
>> it of course depends on how you use it but if zigbee isn't low power
>> what is then?
>
> ZigBee takes around 50mW to 100mW, so it won't be low power by
> itself.  If OP can limit RF duty to less than 10%, then it might be
> possible.
>

The ATmega128RFA1 (ZigBee + 128kB Flash AVR) uses about 26 mW during 
transmission and a little bit lower during reception.

-- 
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson
These are my own personal opinions, which may
or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB