Startup Sakti3 Says its Battery Could Double the Range of a Tesla Model S

As reported by GigaOM: It’s been quite awhile since we’ve heard anything from battery startup Sakti3. The seven-year-old University of Michigan spin-out has been heads down working on a high performance “solid-state” lithium ion battery and on Wednesday announced that it’s produced a battery that can double the range of an electric car (like a Tesla Model S) or double the usage time of a gadget like a wearable device.

On top of that, Sakti3 said its batteries are safer to operate than the current standard ones, and that down the road the batteries could be produced commercially for around $100 per kilowatt hour, Sakti3 CEO Ann Marie Sastry said in a statement on Wednesday. For comparison’s sake, Tesla has said at one point that it’s currently buying lithium ion batteries for its cars for somewhere between $200 and $300 per kilowatt hour.

Solid state batteries have solid electrodes and electrolytes, compared to traditional lithium ion batteries that use a liquid electrolyte. That means solid state batteries are less flammable and can be safer to operate. The Sakti3 team made this video of an engineer dropping hot soldering material onto the cell, and it continues to operate in a safe temperature range.

Solid state batteries also can have a higher energy density (the amount of energy stored for a set volume). Sakti3 said the energy density for this latest battery cell is 1100 watt hours per liter, which translates into a 9-hour usage time for something like a smartwatch (from 3.5 hours) or a 480 mile electric car range (from the 256 mile range of a Tesla).

Yeah, imagine an almost 500-mile range Tesla car. Crain’s Detroit Business called the company one of the top 10 most innovative partly because it received four patents last year around battery manufacturing, a solid-state propulsion systems and automotive hybrid tech. MIT Tech Review named them one of their top 50 most disruptive companies of 2012.

Sakti3 is still in the pilot stage and isn’t yet producing these batteries commercially at scale. But the company says it made its breakthrough energy dense battery on “fully scalable equipment.” The company is backed by $30 million in venture funding from Khosla Ventures, GM Ventures, Itochu, and a grant from the State of Michigan.

Google's Driverless Cars Designed to Exceed the Speed Limit

As reported by BBC News: Dmitri Dolgov told Reuters that when surrounding vehicles were breaking the speed limit, going more slowly could actually present a danger, and the Google car would accelerate to keep up.

Google's driverless prototypes have been widely tested on roads in selected areas of the US.   The UK will allow driverless cars on public roads in 2015.

Google first announced its driverless car division in 2010, and has been testing its technology in modified cars built by other manufacturers.

The cars have traveled on more than 300,000 miles of open road, mostly in California.

In May, the US tech firm said it would start building its own self-driving cars.

The bubble-shaped vehicles will seat two people, propulsion will be electric, and to begin with they will be limited to 25mph (40km/h) to help ensure safety.

In July, the UK government announced that driverless cars will be allowed on public roads from January next year.

In addition, ministers ordered a review of the UK's road regulations to provide appropriate guidelines.

This will cover the need for self-drive vehicles to comply with safety and traffic laws, and involve changes to the Highway Code, which applies to England, Scotland and Wales.

Commenting on Google self-drive cars' ability to exceed the speed limit, a Department for Transport spokesman said: "There are no plans to change speed limits, which will still apply to driverless cars".

In a separate development on Monday, the White House said it wanted all cars and light trucks to be equipped with technology that could prevent collisions.

Radio signals emitted by the vehicles would allow them to "talk" to each other, and alert drivers to potential accidents.

 

Nissan is one of many companies developing self-drive vehicles

How do driverless cars work?

The label "driverless vehicle" actually covers a lot of different concepts.

Indeed, the cruise control, automatic braking, anti-lane drift and self-parking functions already built into many vehicles offer a certain degree of autonomy.

But the term is generally used to refer to vehicles that take charge of steering, accelerating, indicating and braking during most if not all of a journey between two points, much in the same way airplanes can be set to autopilot.

Unlike the skies, however, the roads are much more crowded, and a range of technologies is being developed to tackle the problem.

One of the leading innovations is Lidar (light detection and ranging), a system that measures how lasers bounce off reflective surfaces to capture information about millions of small points surrounding the vehicle every second. The technology is already used to create the online maps used by Google and Nokia.

Another complementary technique is "computer vision" - the use of software to make sense of 360-degree images captured by cameras attached to the vehicle, which can warn of pedestrians, cyclists, roadworks and other objects that might be in the vehicle's path.

