The IEEE website places cookies on your device in order to provide you with the best user experience. By using our website, you agree to the placement of these cookies. To learn more, please read our privacy policy.

Wireless is not actually ubiquitous. We have all seen this effect: calls are interrupted and web pages sometimes take a long time to load. One of the most fundamental reasons for such vulnerabilities in our coverage area is that the vast majority of today's wireless networks are configured as star networks. This means that there is a central infrastructure, such as a cellular tower or router, which communicates with all the surrounding mobile devices in a starburst mode.

Ubiquitous wireless coverage occurs only when different types of networks (mesh networks) enhance these star networks. Unlike a star network, a mesh network consists of nodes that communicate with each other and end-user devices. With such a system, the coverage hole in the wireless network can be filled by simply adding a node to fill the signal around the obstacle. For example, by installing nodes that communicate with the main router, Wi-Fi signals can be enhanced in the poorly received parts of the building.

However, the current wireless mesh network design has limitations. So far, the biggest problem is that if nodes in a mesh network use the same frequency to send and receive signals, it will interfere with itself when relaying data. Therefore, the current design transmits and receives on different frequency bands. However, frequency spectrum is a scarce resource, especially for the high-traffic frequencies used by cellular networks and Wi-Fi. When cell towers and Wi-Fi routers do a good job of keeping people connected most of the time, it is difficult to justify investing so much spectrum to fill coverage holes.

However, the breakthrough here can bring mesh networks into the most demanding and spectrum-intensive networks, such as those that connect assembly shop robots, self-driving cars, or drone swarms. In fact, such a breakthrough technology is emerging: self-interference cancellation (SIC). As the name implies, SIC enables mesh network nodes to eliminate the interference it generates by sending and receiving on the same frequency. By eliminating the need for separate transmit and receive frequencies, this technology actually doubles the node's spectral efficiency.

There are now tens of billions of wireless devices in the world. According to the GSM Association, at least 5 billion of these are mobile phones. The Wi-Fi Alliance reports that there are more than 13 billion Wi-Fi-equipped devices in use. The Bluetooth Special Interest Group predicts that more than 7.5 billion Bluetooth devices will be shipped between 2020 and 2024. Now is the introduction of wireless mesh networks into the mainstream, because wireless functions are built into more products-bathroom scales, tennis shoes, pressure cookers, and too many other products. Consumers want them to work anywhere, and SIC will do this by enabling a strong mesh network with no coverage holes. Most importantly, maybe they will do this by using only the right amount of spectrum.

Cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, and other two-way radios are considered full-duplex radios. This means that they can send and receive signals, usually by using separate transmitters and receivers. Generally, the radio will use frequency division duplexing (that is, sending and receiving signals using two different frequencies) or time division duplexing (that is, sending and receiving signals using the same frequency but at different times) to send and receive signals. The disadvantage of these two duplex technologies is that in theory, each frequency band uses only half of its potential at any given time-in other words, it is either sending or receiving, not both.

Radios, like radios in mobile phones, usually use different frequencies or use the same frequency at different times for communication to send and receive signals. The efficiency of these technologies in the use of spectrum is half that of using the same frequency at the same time. Illustration: Eric Freelink

The development of same-frequency full-duplex technology is a long-term goal of radio engineers, which can maximize the use of spectrum by transmitting and receiving on the same frequency band at the same time. You can think of other full-duplex measures as a two-lane highway, with traffic moving in different directions on different lanes. Full duplex at the same frequency is like building only one lane, allowing the car to drive in two directions at the same time. This may be ridiculous for traffic, but it is entirely possible for radio engineering.

What needs to be clear is that full duplex on the same frequency is still a goal that radio engineers are still striving to achieve. Self-interference cancellation brings the radio closer to this goal. It enables the radio to cancel its own transmission and hear other signals on the same frequency at the same time, but this is not a perfect technology.

SIC has just begun to enter mainstream use. In the United States, there are at least 3 startups that bring SIC to real-world applications: GenXComm, Lextrum, and Kumu Networks (I am the vice president of product management). There are also some substantial projects at Columbia University, Stanford University (the birthplace of Kumu Networks) and the University of Texas at Austin in the development of self-cancellation technology.

