Jump to content

Talk:Near-field communication

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Timeliness

[edit]

Allo m8's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.192.215 (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC) This page has some seriously out-of-date information, especially in the pilot section. I would like to update the page by doing the following: adding a paragraph about NFC tags; significantly increasing the industry application section with both existing and emerging applications; and updating the pilot programs and service launches. Nearly all of the pilots date from 2008 and earlier and thus are no longer relevant. I would update pilots with only 2010 and 2011 data, delete all earlier and unreferenced programs, add references to all programs so that they could be updated and verified more easily in the future. In addition, I or someone else should set up a new section for multi-country deployments, as a few providers have announced such initiatives. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfidwriter (talk • contribs) 19:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many references are out of date. NFC has evolved so rapidly that even year-old references can be out of date. This article is written as a computer science advocacy paper instead of a reference. The opening paragraph needs to be understandable by all. Much information is given without citation. No History section is given so the article is a tangled web of information. I will attempt to make the opening paragraph more readable and up-to-date and add a History section to make it more understandable.— Milominderbinder2 talk 17:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Security Risks

[edit]

This article does not address in very much detail the security risks of 13.56MHz and NFC - it does mentioned NFC has a serious eavesdropping risks. NFC is not permitted in any secure areas in the USA. Several cell phone manufactures have not been too enthused to adopt this as a standard because of this risk. IEEE 1902.1 is the only wireless technology that has approval for use in secure areas within the US and is in widespread use. It is true that a large percentage of the NFC signal is magnetic (about 40-50%) but what this article does not say is that at 13.56Mhz about 60-50% of the energy is an electric filed that has the ability to travel long distances. If you measure voltage on a loop antenna the E portion of the field drops off at 1/r, while the H (magnetic) drops of 1/r3. If you measure power the E field drops off 1/r2 and H drops off 1/r6. Bottom line is the E emissions provide a NFC security risk. The only way to eliminate eavesdropping risk is to eliminate E. NFC was concerned about bandwidth so decided to compromise security to get higher bandwidth. Have examples of conventional 13.56 Mhz RFID transmitter being detected 20 (twenty) miles from its source, even though the RFID tags only have a range of about 3 feet. Glad to discuss physics of this with any of the NFC group. Can assure you possible to monitor NFC signals at a distance and many papers confirm that. Most of the academic studies do tests with low cost equipment, but history has shown if money involved bad guys will develop expensive state of the art equipment and use.

I will add a section to this that I think will be balanced and objective - many articles and concerns on this topic on web - great white paper on NFC from Phillips discusses above as well.

Just because you operate in near field (usually means much below 1/10 wavelength) does not mean you don't emit far field detectable signals.


(Jkmstevens (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]



Does anybody know how this is related to RFID? --144.82.240.6 15:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the style of this article - it reads like advocacy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Reverted to older version. Article was a copy of http://www.nfc-forum.org/aboutnfc/ 129.27.203.169 09:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NFC is RFID, or better LF and HF RFID is always NFC. UHF RFID can operate as near field communications (at short distances i.e. in a printer) but is normally used as far field communications. --Rfidguy 01:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find some important information missing in the comparison with bluetooth: is NFC capable of talking to other NFC capable phones directly? Bluetooth is. For RFID the reader is a special device. If yes, if only one of the phones is powered, is it also capable of powering the other one (just like RFID)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.252.100 (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I nuked the list of external links in the article because it's gone far, far beyond the point of being useful and into the deep end of spamcruft. Following the advice of WP:SPAMHOLE, let's start the section over. Here are the links I removed:

Let's pick a few very good and solid links that pass Wikipedia:External links out of this list to put back in the article. The company links can be left out, since Wikipedia is not a links directory or vehicle for promotion. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request photograph

[edit]
Edward 14:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added an image, we have more explanatory images if required. --Timoarnall 13:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of trials

[edit]

I've updated the list of NFC trials. The list is not complete as new trials are announced every week however I've tried to put a list as much accurate as possible. Curiouscitizen 10:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of trials

[edit]

New update of the list. I have removed the projects of SEP (Bulgaria) and m-pay (Poland) because they are Mobile payment project based on SMS, not NFC. Curiouscitizen (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove all the trials which does not have a reference. What do you think? Some of them are just a list of companies. --Ivanmilara (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes and references

[edit]

I have renamed the References section to be (foot)Notes and introduced a "proper" References section to hold the list of reference works (books, articles, etc.) to be used to support citations. I have also included a reference to an article to support the claim of distance "up to 10cms".--Михал Орела (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would now be a good idea to move relevant stuff out of the (foot)notes and into the references section proper. This will take a lot of work.--Михал Орела (talk) 09:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The moving of Timo Kasper et al. 2007 from footnotes to references took about 30min. :-) But, it was a complicated reference and difficult to get right.--Михал Орела (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any volunteers who wish to continue the good work might like to look at Citation_templates

