Nvidia Ion Solves One Wearable Display Dilemma

The Nvidia Ion is a netbook processor solution capable of running up-to 2560x1600 resolution- well beyond true 1080p HD. It's light, small, and energy efficient. Go ahead and take a look at how small the reference platform is. It's portable.

Ten years ago dozens of companies thought the future of computing was going to be found in "virtual reality" displays. So they built the best stuff they could, at the time. As recently as five years ago, the best HWD had a resolution of around 800x600. And yet, it was suppose to go right in front of a person's eyes. And compete with conventional monitors. Because it wasn't particularly portable.

The human eye can see about 1 pixel per arcminute of viewing angle- about sixty pixels per degree. Let's take an example.

The Sun is about 32 arcminutes in angular diameter (it varies depending on the time of year, but 32 is a good enough average). That means the Sun is just over half a degree across. That means that, in reality, the Sun in the sky represents about 157 pixels. And a 800x600 display represents a spot of reality that is 6.5 degrees in diameter. A large orange held at arm's length. To really be immersive, it needs to be a beach ball. And each eye needs it's own independent display driven by its own graphics processors or else it isn't going to be 3D when you need it to be. But let's not worry about that too much.

Let's take a single HD display running at 1080p, which is 1920 pixels wide. That gives us a horizontal viewing angle of 32 degrees at maximum detectable resolution. That means that if the display is close enough that it takes up more than about 1/5th of a person's maximum field of view, they'll be seeing less than optimum resolution. What this also means is that it would take 5 HD displays, arranged side-by-side, to account for just the horizontal axis for a truly immersive Omnimax-type VR experience- all positioned at exactly the right distance to make the maximum use of their resolution (not so close that you see individual pixels, not so far away that pixels blur together). Do we really need that many? Depends on what we're trying for. Short answer: no. Not yet. We don't have any applications that could make use of such a technology. Every one of those displays would require a PS3 to drive it- if it were a game- plus a whole extra layer of complexity to get them all to work together. Not counting the fact that games and movies don't represent the same level of visual reality.

The human eye sees high resolution detail only for the center 50 degrees or so. I was going to say 60, but I mistyped it and decided to leave it that way. At the same time, the eye and mind are aware of detail surrounding that central focal point- detail that can be focused on by simply looking at it. And there's no way to just render the center while leaving the periphery blurry unless you're controlling what the eye looks at. Think cutscene vs. playable content. There's no getting away from the fact that, for immersion to be achieved, HMD's need to pump something like 16 (4 wide x 4 high) HD monitor's worth of imagry options for the eye to look at. That doesn't even count what you'd need if a person's head could move.

There's ways of cutting that down. And there are practical ways of using VR without it being either immersive or reality-resolution.

What's interesting, and what I'm pointing out in this post, is that if the display optics were available, the computing power needed to run it is *almost* portable.

For the moment, I'd be satisfied with an HD-resolution HWD positioned so that it takes up 45 degrees of viewing angle- the center 1/4 of the a person's field of view. At that range, I'd be able to pick out pixels, but it wouldn't be too bad since computing environments are already pixelated. It would be preferrable to having the display represent less than 32 degrees (which is wasteful).

Is it possible to make HD displays smaller than the window pane in a pair of reading glasses? Yes. How do I know? Simple. DLP chips are about that size. CCDs and optical CMOS chips are in that size regime.

What would the technology look like when it all finally comes together?

1. Think 5th generation "Netbook" with a cheap eReader display on the box for traditional viewing and sharing. More importantly, it comes with a pair of HD or HD+ resolution glasses.

2. Think multi-touch pad (could be the unlit conventional display) as a finger-controllable pointing device.

3. Multi-touch works as a keyboard as long as you can see the keys. For invisible typing, you need two things: A. You need to be a touch typist. B. You need tactile response- a physical device.

4. Tracks eye movements so you can use the device without resorting to finger movements. Voice activated search. Btw, for voice activation to be truly useful, it has to be able to hear you whispering. Or read your lips.

5. Now that you're wearing your computer, you need to be able to do all the things computers do. Which, these days, is all the things smartphones do. Including taking video. So your head mounted display, in the from of a pair of glasses, needs to have cameras built in.

6. How is the HMD powered? Is it connected via a cord? Why not? People wear headphones without complaining.

Ehh. I'm done writing for now. The rest of my ideas take too much space to explain.

Pointing Out the Obvious...

Here's what I want: a three-tiered mobile technology solution: 1. Smartphone with full-sized touch screen and double-thumbable keyboard. 2. Bluetooth headset. 3. Bluetooth-connected wrist watch with screen as big as the face.

Here's the rationale:

1. Smartphones are the new business machines. As Motorola and HTC (and not Apple) have realized, smartphones need keyboards because we're actually writing Great American Novels on them. The better the keyboard, the more often a person will leave the house without their laptop.

