The Cue testing devices are interesting. The Bluetooth, battery, and most of the interesting bits are all in a reusable device with a slot for single-use cartridges. The cartridges are fairly dumb (other than the chemical stuff I think there's just an i2c chip)
Hey man, cut me deep here. I need STM to get their stuff together and ship product. The next batch of product I ship is already at a loss because I’m buying from scalpers :(
I’m just lucky we’re a non-electronics business that shipes electronics parts. If we were an electronics company, I would seriously consider a year hiatus, or switch to software contracting for awhile.
For reference, this is one specific type of test available in the US, there are other more common tests which are electronics-free.
There are some valid reasons for tests like this to exist. To quote later on in the linked Tweet thread [1]:
BTW it's easy to say this is wasteful, and it probably is, but just like with the pregnancy test, you should consider that there's three main problems that can affect the accuracy of lateral flow tests like this:
1. inconsistent lighting
2. incorrect timing
3. human error
having a 2$ computer chip and 50 cents worth of plastic & lenses removes all those sources of error.
And making it bluetooth removes a source of e-waste! it means it doesn't need to have a screen, it can just talk to your phone.
for example, consider that a bit more than 1 in 12 people have some kind of colorblindness.
Having a computer say "POSITIVE" or "NEGATIVE" is going to be easier to see then the uncertainty of "is that stripe red? can I just not see it?"
Except the first 2 are examples of human error. You are supposed to follow the instructions, and the instructions tell you to carefully read the instructions which I have done with multiple 'manual' antigen tests. They're crystal clear. With regards to these 2 examples you can ensure decent lighting with a smartphone (torch) these days. Incorrect timing, can also be solved with a smartphone by setting an alarm (or just focusing on say letting 15 minutes pass as a matter of respect to the outcome and those possibly affected by it). We already got a swiss army knife in the form of a smartphone, we don't need another disposable technology (nevermind insecure technology).
While I was doing my test I read instructions carefully but then after few minutes of gathering courage to stab myself (surprisingly hard to do) in the finger I managed to mess the rest of the procedure up by putting buffer fluid, or blood, I don't remember, in the wrong hole.
But I have A product that I just did the math on. I was making a “dumb version“ that removed BLE and added two buttons. The BLE version would end up being cheaper. Of course this assumes that the Bluetooth software firmware is already completed, which for me it is.
Personal data collection, probably. I cant imagine it is for the user's benefit that it uses bluetooth and requires an app, but it does let them hoover up your contact details and infection status. This probably sells > cost of the electronics.
There's probably a mindset of having to use IoT (or close enough) no matter how inappropriate the use-case is. Like how people try to find reasons to use a blockchain, or rewrite something in Rust, or host a kubernetes cluster.
> Seems unnecessary, but if people want to buy it…
Considering that this is an article used once for a few minutes the environmental cost for production and deposition is high and society shouldn't tolerate ...
Once for this specific test. If you planned on buying a lot of tests and using them regularly, maybe you could find value in a BLE connection? IDK. That crosses into a different new normal line for me that I am uninterested in I think.
Otherwise, I agree, seems wasteful when you look at what had to happen to ship that product.
I'm wondering if they're subsidized, but the price in Germany at the supermarket hovers around 1€ each. I was really surprised to hear that these are not a thing in the US, any idea why?
Surely someone would import them and sell for €2 and then someone else would sell them for €1.5 and then someone else would sell them for €1.2 if you were just being ripped off. Is that really the only reason you could think of?
these are available in the US. they retail for $20-30 for a pair. they were easy to get from October-ish through mid December and now they’re sold out everywhere because of people testing for holiday gatherings.
It's to hide the fact that inside, the test is just a piece of chemically treated paper that costs less than 1 EUR to produce. That way people don't get as mad when they have to pay $200 for them.
Nordic is not really that cheap if you just want a Cortex-M4. You buy Nordic parts for their radios.