Autonomous vehicles can also make use of global-positioning system (GPS) location data from satellites, radar, ultrasonic sensors to detect objects close to the car and further sensors to accurately measure the vehicle's orientation and the rotation of its wheels, to help it understand its exact location.

The debate now is whether to allow cars, like the prototype unveiled by Google in May, to abandon controls including a steering wheel and pedals and rely on the vehicle's computer.

Or whether, instead, to allow the machine to drive, but insist a passenger be ready to wrest back control at a moment's notice.

Researchers Hack Into Michigan's Traffic Lights

As reported by MIT Technology Review: Ever get lucky enough to hit three or four green lights in a row on your way home from work? It turns out it might not be so hard to make that happen all the time.

With permission from a local road agency, researchers in Michigan hacked into nearly 100 wirelessly networked traffic lights, highlighting security issues that they say are likely to pervade networked traffic infrastructure around the country. More than 40 states currently use such systems to keep traffic flowing as efficiently as possible, helping to reduce emissions and delays.

The team, led by University of Michigan computer scientist J. Alex Halderman, found three major weaknesses in the traffic light system: unencrypted wireless connections, the use of default usernames and passwords that could be found online, and a debugging port that is easy to attack.

“The vulnerabilities we discover in the infrastructure are not a fault of any one device or design choice, but rather show a systemic lack of security consciousness,” the researchers report in a paper they’re presenting this week at a computer security conference. They did not disclose exactly where in Michigan they did the research.

Although the road agency responsible for implementing the system has never faced serious computer security threats, the possibility will become more worrisome as transportation authorities and car makers test new ways for infrastructure and vehicles to communicate in order to reduce congestion and accidents (see “The Internet of Cars Is Approaching a Crossroads”).

“They need to be worrying about this and think about security—it needs to be one of their top priorities,” says Branden Ghena, a graduate student who worked on the project. “It’s hard to get people to care about these things in the same way that it’s hard to get people to change their passwords.”

Wirelessly networked traffic lights have four key components. There are sensors that detect cars, controllers that use the sensor data to control the lights at a given intersection, radios for wireless communication among intersections, and malfunction management units (MMUs), which return lights to safe fallback configurations if an “invalid” configuration occurs. For example, if somehow every light at an intersection is green, the system might fall back to having them all become flashing red lights.

The Michigan researchers found that anyone with a computer that can communicate at the same frequency as the intersection radios—in this case, 5.8 gigahertz—could access the entire unencrypted network. It takes just one point of access to get into the whole system.

After gaining access to one of the controllers in their target network, the researchers were able to turn all lights red or alter the timing of neighboring intersections—for example, to make sure someone hit all green lights on a given route. They could also trigger the lights’ MMUs by attempting invalid configurations.

At the end of their report, Halderman and his group propose simple recommendations for improving the security of traffic infrastructure. First and foremost, traffic-system administrators should not use default usernames and passwords. Also, they should stop broadcasting communications unencrypted for “casual observers and curious teenagers” to see.

The researchers note that their study has implications beyond traffic lights. More and more devices like voting machines (see “Why You Can’t Vote Online”), cars, and medical devices are computer controlled and will ultimately be networked. This “phase change,” as they call it, comes with “potential for catastrophic security failures.”

Another researcher who has investigated traffic infrastructure, Cesar Cerrudo, the chief technology officer of the computer security company IOActive Labs, says he was not surprised by the Michigan group’s findings.

“We have been finding vulnerabilities for a long time, but hardware vendors still don’t seem to ‘get it,’” Cerrudo wrote in an e-mail. “They continue doing the same mistakes that software vendors did 10 years ago.”

Starfish Hopes to Prevent Children From Being Left Behind in Hot Cars

As reported by AL.com: A Birmingham tech startup, Studio Whale, says it has a solution to the horrific accident of hot car deaths among infants and toddlers that we've been hearing about so much this summer. 

A UAB enterprise software developer and new father, Mathew Brian Sheets, has developed an application in the interest of his infant son.

Meet Starfish.

   

Starfish is a small weight-sensor that fits into a child's car seat. The sensor links via Bluetooth to an application on your iPhone or Android device. Once you place your child into the car, Starfish sends you a notification that the child is in his or her car seat.

