Page 48
www.us-tech.com
Benchmarking RFID Readers for Maximum Tag Performance
Continued from previous page
narios, offering greater performance in terms of accuracy, reading distance and the percentage of tags read. However, when progressing
from the older tags to newer tags, the lower-performing reader actually loses read percentage rates for new tags significantly. In fact, the lower-
Not all RFID readers are
the same. When comparing the signal loss of various readers and the resulting effect on reading distance, it is important to note that
a loss of only –3 dB cuts the signal in half, and –24 dB will result in nearly 90 percent loss in performance.
performing reader demonstrated a drop in read percentage by more than 50 percent when reading newer tags that were 2 dB more sensitive.
Not All Readers are Created Equal
Investing in a newer, more sen-
sitive tag does not necessarily deliver improved performance, without upgrading to a higher-performing reader. But, different readers offer varying levels of performance in dif- ferent applications. How should one choose the best reader for a particu- lar application?
FEIG OBID i-scan LRU1002 RFID reader along with benchmarking devices.
previous page). The LRU1002 is designed for applications that require read ranges of up to 16m (52.5 ft). The readers were tested for reading speed, anti-collision and multiplexing, dense reader mode sensitivity, and overall performance. Each reader was tested for
speed of 0.41 seconds. Next, for the anti-collision and
multiplexing reading speed test, readers were tested on the number of tags read per second. In this test, every antenna saw every one of the tags, requiring multiplexing of the signals. Several readers exhibited
FEIG conducted a comparison
of several commercially available UHF RFID readers and bench- marked them against FEIG’s OBID i- scan® LRU1002 fixed UHF long- range reader (see tabulated results,
reading speed under identical condi- tions. After five attempts, the LRU1002 averaged a reading speed of 0.42 seconds, beating three of the four other competing devices. One other reader averaged a reading
reduced performance, due to their slower speed when switching from one antenna to another. In this test, the LRU1002, with the maximum of four antennas, was able to read 238 tags per second, while the competing devices ranked 256, 208.8, 159.6, and 94.8 tags per second, respectively. The dense reader mode opera-
tion test represented a common, real- life situation, particularly in UHF RFID applications. In a logistics application, such as a loading dock, multiple readers in close proximity can cause signal loss and reduce the performance of each other. In these tests, the OBID i-scan LRU1002 exhibited the least loss in perform- ance when running in a multiple reader environment, due to its abili- ty to switch channels and avoid interference. Not all RFID readers are the
same. When comparing the signal loss of various readers and the resulting effect on reading distance, it is important to note that a loss of only –3 dB cuts the signal in half, and –24 dB will result in nearly 90 percent loss in performance. When optimizing the perform-
ance of an RFID system, it is not enough to simply upgrade to the lat- est and greatest RFID tags — be sure to consider the installation environ- ment and the RFID reader as well. Contact: FEIG Electronics, Inc.,
2220 Northmont Parkway, Suite 250, Duluth, GA 30096 % 770-491-8060 E-mail:
info@feig-electronics.com Web:
www.feig-electronics.com r
August, 2017
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84