At first glance, SIC may seem simple. After all, the transmitting radio knows what its transmitting signal is before it sends a signal. Then, all the transmitting radio has to do is to cancel out its own transmitted signal from the signal mixture received by its antenna, so that it can hear the signals from other radios, right?

In fact, SIC is more complicated because the radio signal must go through several steps before transmission, which affects the transmitted signal. Modern radios, such as the one in your smartphone, start with a digital version of the signal to be transmitted in its software. However, in the process of converting the digital representation into a radio frequency signal for transmission, the analog circuit of the radio will generate noise, which will distort the radio frequency signal, so that the signal cannot be used as it is for self-elimination. This noise is not easy to predict because it is partly caused by ambient temperature and minor manufacturing defects.

Compared with the power of the required received signal, the difference in the power amplitude of the interfering transmitted signal will also be confused and eliminated. The power transmitted by the radio amplifier is many orders of magnitude stronger than the power of the received signal. It's like trying to hear someone a few feet away whisper to you while you are yelling at them at the same time.

The SIC component in the radio samples the transmitted signal at the digital (1), IF (2) and RF (3) layers. In the IF and RF layers, the sampled signal is adjusted by several components (4) to create the reciprocal of the sample. In the digital layer, the algorithm eliminates signal changes caused by environmental reflections (5). After receiving the signal, the SIC component cancels it at the RF (6), IF (7) and digital (8) layers. The transmission signal is also sampled by the digital tuner (9), which will adjust the SIC component (10) to better eliminate it next time. Illustration: Eric Freelink

In addition, the signal arriving at the receiving antenna is not exactly the same as the signal during radio transmission. When it returns, the signal also includes reflections from nearby trees, walls, buildings, or any other objects near the radio. When the signal bounces off moving objects (such as people, vehicles, or even heavy rain), the reflection becomes more complicated. This means that if the radio simply cancels out the transmitted signal when the radio is sent, the radio will not be able to cancel these reflections.

Therefore, to do a good job, self-interference cancellation technology relies on a mixture of algorithms and analog techniques to resolve the signal changes generated by the radio components and their local environment. Recall that the goal is to create a signal that is the opposite of the transmitted signal. When this reverse signal is combined with the original received signal, ideally it should completely cancel the original transmitted signal—even if noise, distortion, and reflections are added—only the received signal is left. But in practice, the success of any offset technology still depends on how much offset it provides.

Kumu's SIC technology attempts to cancel the transmitted signal at three different times when the radio receives the signal. Using this three-layer method, Kumu's technology can achieve a cancellation of approximately 110 decibels, while a typical mesh Wi-Fi access point can achieve a cancellation of 20 to 25 dB.

The first step in the analog domain is at the radio frequency level. Here, a dedicated SIC component in the radio samples the transmitted signal before it reaches the antenna. At this point, the radio has modulated and amplified the signal. This means that any irregularities caused by the radio’s own signal mixers, power amplifiers, and other components are already present in the samples, so they can be eliminated by simply inverting the collected samples and feeding them into the radio receiver .

The next step is also in the analog domain, eliminating more transmitted signals at the intermediate frequency (IF) level. The intermediate frequency, as the name suggests, is an intermediate step between the creation of a digital signal by the radio and the actual transmission of the signal. Intermediate frequencies are often used to reduce the cost and complexity of radios. By using intermediate frequencies, the radio can reuse components such as filters instead of including separate filters for each frequency band and channel on which the radio can operate. For example, Wi-Fi routers and mobile phones first convert digital signals to intermediate frequencies in order to reuse components, and then convert the signals to the final transmission frequency.

Kumu's SIC technology handles IF cancellation in the same way as RF cancellation. The SIC component samples the IF signal in the transmitter first, and then converts it to transmit frequency, modulates and amplifies it. After the received signal is converted to an intermediate frequency, the IF signal is inverted and applied to the received signal. An interesting aspect of Kumu's SIC technology is that the sampling steps and cancellation steps to be noted here are opposite to each other. In other words, when the SIC component samples the IF signal before the RF signal in the transmitter, the component cancels the RF signal before the IF signal.