--Михал Орела (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.153.210.6 (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:NFC-N-Mark-Logo.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:NFC-N-Mark-Logo.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 24 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy up

[edit]

At present, this article is a bit of a mess. It seems to have a "kitchen sink" approach, filling every section with all manner of external links, uncited quotations, non-sequitur factoids, and "wouldn't it be cool if?" sentences, with no coherent structure or explanatory aim. (Indeed, when I first read it I couldn't even get an idea of what NFC is, just what it could be used for.) I've tried to remedy this at the beginning (in the lead and in the "Uses" section), where I think clarity is most important. A similar approach is needed in much of the rest of the article, if anyone else is up for it... -- Perey (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping to pick up the torch where it got left off. I think the whole article could benefit from some restructuring, including moving the "History" section in front of "Uses" (now that the tech has been around long enough that there is a significant history), as well as unifying the "Standards" and "Standardization bodies and industry projects" sections. Additionally, is the "Comparison with Bluetooth" section really relevant to the rest of the article? Can it be removed, or perhaps combined with another section? Finally, in regards to the complaint that the article reads like an advertisement, I would appreciate any feedback as to where to draw the line between when citing specific companies' implementations of the technology crosses over from factual reporting to promotion. The "Uses", "History", and "NFC-enabled handsets" sections in particular seem to list certain products without particular reason. --FacultiesIntact (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge run-on sentence that I'm not even sure makes sense, "NFC tags can be custom-encoded by their manufacturers or use the industry specifications provided by the NFC Forum, an association with more than 160 members founded in 2004 by Nokia, Philips Semiconductors (which became NXP Semiconductors in 2006) and Sony were charged with promoting the technology and setting key standards, which includes the definition of four distinct types of tags that provide different communication speeds and capabilities in terms of flexibility, memory, security, data retention and write endurance." I'm pretty sure the "and charged" part doesn't make sense and this needs to be split up into multiple sentences and fixed--even if it does make sense(?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.177.47.194 (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Application

[edit]

A cell phone representative said grocery stores in the USA will soon be equipped with this technology so you just swipe your cell phone and some toll roads are already equipped with the technology. 108.81.134.236 (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Near field communication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Near-field communication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Near-field communication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Range inconsistencies in this article

[edit]

In the opening sentence of this article, the range of NFC is given as "4 cm (1.6 in)".

In the first sentence of the Design section, the range is given as "10 cm or less".

In two places in the Bluetooth comparison section, the range is given as "<20 cm".

We need to either make these numbers consistent or explain in the article why they aren't. There's a note saying "Theoretical working distance with compact standard antennas: up to 20 cm (practical working distance of about 10 cm)", but it's down in the 4th paragraph of "Design" and marked as "citation needed." -- Gary D Robson 23:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary D Robson (talk • contribs)

People Can't Memorize Computer Industry Acronyms

[edit]

PCMCIA is an obsolete computer acronym. Unlimited jumbles of letters get to be too much - 50.80.242.31 (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tapping a card onto a fixed device that uses NFC

[edit]

Assuming that the antennas for an NFC link are planar spirals, holding the portable device parallel to the fixed device antenna should provide optimum coupling. During a phone call with a well–informed person, I confirmed that tapping has no purpose, technically. After some thought (but before the call, perhaps), I concluded that asking users to tap is a really–concise way of ensuring close proximity. 2600:4040:5009:4A00:1096:8107:CAF9:710F (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Communication from a passive device to the active device

[edit]

After reading at least technical sections, I found no mention of such communication by modulating energy absorption by the passive device. Perhaps this is not done in strictly–defined NFC devices? Energy permitting, I'll study the RFID article. (Sorry, age 86, fairly severe depression...) 2600:4040:5009:4A00:1096:8107:CAF9:710F (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers are near–field devices

[edit]

Being almost totally self–educated¹ in electrical/electronic engineering, but without higher math, I repeatedly came across the statement that rate of change of flux induces current in a conductor. For decades, I could not understand why a transformer doesn't shift the phase of a sine wave by 90°. A friend and neighbor who iirc had a BSEE was quite surprised by my perplexity, and said that a transformer is a near–field device. Of course! I suspect that the best tube audio output transformers (think Dynaco) were constructed to enhance proximity between primary and secondary. (The Stereo 70 transformers had bifilar primaries.) ¹ MIT Radiatuon Lab. Series; Princeton U., one term. 2600:4040:5009:4A00:1096:8107:CAF9:710F (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you're referring to this i think https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field
Magnetism is quite interesting. 24.19.141.129 (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Near-field_communication&oldid=1204225512"