A comparison of bluetooth low power modes

Olli Karjalainen; Seppo Rantala; Markku Kivikoski

doi:10.1109/CONTEL.2003.176900

A comparison of bluetooth low power modes

Olli Karjalainen, Seppo Rantala, Markku Kivikoski

BA1612 Smart health

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference article in proceedings › Scientific › peer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper is an investigation about the performance of the three Bluetooth low power modes (i.e. hold, sniff and park). The performance metrics of interest were response times from master to slave, from slave to master, and the current consumptions in each mode. From these low power modes the sniff mode offers generally the best response times whereas parked devices have the smallest current consumption. Since the characteristics of each mode offer different functions to the Bluetooth system itself, the final usage defines which mode should be selected.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	Proceedings of 7th Internatioal Conference on Telecommunications, ConTEL 2003
Publisher	IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
Pages	121-128
ISBN (Print)	953-184-052-0
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1109/CONTEL.2003.176900
Publication status	Published - 2003
MoE publication type	A4 Article in a conference publication

Keywords

bluetooth
low power
park
sniff
hold

Access to Document

10.1109/CONTEL.2003.176900

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'A comparison of bluetooth low power modes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

@inproceedings{801f2f6b63944b56aa9d06cbba95d4b2,

title = "A comparison of bluetooth low power modes",

abstract = "This paper is an investigation about the performance of the three Bluetooth low power modes (i.e. hold, sniff and park). The performance metrics of interest were response times from master to slave, from slave to master, and the current consumptions in each mode. From these low power modes the sniff mode offers generally the best response times whereas parked devices have the smallest current consumption. Since the characteristics of each mode offer different functions to the Bluetooth system itself, the final usage defines which mode should be selected.",

keywords = "bluetooth, low power, park, sniff, hold",

author = "Olli Karjalainen and Seppo Rantala and Markku Kivikoski",

year = "2003",

doi = "10.1109/CONTEL.2003.176900",

language = "English",

isbn = "953-184-052-0",

pages = "121--128",

booktitle = "Proceedings of 7th Internatioal Conference on Telecommunications, ConTEL 2003",

publisher = "IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers",

address = "United States",

}

A comparison of bluetooth low power modes. / Karjalainen, Olli; Rantala, Seppo; Kivikoski, Markku.

Proceedings of 7th Internatioal Conference on Telecommunications, ConTEL 2003. IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, 2003. p. 121-128.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference article in proceedings › Scientific › peer-review

TY - GEN

T1 - A comparison of bluetooth low power modes

AU - Karjalainen, Olli

AU - Rantala, Seppo

AU - Kivikoski, Markku

PY - 2003

Y1 - 2003

N2 - This paper is an investigation about the performance of the three Bluetooth low power modes (i.e. hold, sniff and park). The performance metrics of interest were response times from master to slave, from slave to master, and the current consumptions in each mode. From these low power modes the sniff mode offers generally the best response times whereas parked devices have the smallest current consumption. Since the characteristics of each mode offer different functions to the Bluetooth system itself, the final usage defines which mode should be selected.

AB - This paper is an investigation about the performance of the three Bluetooth low power modes (i.e. hold, sniff and park). The performance metrics of interest were response times from master to slave, from slave to master, and the current consumptions in each mode. From these low power modes the sniff mode offers generally the best response times whereas parked devices have the smallest current consumption. Since the characteristics of each mode offer different functions to the Bluetooth system itself, the final usage defines which mode should be selected.

KW - bluetooth

KW - low power

KW - park

KW - sniff

KW - hold

U2 - 10.1109/CONTEL.2003.176900

DO - 10.1109/CONTEL.2003.176900

M3 - Conference article in proceedings

SN - 953-184-052-0

SP - 121

EP - 128

BT - Proceedings of 7th Internatioal Conference on Telecommunications, ConTEL 2003

PB - IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers

ER -