When the cell phone is close enough or aligned with the cell tower, it can communicate easily using the established duplex technology (1). By using self-interference cancellation (SIC), the relay node can extend the signal range of the cell tower without occupying the spectrum. The best result is to place the mobile phone directly opposite the relay node of the cell tower (2). From a certain point of view, when the signals start to interfere with each other, the cancellation required to keep the communication clear becomes more tricky (3). Illustration: Eric Freelink

The third and final step of the Kumu elimination process is to apply the algorithm to the received signal that has been converted into a digital format. The algorithm compares the remaining received signal with the original transmitted signal before the IF and RF steps. The algorithm basically combs the received signal to find any lingering effects that may be caused by the transmitter component or the transmitted signal reflected by the nearby environment, and eliminate them.

None of these steps are 100% effective. But taken together, they can reach a level of cancellation sufficient to eliminate enough transmitted signals, so that they can receive other fairly strong signals on the same frequency. This elimination is good enough for many key applications of interest, such as the Wi-Fi repeater described earlier.

As I mentioned before, engineers have not yet fully implemented the same-frequency full-duplex radio. Currently, SIC is being deployed in applications where the transmitter and receiver are close to each other, even in the same physical chassis, but do not share the same antenna. Let us look at a few important examples.

Kumu's technology has been commercially deployed in 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE) networks. With the help of SIC, devices called relay nodes can fill the coverage holes. A relay node is essentially a pair of two-way radios connected back to back. The first radio in this pair of radios faces a 4G cell tower and receives signals from the network. The second radio facing the coverage hole transmits the signal to users in the coverage hole at the same frequency. The node also receives signals from users in the coverage hole and relays them to the cell tower on the same frequency again. The performance of relay nodes is similar to traditional repeaters and extenders. They expand coverage by forwarding broadcast signals far away from their source. The difference is that relay nodes will not amplify the noise because they will decode and regenerate the original signal instead of just enhancing it.

Since the relay node completely retransmits the signal, in order for the node to work normally, the transmitter facing the 4G base station must not interfere with the receiver facing the coverage hole. Remember that a big problem with reusing spectrum is that the transmitted signal is orders of magnitude louder than the received signal. You don't want the node to overwhelm the signal it is trying to relay from the user by trying to retransmit them on its own. Likewise, you don’t want the transmitter facing the coverage hole to drown out the incoming signal from the cell phone tower. SIC prevents each radio from drowning the signal that the other is listening by canceling its own transmission.

The ongoing 5G network deployment provides greater opportunities for SIC. 5G is different from previous generations of cellular networks in that it contains small cells, which are basically micro-cell towers 100 to 200 meters apart. 5G networks require small cells, because the cellular generation uses higher-frequency millimeter-wave signals, which are not as far away as other cellular frequencies. The Small Cell Forum predicts that by 2025, more than 13 million 5G small cells will be installed worldwide. Each of these small base stations requires a dedicated link, called a backhaul link, to connect it to the rest of the network. The vast majority of these backhaul links will be wireless, because the alternative-fiber optic cable-is more expensive. In fact, the 5G industry is developing a set of standards called Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB) to develop stronger and more efficient wireless backhaul links.

IAB, as the name suggests, has two components. The first is access, which means that local devices (such as smartphones) can communicate with the nearest small cell. The second is backhaul, which means the ability of small base stations to communicate with the rest of the network. The first proposal of the 5G IAB is to allow access and backhaul communications to take turns on the same high-speed channel, or to use separate channels for two sets of communications. Both have major drawbacks. The problem with sharing the same channel is that you introduce time delays for latency-sensitive applications such as virtual reality and multiplayer games. On the other hand, using a separate channel also incurs a lot of costs: you need to double the amount of wireless spectrum that is usually expensive for the network license. In either case, you are not making the most efficient use of wireless capacity.

For example, in the LTE relay node example, SIC can cancel the transmission signal from the access radio on the small cell at the receiver of the backhaul radio, and similarly, cancel the backhaul from the same small cell at the receiver of the access radio. The radio’s transmit signal. The end result is that even if the cell’s access radio is talking to nearby devices, the cell’s backhaul radio can receive signals from the wider network.

Kumu's technology has not yet been commercially deployed in 5G networks using IAB because IAB is still relatively new. The third-generation partner program, which develops protocols for mobile communications, frozen the first round of IAB standards in June 2020. Since then, Kumu has been improving its technology through industry trials.