2. While the intensive tasks require a large touchscreen an a keyboard (iPhone users may disagree, but only because they don't know what they're missing), not every task is intensive. Sometimes you just need to read a text, check the subject line of an email, see calendar updates, and navigate your address book. Warming up the a smartphone's whole screen uses an unnecessary amount of power.

3. A good keyboard corresponds to a good-sized screen. Both correspond with a rather large device. Large devices end up out of reach- deep in pockets.

4. Bluetooth headsets are essential for making smartphones viable as mobile productivity stations. A person needs to be able to juggle apps- text, email, maps, search, address books- while talking. A headset allows a person to use their smartphone in front of them, instead of up to their ear, or on speakerphone. Bluetooth is also safer, since we all talk while driving. If you don't already have one, get one. They're not expensive.

5. Bluetooth headsets don't need to be worn constantly. They're uncomfortable, and they look funny. Headsets are often somewhere else. I often put mine in a coat pocket. Finding it again takes time. I often turn the Blue off, the speakerphone on, find the Blue, and then turn it back on again. Obviously, I'd rather this be simpler.

6. Many of us use to wear watches just to keep track of time. Many of us don't wear watches because our cellphones tell us what time it is. And wristwatches haven't developed much. For instance, you can still spend $40 on a calculator watch by Casio that is essentially identical to ones they made 20 years ago. That's abysmal. Is there any wonder that wristwatches have become fashion items?

7. There is currently no way to put everything you need into a wristwatch-sized case. However, if all you needed to do was put a screen, a battery, a transceiver, and a minimally powerful processor- that's all very doable. Using a smartphone as the main source, and a high resolution wristwatch screen (think iPod Nano), you could even watch Hulu (eventually) or at least Youtube.

8. We need a better place to keep our headsets when they're not in use. I'm imagining a Bluetooth headset that clips onto the side of your wristwatch. Call comes in, your watch alerts you. You remove the headset, insert it into your ear, and your smartphone stays in your pocket the whole time. Or, a text comes in. You read it on your watch, remove the headset, and call the person directly- smartphone never leaves the pocket. Or, call comes in, you take it on the headset, and then- as you're talking, you get your smartphone out and use it to search for a phone number in an email. As soon as you find it, you hit the button for "send to watch." You immediately turn off the big energy-sucking screen on your phone.

9. If smartphones didn't have such short battery lives, we'd use them for more things. We might actually use them as mp3 players. As it is, that is very often a separate device. The only people I know that play music on their phones are teenagers. They don't necessarily have multiple devices. Either that or they really like listening to music. Music navigation could easily be managed on a watch.

10. It occurs to me that the next iPhone will probably have a Pixel Qi screen, enabling a 50% increase in battery life. That's probably what will be announced at MacWorld in February. It'll be an eReader, iPod, iPhone, mini-tablet PC alternative. Because really, what we need are devices that can be used for everything we need them for, and are always before us- but not in our way when we don't need them- and have enough battery power to survive 12 hours of heavy use.

11. Is a a wristwatch likely to appeal to enough people to make it viable? Yes. Here's why: smartphones are starting to all look alike. It's time to make a slightly bigger smartphone- bigger screen, better keyboard- and keep it in your pocket. Smartphone becomes tiny netbook. Wristwatch becomes tiny smartphone.

12. And that's all I have to say.

Helium-Filled Alternate History

One of the great what-ifs of history is "What if the Hindenburg hadn't burned down on live radio- making it one of the most indelible news events of the 20th century?" And what if WWII->Cold War hadn't shifted our technological priorities toward high-altitude, high-speed jet-powered aircraft- the civilian application of which is the commercial airliner. What if airships had continued to be developed? Helium, with a molecular weight of about 4 grams / mol, is twice as heavy as diatomic hydrogen (around 2 gram/mol). However, compared to air, which is about 29 grams/mol, it's still excellent. The difference between 2 and 4 grams compared to 29- about 7%. In other words, if the Hindenburg had used helium- as it was originally designed to- it would have been able to carry 7% less payload.

The real what-if actually comes earlier. What if the U.S. (the world's only supplier) hadn't banned the export of helium to Germany in the run-up to WWII? Not counting dark matter, helium accounts for 24% of our galaxy- 12x more mass than the rest of all other elements combined. Hydrogen accounts for 73.9% of what's visible. Here on earth, the only viable source for helium is as a radioactive decay product that accompanies the natural gas from certain wells in the U.S. and a- to a lesser extent- Poland.

Helium, unlike hydrogen, isn't something you'd want to throw away. The Hindenburg was designed to use dynamic envelope control which requires a heavier airframe and a higher margin of error. That's because the helium wasn't going to be vented to make for an easy decent. Switching to hydrogen allowed the Hindenburg to carry 7% more passengers and freight according to the raw numbers. It probably would have carried several percent more because of how it was being flown.

We (now) know hydrogen is dangerous. Hydrogen is actually two gases mixed together- both consisting of diatomic hydrogen- the molecules of which are arranged differently. The exact properties of hydrogen gas depends on the combination of these two isomers, which in turn, depends on how long the gas has had a chance to reach equilibrium.