If you just want processing power, GigaDevices has an M4 at less than $1 last I checked. Unfortunately, it wouldn't work for the design we were working on as the standby power consumption wasn't great.
If you want bargain basement processors with connectivity, Qualcomm is still selling many of the old CSR chips. The low end chips went for <$0.50 in volume and the power consumption was often barely worth measuring. We used to chuck them into products every time every time I lost an argument with the hardware team about whether 10-15 cents of BOM cost is worth 3 months of painful bringup.
Are you using fcc approved modules with the csr chips or the bare chips? I'd be interested in a really cheap bluetooth capable microcontroller. I plan to use the nrf52805 for my next product due to the low cost.
Sorry if that came across as an endorsement. I'd go with the nordic modules instead because the documentation and support will be much better. The development costs of weird, cheap wireless chips isn't worth chasing marginal BOM optimizations. Just don't go to the other extreme and spend $40 on an Intel SoC for your wireless thermometer like I've seen others do.
I haven't worked with CSR modules since I left that job around 2017, but the latest vendor toolchains for some chips were still on GCC 3 (~2005) at that time. We were taking bare reels and doing certification ourselves if it matters though.
I don't think they wanted an M4 per se, but instead wanted a bluetooth radio to save on the cost of a screen. The Nordic chip just happens to be based around an M4.
IIRC Nordic has a M0 version with bluetooth radio--the BBC micro:bit and a few other maker boards used it. But perhaps it's not really available in cheap quantities anymore and a way overpowered M4 is what they got.
Yeah, those are the nrf51x line, this is the nrf52x line. It seems from the outside at least that Nordic is pushing the nrf52x hard even in price conscious designs. Even the micro::bit was respun for a v2 with a nrf52x also (including it's M4). Albeit I don't have much direct data on that.
Yes, the 51 is really old by now. The 52 line extends down as far as the tiny nRF52805.
The 51822 is not nearly as fun to work with as the 52s, e.g. current Apache Mynewt with NimBLE doesn't even fit into the 51's tiny flash, the 51 doesn't have systick, and so on.
I wonder why they didn’t use NFC. They could get away with a much simpler chip, or even a fully analog solution if they didn’t need the complexity of Bluetooth.
Seems like you could just about accomplish the same thing with a pair of NFC tokens, a photodiode, and some transistors. Basic components. Connect one of the two NFC chips to the coil depending on how much light is reflected off the test strip. When you scanned it with your phone the activated NFC chip would respond with a URL containing a unique ID which could be interpreted by the manufacturer.
I worked at a company that was using these chips to control doors. They're extremely cheap chips, but writing code for them is not pleasant. Documentation is lacking and the tools people use to write code for it suck. Props to the devs who helped put this together.
I write baremetal fw for those chips. No debugger, extremely bad stdlib which I rewrote, no qemu. Horrible modem interface. But still much more pleasent than Linux FW or raspi's.
They are cheap, last 10 years with a single battery, and do only what they need to do. Also secure. No crazy attack vectors. And easily symbolically verifiable. And I wrote tons of simulators and fuzzers for them.
Let me flip this around, I am looking for ways to improve testing, specially now that I am mostly remote. In your experience, what targets have a stress-free experience with qemu emulation?
Working on it in my github rurban/qemu-stm32 fork.
Checkout supported platforms for qemu and better renode. There you also have debugging interfaces.
Stressfree qemu support was only for my even smaller avr targets, the 1281. But AVR is crazy compared to the Cortex-M4. We switched to arm completely, no avr's anymore. Anyway, no need for qemu or other emulators, when you can easily write simulators. You just throw in some mmaps, the simulated libc, the UART, and networking. Much better than emulators.
The key thing is to make the majority of the code portable enough to run on a PC. I find the best way to do that is to keep things data-oriented, using Plain Old Data type data structures and pure functions as much as possible. Alternative view: isolate out any device-specific pieces, like I/O into as small and simple pieces as possible. When one takes this mindset one realizes that even things that are considered as "device specific", like device drivers usually have a lot of logic that can actually be separate from the I/O. And by having a swappable I/O backend (say for I2C) one can actually test the vast majority of this logic on a computer.