Once activated, Starfish sets up a "geo-fence" around itself with a 20 foot radius. If you leave (or your phone leaves) that geo-fence while your child is still in the car seat, you'll receive a notification alarming you of your deadly mistake. 

If you haven't responded to the notification within five minutes, Starfish will notify your list of emergency contacts. 

On their Kickstarter page, Studio Whale says that 85 percent of its design and engineering process is completed, with a working prototype, and a manufacturing partner ready to go.

They are looking for $15,000 in funding for their first production run. At the time of this publication, Starfish had just passed the $1,000 mark with 25 days left to go.

Of course, Starfish can only protect children left in the car unintentionally. Roughly 20 children have died since the beginning of 2014 due to hyperthermia (heat stroke). 

California Legislature Mulls Curbs on Use of Aerial Drones by Paparazzi

As reported by the LA Times: When singer Miley Cyrus recently spotted a mysterious drone hovering over her Los Angeles home, she posted video of the aerial intruder on Instagram, complaining that it appeared to be a new tactic by the paparazzi.

The incident, in which Cyrus was photographed in her backyard, was no surprise to Patrick J. Alach. He is legal counsel for the Paparazzi Reform Initiative, a group representing celebrities and others that has persuaded lawmakers to tighten laws governing photography of those he represents.

The use of aerial drones equipped with cameras to catch celebrities at home and in other private places is "a huge concern, especially for public figures who want to have some privacy in their backyards," Alach said.

A proposal pending in the Legislature would prohibit the use of aerial drones to collect video, photos and audio from celebrities and others in a way that violates their privacy rights.

The concentration of entertainment-industry figures and paparazzi in California has led to other restrictions on photographers. One enacted last year made it illegal to photograph a celebrity's son or daughter without consent if it causes substantial emotional distress.

"Having a district that covers Los Angeles, we have plenty of paparazzi issues as it is, without having drones hovering over nightclubs or restaurants," state Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) said.

Some media groups object to further restrictions.

"For the most part, these laws are written so overly broad and vague that they impede and infringe upon news gathering," said Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Assn. "They couch everything in the terms of the paparazzi," but drones, like helicopters, can have legitimate news gathering purposes, he said.

Osterreicher said adequate privacy laws already exist, and the commercial use of drones is already prohibited in federal airspace by the Federal Aviation Administration, which is in the process of developing guidelines for their use by next year.

The FAA estimates that 30,000 drones will fill the nation's skies in less than 20 years as public and private uses are allowed.

Assemblyman Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park) introduced the pending state legislation. It would build on existing state law against invasion of privacy by photographers using enhanced devices such as telephoto lenses or long-range microphones.

Chau noted that the law does not clearly address the emergence of drones, and it could be argued that they are not enhanced devices. His bill would remove the enhancement element, extending the law to any device, including drones.

"As we continue to push the boundaries of technology by developing devices that grant us access to previously inaccessible locations and allow us to perform otherwise difficult tasks from a distance," Chau said, "we are also pushing the boundaries of personal space and privacy."

Those in the paparazzi business disagree on how drones should be used.

The pictures of Cyrus in her backyard were offered for sale to a major photo broker, who told The Times he declined to purchase them because he does not buy photos of people on their private property.

The broker, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of liability, said he uses drones to take shots of celebrities' homes for a website as long as no individuals can be seen in the pictures to raise personal privacy issues.

On the East Coast, operators of the website 247paps.tv boasted of using a drone to get video of actress Selena Gomez in March when a shoot for an Adidas ad was blocked from photographers' view.

In Los Angeles, celebrity photographer Giles Harrison last week took pictures in public places of rocker Steven Tyler and actor Pierce Brosnan. But he said it would be "creepy" to use a drone to get an image of someone in their backyard.

"There are certain lines that paparazzi shouldn't cross," Harrison said, "and I feel that the use of drones to photograph celebrities more than crosses that line."

Another veteran Hollywood photographer, Eric Ford, said that if the proposed California law is enacted, he will have to reconsider the possibility of getting a drone to stay competitive. But he said there may be times when drones are justified.

"I totally understand if you are the person being photographed that that could maybe be unsettling," Ford said. "The only thing I would say to that is: If you don't want to be photographed doing something, just be inside your house."

Fighter Jets and X-47B Drones Practice Rapid-Fire Launches Together

As reported by Fox News: The U.S. Navy recently conducted its first successful tests of drones and jets operating together aboard an aircraft carrier. The test flights, which took place Aug. 17 aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, focused on assessing whether unmanned drones could be deployed quickly and safely alongside manned fighter jets.