The last technology worth mentioning is Wi-Fi, which is beginning to make more use of mesh networks. For example, home Wi-Fi networks now need to connect to PCs, TVs, webcams, smartphones, and any smart home devices, no matter where they are located. A single router may be sufficient to cover a small house, but a larger house or a small office building may require a mesh network with two or three nodes to provide complete coverage.

The current popular Wi-Fi mesh network technology allocates some available wireless frequency bands for dedicated internal communication between mesh network nodes. By doing so, they gave up some capacity that could have been provided to users. Once again, SIC can improve performance by making internal communications and signals from the device use the same frequency at the same time. Unfortunately, compared with 4G and 5G applications, this application still has a way to go. At present, the development of SIC technology for Wi-Fi mesh networks is currently not cost-effective, because these networks usually handle much lower traffic than 4G and 5G base stations.

Mesh networks are increasingly deployed in cellular and Wi-Fi networks. The functions and usage of these two technologies are becoming more and more similar, and the mesh network can solve the coverage and backhaul problems encountered by the two technologies. Mesh networks are also easy to deploy and "self-heal", which means that data can be automatically routed around failed nodes. The truly powerful 4G LTE mesh network has been greatly improved through co-frequency full duplex. I expect the same 5G and Wi-Fi networks will happen in the near future.

It will arrive in time. The trend of wireless technology is to squeeze more and more performance out of the same amount of spectrum. Literally, SIC doubles the amount of available spectrum, and by doing so, it helps to introduce a whole new category of wireless applications.

This article appeared in the March 2021 print edition under the title "The Radio That Can Hear Your Voice".

Joel Brand is the vice president of product management for Kumu Networks in Sunnyvale, California.

Does more than 100 mobile robots indicate that everyday robots are inevitable?

Last week, Google, Alphabet or X or whatever company you want to call it announced that its Everyday Robots team has grown enough and made enough progress. Now it’s time to make it its own thing. Now you guessed it. You guessed it, "Everyday Robots." There is a problem with the design of a new website, and there are a lot of fluffy descriptions about the content of Everyday Robots. But fortunately, there are some new videos and enough details about the engineering and team approach, it’s worth spending a little time trekking through the chaos to see what Everyday Robots has done in the past few years and what plans they have done. For the recent.

The place near the arm does not seem to be suitable for placing an emergency stop, right?

Our headline may sound a bit acrimonious, but the headline of Alphabet’s own announcement blog post is "Every day robots leave the laboratory (slowly)." It is not so much a sarcasm, but rather an admission that the mobile robot is in a semi-structure. Effective operation in a chemical environment has been and will continue to be a huge challenge. We will go into details later, but the high-level news here is that Alphabet seems to have invested a lot of resources behind this effort, has a long time span, and its investment is beginning to pay off. Considering the random state of Google Robotics over the years (at least from the appearance), this is a nice surprise.

According to Astro Teller, who is in charge of Alphabet's moon landing program, the goal of Everyday Robots is to create "a universal learning robot", which I think sounds enough. To be fair, they deployed a lot of hardware, Hans Peter Brøndmo of Everyday Robots said:

This is a lot of robots, which is great, but I have to question the actual meaning of "autonomy" and the actual meaning of "a series of useful tasks". For us (or anyone?), there is really not enough public information to evaluate what Everyday Robots does with its 100 prototype fleets, how much robot support is needed, the constraints of their operation, and whether to call their work." "Useful" is appropriate.

If you don't want to browse Everyday Robots's weirdly over-designed website, we have extracted good things (mainly videos) and reposted them here, along with some comments below each.

0:01 — Is it just me, or does the gearing behind these actions sound a bit, eh, unhealthy?

0:25-I think the claim of winning the Nobel Prize by picking up the cup from the table is a bit exaggerated. Robots are very good at sensing and grasping cups on the table, because this is a very common task. Like, I understand, but I just think there are better examples to illustrate the current problems of humans and robots.

1:13 — It’s not necessarily useful to make an analogy between a computer and a smartphone and compare them to a robot, because certain physical realities (such as motors and operating requirements) prevent the kind of zoom that the narrator refers to.

1:35 — This is a red flag for me, because we have heard about "this is a platform" many times before, but it has never been successful. But in any case, people continue to try. It may be effective when limited to the research environment, but fundamentally, “platform” usually means “making it do (commercially?) useful things is someone else’s problem. I’m not sure if this has ever been A successful model of a robot.