One should also have an implementation of the Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) that is "host", allowing to run on a PC, potentially with virtual inputs and outputs. This allows to run essentially all of the firmware on a PC. If one uses a embedded-friendly test framework, like Unity, then one can also run the same tests that is used on the PC on the device - to make sure that there is no difference when ran on host vs device.
Unfortunately, the code from embedded device vendors is rarely amenable to this, so that code can end up as "untestable" under this scheme. For them portability" is only considered between their own hardware devices, not to a computer. Then one has to trust that they have done their own QA. Which is usually not that great - looking at you ST HAL....
> Documentation is lacking and the tools people use to write code for it suck.
Okay, I'm going to ask "Compared to whom?"
Nordic has been one of the better BLE chip manufacturers in terms of documentation, in my experience.
Most places use Keil tools directly from ARM. So, if programming these sucks, so does programming most embedded Cortex M4 chips. (No argument. Keil sucks. However, that doesn't mean that Nordic sucks any worse than anybody else).
And now you can program Nordic chips using Visual Studio Code.
Sure, comparing BLE specifically. And Nordics chip / peripheral level documentation is fine, but their software stack documentation (at least as of 3 years ago when I was last working on BLE stuff) is fine at best. They released a new version of the API every 6-12 months with lots of backwards incompatible changes (a new major version every time...), referenced examples from previous API versions (but didn't port them to the new version), and added tons of new poorly documented compile-time config options to every API version.
All told I figured out how to make a reasonably complex chain of bluetooth devices work (largely by reading the source and comparing against old version API documentation to figure out differences), so it definitely could have been worse. But to imply that just because the documentation is BETTER than the competition that it is GOOD?
It kinda helps to have an EE background for anything embedded. Doing embedded stuff has always been a gritty experience since I started around 2000. I find Nordic tools fine, and they've been getting incrementally better. Either the VSCode plugin or Segger Studio works fine for development, and the devkits work fine.
ehh… It is pretty easy to use but there's way too much bundled stuff in there, you're always under FreeRTOS, and Wi-Fi support is all proprietary blobs (but that's unfortunately the case with every embedded Wi-Fi chip… unlike Bluetooth LE with has multiple fully FOSS implementations)
I don't know what you mean by "way too much stuff", it's mostly use what you want. It's easy enough to disable any features you don't want with their sdk config stuff
They used to even ship a "No OS" SDK for the 8266, but the demand just wasn't there, FreeRTOS is pretty solid for the core competency of their product after all...
nRF52s are definitely not extremely cheap, they're high-quality fully-documented dev-friendly chips with lots of onboard resources. If you want cheapest BLE, there's some utter crap from Dialog Semiconductor that comes with a proprietary SDK in ROM and one-time programmable (!!) memory for the application (external flash can be used in development).
And you DO NOT have to use the Nordic SDK, there are lots of better and fully FOSS options — Apache Mynewt, libopencm3, Rust nrf-rs…
An nRF52 dev kit is like $30. It’s probably not worth the time and aggravation to try to repurpose one of these COVID tests unless you’re really determined. Nordic is one of the better vendors - their tools and docs aren’t too bad.
Really not the same beasts. The Cortex M4 microcontroller is self-contained with every peripheral it needs (including BT and wireless stack) and its power consumption is very small compared to a SoC.
Also, it's not booting Linux at all. For these simplish one-purpose applications, you don't want the overhead and it probably would need more than the 24k or RAM onboard the nRF52810.
They could be using Zephyr though as it supports the Cortex M4 (it's a linux-like RTOS that can be heavily customised).