In other words, fresh hydrogen is quite different from stale hydrogen.

As for safety, when it burns, it burns rapidly, invisibly (it skips the visible spectrum but is visible in IR and UV), and- provided enough oxygen- totally. It's ignition temperature (500C) is well within reach of all manner of things, including matches and static electric sparks. One of its not-quite-saving graces is that, in its pure form, it doesn't burn at all. It needs oxygen. Also, when it burns, the flames tend to rise quickly and it produces no smoke. Most of the people who died on the Hindenburg died because they were inside the hull and had nowhere to escape to as the ship's diesel burned nearby. Out of 97 passengers and crew, 61 survived.

Helium is relatively safe. Its stable, non-reactive, and fun. The only way it can kill you is by asphyxiation- since breathing pure helium has all the health benefits of not breathing anything at all. Mix it with the right amount of oxygen, however, and you've got a superior diving gas.

Helium, if made available at the right moment, would have harnessed innovative energy that was dedicated to high speed aircraft. That shouldn't sound like a total shame. Jets are fast. And not too expensive. And safe. But they're also the only option. And they're expensive. Take a 15 hour trans-oceanic flight without enough room to unfold your knees. And then consider the following:

According to estimates, there were over 4 trillion ton-miles of intermodal domestic freight shipped in the United States during 2008. Intermodal means "by every method." The worldwide volume of freight transported by sea is over 35 trillion ton-miles. This represents 4x increase over the last four decades. And all of it, ALL OF IT, is powered by fossil fuels. In fact, around *half* of that freight volume IS fossil fuels: crude, oil products, and coal being freighted from one part of the world to another.

The most efficient mode of transport is using very large ships (boats). Boats are incredibly efficient when compared to rail, road, and runway. Boats are made of steel, which is cheap and abundant. Large ships involve a lot of surface area, and hence, a lot of friction with the water they travel through. But they also have enormous amounts of internal volume. And the bigger they are, the more favorable the ratio between area and volume. And they don't go very fast, so induced drag isn't too bad. Only problem. Boats don't work on land.

Next most efficient is rail. Low speed hence low friction. Low manpower costs. Efficient engines. Logistics are slow and, for many products, unworkable. To really do point-to-point transport, you need trucks. High manpower costs- which mitigates the highly fluid logistical challenges. Not extremely efficient, but enormously flexible. And both rail and trucking require infrastructure that needs to be maintained. And we won't discuss airfreight, which has only speed to its advantage, which solves a lot of logistical issues in one fell swoop. Remember when the idea for FedEx got a C when it was turned in as an assignment at Harvard Business School?

So here's the question we're drifting toward: could airships have had a role in transporting freight? The short answer should be obvious: no. They don't so they couldn't. There are only around 50 working airships- most of them blimps- and precious few of them are used for transporting anything resembling freight in any meaningful way. The golden age of airships ended with the burning of the Hindenburg- just as it was getting off the ground. But the reality is, airships were on their way out anyway. The Hindenburg wasn't the first airship to go down. The U.S.S. Macon, which was nearly as large- and which was filled with helium- experienced a far more dramatic trip to earth (unless dramatic = flames, in which Hindenburg wins most competitions). Hindenburg was just the most visible. Also, at the time, airships were competing, not with air travel, but with sea travel. Considering the risk of being sunk by a submarine, the definition of "safe" was a rather low mark. And the Hindenburg would have made for an extremely poor flying truck. It's crew consisted of more than forty people. It was a niche craft.

It may have been beautiful, immensely romantic, and intensely inspiring to look upon. But inspiring doesn't pay bills. And inspiration that doesn't reproduced isn't worth much.

Here's the crazy thing, though. The design for airships like the Hindenburg- that distinctive torpedo-like shape- actually pre-date the invention of the airplane by a about twenty years. Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin was making flying cigars in 1894. And there were elongated dirigibles that date back to the 1880s. By the time Orville and Wilbur started toying around with powered kites, Zeppelins were a major industry. And everyone knows that airplanes win wars while airships much prefer peace. (German Zepellins were used to bomb London during WWI but after 1915- during which they lost at least half their airships, they abandoned their use. One of them was bombed out of the air by a British pilot flying an early monoplane. Live by the bomb, die by the bomb.

So here's another big "what if?" What would have happened if airships and airplanes had been developed at the same time?

What would have happened if the following ingredients were combined in a single place?

1. Helium made available as an openly-traded commodity.
2. Aerodynamic lift theory applied to lighter-than-air craft.
3. Application of progressive materials science coupled with advanced structural engineering.
4. No intrinsic fear of airships among the general public.

I'll tell you what *might* have happened.

Airships might have matured into lifting body hybrids. Flying cruise ships. Flying trucks- able to sail on prevailing winds. Flying construction cranes. Maybe even flying towns. Flying launch platforms.