2:10-Yes, okay. This robot sounds much more normal than the one at the beginning of the video; what's the matter?

2:30 — I am a big fan of Moravec's Paradox, and I hope that when people talk about robots with the public, it will be mentioned by more people.

0:18-I like the door example because you can easily imagine how many different ways it can be disastrous for most robots: different levers or knobs, different glass positions, variable The weight and resistance, then, of course, the threshold and other similar annoying things.

1:03-Yes. I can't emphasize enough, especially in this case, computers (and robots) are really bad at understanding things. Know things, yes. Know them, not so much.

1:40 — People really like to cast a shadow on Boston Dynamics, don't they? But this seems unfair to me, especially for companies that Google once owned. What Boston Dynamics is doing is very difficult, very impressive, come on, very exciting. You can admit that when you are dealing with different difficult and exciting problems yourself, others are dealing with difficult and exciting problems, and don’t feel a little annoyed by what you do, for example, not so flashy Or whatever.

0:26 — It doesn't make sense to say that the robot is low cost, without telling us how much it costs. Seriously: the "low cost" of a mobile manipulator like this is easy (and almost certainly is) at least tens of thousands of dollars.

1:10 — I like to include things that don’t work. Everyone should do this when presenting a new robotics project. Even if your budget is unlimited, no one can always do everything well, and we all know that others are as flawed as we are, and we will all feel better.

1:35 — When talking about robots trained using reinforcement learning techniques, I personally avoid using words such as "intelligence" because most people associate "intelligence" with the kind of basic world understanding that robots don't really have .

1:20 — As a research task, I think this is a useful project, but it is important to point out that this is a bad way of automatically sorting recyclables from trash. Since all the garbage and recyclables have been collected and (probably) taken to several centralized locations, in fact you only need to have your system there, where the robots can stand still and have some control over their environment And do better and work more efficiently.

1:15-Hope they will talk more about this later, but when considering this montage, it is important to ask in the real world what tasks do you actually want the mobile manipulator to perform, and which do you only want to perform Tasks are automated in some way because they are very different things.

0:19 — It may be a bit premature to talk about ethics at this point, but on the other hand, there is a reasonable argument that it is not too early to consider the ethical significance of robotics research. To be honest, the latter may be a better point of view, and I am happy that they are thinking about it in a serious and positive way.

1:28 — A robot like this will not take your job away. I promise.

2:18 — Robots like this are not the robots he is talking about here, but the point he puts forward is very good, because in the short to medium term, robots will become the most valuable role, and they can increase what humans can do by themselves. Things are not to completely replace human beings to increase human productivity.

3:16 — Again, the idea of ​​that platform...blarg. The whole "someone wrote these applications" thing, uh, who the hell is it? Why are they doing this? The difference between a smartphone (which has a lucrative application ecosystem) and a robot (which does not) is that there are no third-party applications at all, and the smartphone has enough useful core functions to justify its cost. It will take a long time for robots to reach that point, and if software applications are always someone else’s problem, they will never get there.

I am a little upset about this whole thing. A fleet of 100 mobile manipulators is amazing. It is also great to invest money and manpower to solve robotics problems. I'm just not sure whether the vision of the "daily robot" we are asked to buy must be realistic.

The impression I got from watching all these videos and browsing the website is that Everyday Robot wants us to believe that it is actually working hard to bring the universal mobile robot into the daily environment in the way people (outside of the Google campus) can benefit from it. Maybe the company is working towards that exact goal, but is it a practical goal? Does it make sense?

The ongoing basic research seems very solid; these are definitely difficult problems, and solving these problems will help promote the development of this field. (If these technologies and results are released or shared with the community in other ways, then these advancements may be particularly important.) If the reason for this work in a robotic platform is to help stimulate this research, that would be great, I There is no objection to this.

But I really hesitate to accept the vision of this universal home mobile robot to perform useful tasks autonomously. This approach may be of great help to anyone who actually watches the Everyday Robotics video. Perhaps this is the whole point of the vision of the moon landing-try hard to do something that will not be rewarded for a long time. Again, I have no problems with this. However, if this is the case, Everyday Robots should pay attention to how it puts its efforts (and even its success) in context and portrays it, why it works on a specific set of things, and how external observers should set it Our expectations. Time and time again, the company's commitment to useful and affordable robots is too high, but delivery is insufficient. I hope that Everyday Robots will not make the same mistake.