No, short term and long term availability of a part in volume has always been a part of circuit design. The current situation has been a unique extreme of this, but buying a million count of an electronic part hasn’t ever been an arbitrary off the shelf affair. How many a distributor has for immediate shipping, the lead time for large quantities, and the end of life plans were always a consideration. Before though the problems you were trying to avoid were more like not delaying production for six weeks because a part was out of stock or whether you could keep building this board for the next ten years.
I would agree for million (depending on market segment, you could be talking straight with mfg then). But we were talking about 1k, a tiny quantity as far as production rounds go.
It's a recent thing on a world scale. But it's always been an issue and applies to anything you buy - the more sophisticated, the fewer items are stocked in warehouses. It's not that they wouldn't be available, it's that once you start ordering hundreds, the lead time will change from days to weeks at some point.
Hundreds is really a loose retail quantity if we talk about microcontrollers, the first real price break point is typically 1000pcs. Smaller quantities are cut and priced by distributors themselves.
In normal times, most products not marked as EOL would be available in tens of thousands with short lead times.
Having worked on automated ELISA equipment decades ago, it's kind of interesting to see this come full circle.
The earliest machines used a light source and color filter to try and get the signal from the finished enzyme sandwich. Then lateral-flow came along and it was up to a human to make the observation. Now we're back to the computer doing it again.
I can't help but imagine a parking lot full of Ferraris at their offices
Maybe I'm Elizabeth Holmsing it, but I'm thinking it could have been done for 1/50th that price while still paying people well and providing them the resources they need.
So my followup question is: I have a few of these, can I do anything with them once I'm done with the test? Hook up to the headers and reprogram? What about the Binax test? Or any of the other "connected" ones?
Basically all those nRF5x products are Arduino compatible AirTags with a battery included. IIRC they also have an imprecise but low power, chip integral temperature gauge. Maybe a wireless interval thermometer might be a good start?
The expensive price of the tests is actually a whole different problem. For the last tests that I bought at Walgreens (InteliSwab) I paid around $25 for two tests.
Meanwhile I'm currently in Europe and as a consumer I can buy Antigen tests for around 3 Euro per test (would be less than 2 Euro if bought in bulk). As far as I know those prices are not subsidized.
Propublica has been covering this, the FDA has been throwing up barriers to rapid tests while Europe has been embracing them. One of the barriers is that "users are supposed to be able to execute the test without training " which I suspect is what's leading to the inclusion of optical sensors etc. https://www.propublica.org/article/this-scientist-created-a-...
Which is pretty much an impossible goal - the user still needs to be able to follow quite detailed instructions to get the sample, correctly mix in the buffer solution, and dose the correct number of drips. Sure, thats something 99% of people can do, but then 99% of people can see 1 or 2 lines on the test without the help of an app...
For those interested: I ported FreeRTOS 9 to an nRF52840 in my previous job.
This family used a lot. It's in my Tado smart radiator knobs, in the AirTags.
I can only compare it to FreeScale chips, but one thing that pleasantly surprised me is the flexibility in pin-assignment. Instead of the pin-mux that we'd have to do on the MK24, I could just assign pins during usb/i2c init without any limitations.
The SDK is quite elaborate, although sometimes a bit difficult to use in C++.
An any-to-any IO multiplexer turns out to be pretty large in silicon area. You're paying extra for that feature as opposed to devices where each pin has a choice of just say 3 functions.
For most users, they prefer to have the chips cheaper and spend an extra few minutes of engineer time figuring out which pins need to be hooked up to what.
I can see for smaller volume devices where engineer time dominates, and devices that you want to be really field reconfigurable, the all-to-all mux is worth it though.
Thanks for the insight!
I didn't choose the nRF, it was a given. I believe it was chosen due to being similar to the MK24 (also an M4) and having Bluetooth. The chips ended going into wearables, and BTLE was seen as the way to configure/upgrade the devices.
I don't get the worry about it being hackable. Sure, you could engineer the whole thing with crypto in mind from top to bottom. With trustzone on the chip and safetynet on the phons but what's that gonna achieve? The test is not done in a controlled enviroment anyways. People looking to cheat the system could simply get their friends to do their "hackproof" tests.
I can't believe even a fractional percentage of customers would find it useful to have wireless interaction with a disposable single-use test kit, compared to reading the result off of a passive testing strip. It would've been reedemable if they had sold the strips as a separate replacable product so that the electronic device could be fully utilized.
What if the patient doesn't have a smartphone (or don't know how to pair/operate Bluetooth), or too many active test kits are lingering in the patient waiting room making it impossible to navigate all the devices? I don't see how this particular SKU would be a good fit for a clinic. Easier and cheaper to just give the patient a passive test strip they can use in their own privacy.
The point is that the patient might have a previous one and show that one instead as negative...or lie about the result...niche scenarios, but is this not an niche use case anyway?
This is cool, and I enjoy foone's tweets about hacking around on embedded electronics you can buy at your local pharmacy. I just hope the unscrupulous don't have a field day with the potential spin this story and headline can have.
I just flew in to Minneapolis from Europe last night and they handed these out for free at the airport. Was really surprised to see the Bluetooth sign on the box.
This is depressing. Single use disposable. Full of copper, gold, tungsten, halfnium. Will leach poison into the ground. Some of the most advanced technology of our age. Use it once, toss it in the trash.
The optics on this seem to indicate that it is just a lateral flow test of some kind.
It's not even different. Instead of having to interpret a couple lines you have software interpret the strip and tell you over bt on your phone. So much tech for so little.
Some tests do that but then you end up with a limited list of phones where the camera has been qualified. Better to go all the way to an eye-readable test.
In the Lucira test is a bit more justifiable it's a full molecular test, with built in controls, better accuracy than lateral flow. The optics is pretty neat too:
Another view is that it's a great illustration of the relative price trends in the last 50 years. Healthcare has gone way up in price, and tech way down. What was a supercomputer 50 years ago is now a small fraction of the cost of a chemical test (which requires FDA approval).
We've made significant advancements in catalytic converters over the last decade and many waste management centers are able to incinerate much of the trash without the toxic emissions. They can then use magnets and eddy current separators to extract nearly all the metals out of the resulting ash.
same reason there is a market for similar "high tech" pregnancy tests: people will pay more for something they feel is higher value, and price itself is an indicator of higher value.
If you read the full Twitter thread they explain that paper doesn’t work for everyone (the color blind and the incompetent, for example.) There is a use case, it just might not be for you.
You do, however, need color vision to tell that the control line changed from blue to red (which the instructions tell you to do to verify that the test is working correctly)
Every Covid self test I've ever used had two red lines for postive and one red line for negative. Why are there tests out there that need color vision?
Every test I've done (provided for free on the NHS, btw) has just been two red lines.
The control line doesn't show up until the buffer solution has wicked along the test strip, so the verification is "does the line next to the letter C show up?"
Yes, but the parent was writing about the Abbott Labs BinaxNOW test, specifically (which I have also used).
The directions indicate to verify that the blue control line is present prior to adding the swab, and that the test should not be used if the blue line is not present.
That's not true for every test, the one I just used begins with no line and then a line appears. So you don't need color vision. You do still need vision, but it's hard to use a COVID test otherwise.
Sure, but the parent specifically referenced the Abbott test. And the Abbott test instructions tell you to discard and not use the test if the blue line is not present.
Electronics must not be disposed with general waste, I'd imagine all Western municipalities have special recycling programs for electrical devices. Not sure if they'd be that happy to receive used covid test kits though.
About 42% of e-waste is recycled in the EU and about 15% in the US. Even those numbers don't reflect reality since a large percentage of "recycled e-waste" is shipped off to poor countries where it may or may not be strip of some parts before being dumped.
The first thing to abandon is certainly vax card verifications. I know a handful of anti-vax folks and without fail every single one has printed out a fake vax cards on their home printer and gotten past any and all vax verifiers they encounter. It’s security theater at its most extreme, akin to requiring all websites to display a “your payment is processed securely” message on their payment page.
