Alternative to RFID implant

edited February 2015 in RFID/NFC
I've been interested in putting an RFID chip in my hand for a while, but I was kind'a bummed by the short sensing range. I just saw an article about a new external pet-finder chip that supposedly works up to 1 km away. It interfaces with an adapter for your iPhone (Android support in mid-2013) and uses an AES 128-bit encryption on the 433 MHz frequency. 'Low power use' to the extent that a small solar cell can sustain it.

I was thinking, if it could be bioproofed, modified to be powered by induction charging and if a reader could be built to talk to it (for those of us who'd rather not wire our houses with an iPhone) then it could be a big step up from a passive RFID chip implant. However, I haven't looked into it much and I'm not terribly comfortable with wireless protocols yet. I'm also unsure how well 433 MHz would be transmitted through the skin.
It also is currently pre-order only at $99.

Hopefully someone with more experience can shed some light on the viability of this idea.
So whatt'a think? Would it work as an implant?

Here's the link:

Mr. Sticky


  • I could understand wanting something with longer range, such as one with a yard or two, but with 1 km I'm not sure how much better that would be. Would you really need THAT much range?
  • I agree that 1 km seems pretty extreme. I'm counting on transmission through the skin cutting down on the range, and a heavy reliance on the software's ability to set and detect when the chip crosses perimeters.
    Although the idea of my rice cooker turning on while I'm still a ways out from home is kind'a nice...

    Mr. Sticky
  • the problem is rather simple, and called energy source.

    most rfid implants are passive, means they get powered from the base-station. the ammount of energy you can get with that technique is minimal, so is the range.

    if you add a power supply, such as a battery and/or solar panels, you have significantly more energy at hands.

    a small battery and a solar panel as shown in that pet tracker will only be enough for occasional communication.

    if you want to build an implant based on that RF, AES encryption etc. i can recommend you look for automotive microcontrollers, especially those used in key's with remote control. pretty much one-chip sollutions, if you add a battery and antenna.

    personally i like my rfid implants very limited range. i don't have to be overly concerned about someone abusing this chip remotly. if you need slightly bigger range you could go for a coin-sized tag and bioproof it. those are still reasonably small, passive, and have a bigger range than the capsule tags.  still within 2-digit cm range tho.
  • I had not thought about automotive microcontrollers in that way (ok, I haven't really thought about them at all). I'll be sure to look into that.

    And perhaps I should try getting a passive RFID chip and seeing how that works for me before I start getting too excited about putting powered devices under my skin that do a similar sort of thing.

    Thanks for your advice and thoughts!

    Mr. Sticky
  • edited March 2015
    While not a biohack, we are working on which we are kind of considering an alternative to the implant.
Sign In or Register to comment.