Here are ways to encourage daughters to pursue STEM careers

In my 2016 article "Fathers' Views on Daughters and Engineering", I shared my disappointment at the lack of role models and cultural information that made my two smart daughters — and many of their female friends — -To pursue an engineering career.

After the article was published, I received an email from Michelle Travis, she was writing a book about fathers and daughters. She wanted to know my thoughts on creating stronger channels for girls to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM), and what can be done to change the narrative of engineering to highlight their public service role.

Travis is a professor at the University of San Francisco Law School, where she co-directs her work law and judicial projects. She researches and writes articles on employment discrimination laws, gender stereotypes, and work/family integration. She is also a founding member of the Work and Family Researchers Network and serves on the board of non-profit organizations.

Her latest book, "Dads for Daughters" (Dads for Daughters) is a guide for male allies to support gender equality. (I am one of the fathers who appear in this book.) She wrote that my mother who won the prize has two jobs, which is a children's picture book celebrating working mothers.

Over the years, we have kept in touch, followed each other's work, and looked for other ways of cooperation.

In the past few months, I have been frustrated by the news that girls from certain countries are either not allowed to go to school or risk safety even if they are officially allowed to go to school. This is one reason why I feel I need to talk to Travis and learn from her what else can be done to change fathers and men's perceptions of women's abilities and women's success in almost all fields (including engineering).

Last month, I asked her a few questions about her book and what her father can do to better support women. In the next interview, she gave a sneak peek and listed some resources for engineering dads who wish to encourage their daughters to pursue STEM careers.

QA: As a lawyer, why did you decide to research and write articles about fathers and daughters? Is it personal?

MT: My interest in making my daughter's father an advocate for gender equality is both professional and personal. As a lawyer and law professor, I have been using legal tools for years to promote equality for women in the workplace-seeking stronger employment discrimination laws, equal pay for equal work, and family leave policies. Over time, I realized that the law has limits on what it can accomplish. I also realized that we are asking women to do too much heavy work to break down barriers and break the glass ceiling. Most importantly, I realized that to make progress, you need the commitment of a powerful male leader.

I started to ask myself how women can get more men to participate in gender equality work. At the same time, I noticed the powerful influence of my two daughters on my husband. He has always regarded the equality of women as an important goal, but it was not until he started to think about the world his daughter entered that he completely internalized his personal responsibility and influence. With a daughter, he is eager to take action. He wants to be an outspoken advocate for girls and women, not just bystanders.

"The father of an engineer has a unique position and can be an ally in expanding opportunities for girls and women."

Watching this transition prompted me to study the father-daughter relationship. I found that my husband's experience is not unique. Researchers found that having a daughter tends to increase men’s support for anti-discrimination laws, equal pay policies, and reproductive rights, which tends to reduce men’s support for traditional gender roles. This has a significant impact in the workplace. For example, fathers of daughters are more likely to support gender diversity than other male leaders. Compared with CEOs run by non-father men, CEOs who are daughter fathers tend to have a smaller gender pay gap in the company.

Of course, many men without daughters are allies of women, and not all fathers with daughters are advocates of gender equality. We have even heard some men-including famous politicians-citing their "daughter's father" in a dishonest way.

But fathers of most daughters are genuinely interested in promoting equal opportunities for girls and women. This makes the father-daughter relationship an excellent entry point for inviting men to form partnerships to build a fairer world.

QA: Why do people want to read your book?

MT: Today's fathers are training self-confident and capable daughters who believe that they can achieve anything. But the world is still unequal, the workplace is run by men, there is a gender pay gap, and deep-rooted gender stereotypes. My book celebrates the role father can play in creating a better world for the next generation of girls.

Inspired by their daughters, fathers are fully capable of becoming powerful allies for girls and women. But in the post #MeToo world, it may be difficult for men to step in and speak out. This is where the father of the daughter can help. It provides fathers with the data they need to advocate for gender equality. It also provides specific strategies to illustrate how they play a role in various fields, from sports fields to science laboratories, from conference rooms to ballot boxes.