Despite tight space and time constraints, the X-47B drones and the F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets performed well in the tests, according to the U.S. Navy.

In urgent situations, fighter jets must take off and land in quick succession. That means that when one jet is taking off, another is close behind it, shielded from the blast of the first jet's engines by huge metal shields called "jet blast deflectors," according to online defense magazine Breaking Defense. As soon as one jet takes to the air, these metal walls are retracted and the next jet taxis onto the aircraft carrier's catapult. [7 Technologies That Transformed Warfare]

When landing to refuel, a jet must automatically disconnect from the cables that help it come to a stop. This makes it possible for an aircraft to get out of the way quickly so that another jet can land behind it.

For manned aircraft, the Navy has the precise timing needed to deploy a whole squadron of fighter jets down to science. But in the past, getting a drone to fall into this hectic rhythm has been a challenge, according to Breaking Defense.

"Our goal was to minimize the [X-47B's] time in the landing area and improve the flow with manned aircraft in the landing pattern," said Lt. Cmdr. Brian Hall, the flight test director for the X-47B drones. Hall said that to achieve this goal, the X-47B aircraft, which flew for the first time in 2011, needed a few upgrades.

Most of the X-47B's improvements focused on decreasing the time it takes for the drone to get out of the way of piloted aircraft after landing on the aircraft carrier. This is no easy feat, since a drone has only about 90 seconds to clear the landing area before another aircraft comes speeding down behind it.

For the recent test flights, the drone's operating software was updated, thus speeding up the time it takes for the aircraft to fold its wings and clear the landing area. Other improvements to the physical design of the plane also help move the drone out of the way as quickly as possible.

Getting drones and jets to work seamlessly and safely together is crucial to the success of the Navy's so-called carrier air wings naval aviation units comprising aircraft carriers and the different kinds of aircraft they carry said Capt. Beau Duarte, program manager for the Navy's unmanned carrier aviation office.

"Today, we showed that the X-47B could take off, land and fly in the carrier pattern with manned aircraft while maintaining normal flight-deck operations," Duarte said.

This type of cooperation between drones and jets will be tested several more times, according to a statement from the U.S. Navy. The next challenge includes performing all of these same tasks in the dark of night a procedure known as "night deck handling."

After Ferguson, Police Should be Wearing On-Body Cameras

As reported by The Verge:After conflicts between protestors and police in Ferguson, Mo. yesterday — particularly in the wake of militarized police officers arresting Washington Post and Huffington Post reporters working in a nearby McDonald's — some have suggested that on-body cameras should be more widely used among on-duty police. The theory is that by recording every situation and every conflict that an officer encounters, law enforcement and citizens have an unquestionable account of what really happened. It might also stop an officer from crossing the line.

The Verge produced a story and documentary last year about Axon Flex, perhaps the most advanced of these on-body police cameras, and the advantages and disadvantages of the technology. In that story, civil rights attorney Scott Greenwood talked about his work to establish concrete rules regarding on-body police cameras. I asked him to talk a little about how on-body cameras couldn't helped the situation in Ferguson last night.

"The proper use of OBRS is going to be a very important part of how these agencies restore legitimacy and public confidence."

"On-body recording systems [OBRS] would have been incredibly useful in Ferguson," he says. "This is yet another controversial incident involving one officer and one subject, a minority youth who was unarmed," a reference to Michael Brown, who was killed by police on August 9th. "OBRS would have definitively captured whatever interaction these two had that preceded the use of deadly force." Armed with footage from an on-body camera system, it's possible that police would've had no option but to take swift action against the officers involved — or if Brown's behavior wasn't as eyewitnesses describe, perhaps protests wouldn't have swelled in the first place. Instead, the citizens of Ferguson are left with more questions than answers.

Moving forward, Greenwood doesn't see how on-body cameras can be avoided. "I see no way moving forward in which Ferguson police do not use OBRS," he says. "The proper use of OBRS is going to be a very important part of how these agencies restore legitimacy and public confidence."

There need to be rules, of course — and in his capacity working with the ACLU, Greenwood has helped to sketch out some of those rules. But when situations like Ferguson emerge, it seems reasonable to think that more transparency and more public records are what's needed, not less.