Consider: if you have some deep set anti-science/anti-government beliefs, and the government says you can’t go into any restaurants unless you submit some science card to them, do you abandon your deep set fears and have yourself injected, or do you search up “print vaccine card” and hit Cmd+P?
That's honestly pretty weird to me. If as a government you're going to be requiring vaccination proofs, why not go all the way and get cryptographically secure certificates encoded into a QR code?
Yes, that is what I mean. I dont think the freedom argument makes sense since you already have to carry your Vax card with ID, so if you're going to be a bit authoritarian why not just do it right?
I think the argument (which to be clear, I don't agree with) is that there isn't a big federal database of vaccinations. Now mind you, if people understood how the EU QR codes work (public/private key), they'd realize this wasn't an issue, but if people are staunchly anti-vax / anti-science, this is probably a big ask...
But also, just to be clear: This doesn't prevent "forgeries" from circulating. Those aren't home-made, but you can just copy a QR code from someone else. And next-to-noone is checking the ID (which in theory would be required to close that point). And even if the ID were to be checked, all you need to find is one doctor or pharmacist, that is willing to misread your yellow book (WHO vaccination booklet).
I'd still say: There isn't much use in the proofing system. Just do vaccinations Israel-style. I.e. have the option to get vaccinated literally everywhere and without our "but you need an appointment" and "but your last dose needs to be 6 month ago" (the latter is getting better).
> And next-to-noone is checking the ID (which in theory would be required to close that point)
In Germany, stores and restaurants do check the ID now as well as actually scan the certificate - it took a couple of weeks and a bunch of fines being handed out, though.
> And even if the ID were to be checked, all you need to find is one doctor or pharmacist, that is willing to misread your yellow book (WHO vaccination booklet).
The amount of doctors or pharmacists willing to risk their license and imprisonment is thankfully extremely low - the overwhelming majority follows the rules and calls the police upon discovery of fake WHO booklet entries (see e.g. https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/rheinland/gefaelschte-Impfau...).
> I'd still say: There isn't much use in the proofing system. Just do vaccinations Israel-style. I.e. have the option to get vaccinated literally everywhere and without our "but you need an appointment" and "but your last dose needs to be 6 month ago" (the latter is getting better).
The Israel-style vaccination system is clearly better than what is available in most Western countries, but it relies on a population that sees getting vaccinated and protecting themselves as a patriotic duty (with the notable exception of the Ultra-orthodox Jews). Offering easy access to vaccinations doesn't help against widespread propaganda or, as we see in Germany, myths of "vaccination dictatorship", "mind control" and other similar bollocks.
> And next-to-noone is checking the ID (which in theory would be required to close that point).
Depends on the country. France doesn't usually check the ID when they scan the QR codes. Switzerland more often than not does, at least in the German speaking part of the country where I live.
1. What powerful political and economic interests WANT those things to stay in place? They are mostly bad for both politics AND economics.
2. Its crazy to me that one of the things coming out of all of this is that we should get rid of quarantining. I wish the conclusion people came to was "wow, we should definitely have people quarantine when theyre sick instead of going to work and getting coworkers sick"
That’s actually an entertaining picture. Imagine all these countries from US, Russia, Norway and Germany to North Korea, Japan, Iran, India and Syria, etc. all sitting around a table, all in concert, with the same goal and executing a perfect plan at nearly the same time and keeping it secret from people and do so successfully.
But to be honest, when you see what some people believe and how gullible some can be, you won’t get surprised if someone actually claims that these happened and a significant number of people believe it. It’s scary.
https://aseq.substack.com/p/inside-the-lucira-check-it-covid
They include an STM32, but the instrument is performing an Isothermal PCR molecular test which makes the inclusion of a microcontroller a requirement.
Obviously throwing out electronics like this seems quite wasteful. But overall our society is fairly wasteful when it comes to disposable electronics.