In addition to serving as a guide, it also shares the stories of fathers who have joined the battle. All the men who emphasized praised their daughters for inspiring them to pay more attention to gender equality. These include a CEO who invests in female entrepreneurs to manage parts of his company's supply chain, and a lawyer who sets up a part-time position in his company-which allows women to maintain partnerships. Another head coach hired the first female assistant coach in the NBA. Another governor broke the partisan line and signed a bill to expand the rights of sexual assault victims. An engineer provides computer skills training to support girls who have become victims of sex trafficking in India. In addition, there is a teacher, a U.S. Army colonel, a plumber, a firefighter, and a construction contractor who have joined forces to fight for equality in the girls’ high school sports program.

All these fathers, and many others, are inspired by their daughters to support gender equality. Their stories can inspire other dads to participate. Fathers who are committed to seeing their daughters realize their dreams have the opportunity to improve the world their daughters will enter, and fathers born for their daughters will support them in this journey.

QA: What do you think is the difference between engineer fathers and other fathers, and why?

MT: Being an engineer's father has a unique advantage and can be an ally in expanding opportunities for girls and women. We all know that there is a huge gender imbalance in the STEM field. This leads to a large loss of talents. Daughters’ fathers can take small but influential steps in their homes, communities, and workplaces, welcoming more girls and women into engineering careers.

At home, the father can fill the home with books, toys and activities, so that the girl can imagine that she is the engineer of the future. The father of engineering has created some great resources for this. For example, Greg Helmstetter found that his daughter lacked an engineering role model, so he created the STEAMTeam 5 series of books, which shared the adventures of five girls using STEM skills to meet challenges. Inspired by his daughter, Anthony Onesto created the Ella the Engineer comic book series, which depicts a superhero girl who uses her engineering knowledge to solve problems and save the world.

Other excellent children's books include Rosie Revere by Andrea Beaty, engineer, and Tanya Lee Stone's "Who Says Women Can't Be Computer Programmers?" With Mike Adamick's father's Book of Awesome Science Experiments. Daughter’s dad can also follow Ken Denmead’s GeekDad blog, check the Go Science Girls website, and purchase one of Debbie Sterling’s GoldieBlox engineering suites for his daughter’s next birthday.

As an engineer, dads can have a broader impact in their communities by volunteering with girl technology organizations such as EngineerGirl, TechGirlz, Girls Who Code, Girl Develop It, or CoolTechGirls. These organizations are always looking for engineers to share their expertise and passion for STEM careers with talented young girls.

Engineer fathers can also become gender equality leaders in their workplaces. Hiring, mentoring, and funding women is a key step in expanding women’s representation in the engineering field. Dads can further support women by joining programs such as the Million Women Mentoring Program or cooperating with IEEE Women in Engineering or the Society of Women Engineers. The empathy that fathers gain from their daughters can also enable them to create a safer workplace culture by fighting hostile work environments and fighting gender prejudice.

QA: From the perspective of an adult daughter, what makes a father different from a husband or friend?

MT: In a recent survey, fathers listed strength and independence as the primary qualities they wish to instill in their daughters-this is different from the characteristics that men value their wives most. From the perspective of the daughter, this can make the father a particularly effective ally on their behalf.

When the father is involved in the daughter's life, this relationship can have a profound impact. Participating fathers will produce women who are more confident, self-esteem, and mentally healthy. Girls supported by their fathers have stronger cognitive abilities and are more likely to go to school and achieve greater financial success. The fathers involved also helped their daughters establish healthier adult relationships with other men.

For fathers, daughter relationships are a powerful way to build men’s empathy and raise men’s awareness of gender discrimination and gender inequality. For example, men generally understand the challenges of work/family integration better when they look at their adult daughters taking care of the needs of their careers and their mothers.

In the future, the spectrum that is being considered for future 6G networks will be at a frequency that has never been used in the history of wireless communications, turning to terahertz (THz) frequencies.

Researchers are now specifically recommending the frequency of 100 GHz to 3 THz as a promising frequency band for the next generation of wireless communication systems because it contains a large amount of unused and undeveloped spectrum. These frequencies also provide the potential for revolutionary applications that will be made possible through new ideas and advances in equipment, circuits, software, signal processing, and systems.

This webinar will discuss the challenges and opportunities that terahertz frequency-based networks will face.

Josep M. Jornet, Associate Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering