A bit of me loves the idea of that belt , that is total control for the key holder or the app holder. Like a lot of full steel belts it does look rather large and a bit restrictive for every day wear but I'd love to try it .
Looks interesting but not for long-term wear; among other things the short battery live and not being waterproof.
Zero clue how they managed such an awful battery life - even with a AAA battery, a low power microcontroller can manage a consistent Bluetooth connection for at least a few months, maybe even a year. The lack of waterproofing is unfortunate, but also something you don't wanna claim without certification for liability issues.
Sadly, the battery in the Female Advanced belt is also pathetic. Security too. It's far from easy to lock, & even when both sides do 'go clunk', one belt-arm or the other soon pops open again. It looks good, & is comfortable to wear - though my judgement is obviously based on very short periods spent locked in it. The Wi-Fi app has been a real disappointment too. Despite being told by FS that it was suitable for long-term wear, it clearly isn't even usable for 'play', or for parties. Wondering if a far, far better battery might solve some of these problems? If so, then the same should be true of the Male Advanced belts?
Wireless electronic belts are the future, so far they are too big, too expensive however as the technology improves sissies will find themselves completely monitored and controlled by KH. Once locked sissy will be totally controlled - be careful.
My belt has a cable which connects the lower rear of the belt to the central section of the belt's waistband (in the small of my back). The steel cables (within a single silicone sleeve), sit between the cheeks of my bottom.
Effective remote control is inevitable, not just for sissies - but for those others of us who may find ourselves in chastity too. High tech materials may also largely replace today's stainless steel too, although metal will always have its fans..
More and more kinds of 3-D metal fabricating machines are coming on line and keep increasing in capability. It seems inevitable that 3-D chastity belts, custom fitted using a 3-D scanner are not too far of. "The future's so bright I have to wear shades!" ShieldingMatrix
It would be even better if one could 3d print metal cages based on images for a cheap price. No point getting the device for next to nothing, if the printer costs $2500 or more. Manufacturers like MM and the others would have some serious competition on their hands.
I've said this before - the technology to make a fully remote controlled belt exists today and is not overly expensive. What's missing so far is the will to develop such a thing on the part of the manufacturers. You can get an off the shelf Pi Pico with wifi for under a tenner. Pair that with a suitable mobile phone battery and you should get a lifespan of several days through to potentially weeks. Charging can be done wirelessly through inductive charging (again, tech stolen from phones) so no need to compromise on water resistance to allow charging. Locking is probably best done with a linear actuator driving a locking pin. You might want to add a GPS module for tracking and perhaps a couple of sensors to detect any tempering.... All of that exists right now. It's all small, well within what could be concealed in a reasonably sized package on a belt (it doesn't need to be bulky!). You'd probably want the electronics to be in a plastic enclosure, potted to resist water ingress, so that the wifi & gps signals don't get blocked and to allow inductive charging to work (it won't work through metal) Add some software for control & monitoring and you have a fully remote control belt. Only question left is what manufacturer will take up the challenge of making such a thing?
I agree and if the mfg. make the investment and obtain the economies of scale we shall see them proliferate. This will give KH excellent control of sub.
As above, the parts (mostly) exist, it's a matter of developing rational specs, writing bullet- (and hammer)- proof code, and integrating that with a belt/cage/device and with communications service(s). None of those are tremendously hard, but it's a lot of decisions and work. As an example, the locking mechanism-- - robust and very difficult to cut or mechanically defeat. There's a bit of design work right there. - does it need power to stay locked (unlocks when the battery runs down) or to unlock (various device failures could render it unable to be unlocked). If power-to-lock, is there a warning to recharge? What? Penalties for not charging? Using electric shocks to remind the wearer will drain the battery unless there's a separate one just for that. - does it need a mechanical way to unlock in addition to electrical? How? maybe a special key which, when used, destroys part of the electronics; that would both leave permanent evidence and render the device "dead" making people less likely to use it. (I'm sure there are more considerations.) Every so often I work on a set of specs for remote control devices, but don't think I've adequately covered enough to move towards the hardware design. (my prof. background includes machine control systems, so always looking for the failure points)
There is no need to have device powered all the time as long as it could wake up and (secure) connect to internet time service (or its dedicated control server) . Electricity could be only required to unlock / check permission to unlock. Many design "requirements" are not really "requirement" if you think twice - difficult to cut? Not really requirement. Almost any belt or cage are really easy to cut, yet nobody wants to destroy them.
A single low-power microcontroller communicating through Bluetooth Low Energy can last upwards of half a year on a single AA battery - there's no reason why the battery life should suck (and frankly, I'm somewhat skeptical since they mentioned their method of authentication was... distributing an app with the credentials baked in???)
Strange understanding of "requirement" there. For instance "difficult to cut" may be a highly desired for some but not for others (why are there a lot of SS belts & cages when they could be plastic? Oh, we have plastic ones as well). Same with battery life and locking mechanisms (power to unlock still requires sufficient power; it's a manageable problem, but still needs to be thought about and addressed). The point is that a designer must identify options and choose the ones which fit their goals. Do not dismiss a design point merely because you disagree with it. Regarding @test4242's point- yes, a small controller and BLE can run a long time on a small cell, but can that support the desired functionality? For instance, you won't get real-time GPS tracking with that. Don't need that tracking? That's a design decision .
Actually, I wonder if we should be focussing on the lock rather than the belt. Perhaps designing and electronic locking mechanism that could be retrofitted to existing belts would be a better idea - perhaps a little less capable and inevitably a bit more bulky (less space to cram in all the parts) but perhaps easier to get off the ground.
There is no "difficult to cut" device on the market right now! I am in the Neosteel and believe me please, I could cut this 3mm belt (on of the thickest available) within few minutes. If You really think about this "requirement" it is not strictly "difficult to cut" but rather "make wearer not willing to escape" (because of cost, availability, loss of trust, etc). I'm not trying to limit your view or design options. I'm trying to open your eyes and show different perspective. (Think out of the box, and analyze real reasons why we/wearers do not destroy theirs precious belts). PS: There is no chastity against one's will (technically).
On the theme of an electronic belt. When the battery runs out, you can plug the belt in, and problem solved. You could even have the belt ONLY unlock when it is plugged in. Small and annoying random shocks at night which would lead to sleep deprivation could be the consequence of not charging on the required schedule. I think a manual bypass that can be used to unlock an unpowered belt is a safety necessity, but it should not unlock when unpowered. ShieldingMatrix
I'd call "a few minutes" as difficult enough- sure, a plasma torch will burn right through it but it's not likely when a person is wearing the device. An abrasive cut-off wheel will do the job (slower), but it also generates a lot of heat. Want to make it more difficult? Try titanium. Anyway, the point wasn't "impossible", it was "difficult" which MAY include repercussions from the attempt. Add to that we're past the "willing" part, once the wearer wants OUT, we fall back to physical difficulty. (If that wasn't a consideration, there'd be no reason for metal belts/devices at all.) Please don't school me in design techniques. If nothing else, you have no idea what I've already considered and discarded, nor the complete set of criteria.
Those to big pokey-uppy things strike me as potentially uncomfortable, painful, or even injurious pokey-uppy things of NOPE.
I agree except for one caveat: being forced to accept the lesser of evils is still technically against one’s will. The imposition of a set of circumstances that limits one’s choices to less than optimal ones is a restriction of free will.