Light-based “LiFi” is stunningly fast, notably fragile—and now standardized
Light-based “LiFi” is stunningly fast, notably fragile—and now standardized
arstechnica.com
Light-based “LiFi” is stunningly fast, notably fragile—and now standardized
32 comments
-
-
Isn't this similar to the tech used in fiber optics cables? Or am I way off
-
But it is for wifi communication apparently. Unfortunately short wave lengths are absorbed more easily than longer wave lengths as the current radio/microwave solutions. That is the main physical limitations to overcome
-
That is the main physical limitations to overcome
Yeah, they just need to do more research and in few years we'll break the laws of physics.
-
Not only that, the longer wave frequencies also have a much narrower bandwidth meaning they cannot carry as much data. In order to improve communications over longer wave lengths, better compression algorithms have to be developed in order for more data to be carried.
-
-
No, they basically replaced a WIFI Router antenna with a TV IR Remote (with all the issues they have) and said 'teh new hotness!'. Fibre optics uses light too, but, the wire is designed to unimpede the signal.
-
-
There is potential here, despite the early Wi-Fi-via-flashlight awkwardness. While you can't turn a LiFi point entirely off, the signal has integrity at 10 percent room illumination (60 lux), and LiFiCo's FAQ suggests future use of the invisible parts of the light spectrum.
Why didn't they start with IR? IR natural sources? Because artificial sources are your TV remove and security cameras.
So the bulb works at low illuminations but what about light interferences? If you have other light sources, windows?
-
-
The best application I can image would be using them in street lamps to offer consistent coverage in public spaces. Not sure how viable that would be cost wise though.
-
Covert communications could also be an application. Just need line of sight and a signal could be sent undetected, and if anyone or anything above a certain size gets on position to detect it, their detection would be observed by both sender and receiver. The attempt would likely be noticed even before the detection, so the signal could be stopped until whatever it is that's looking moves on.
-
Wouldn't it be far more effective just to put Wi-Fi routers in said street lamps though? You'd almost certainly need far fewer of them for the same coverage.
-
-
-
but... the radio waves used in wifi are... already the same phenomenon as light
32 comments
JFC is this really where you want to get your technology data from? Authors that clearly have no grasp of even the basest fundamentals in the physics involved? Really?
It's a news site, don't expect them to have science degree and them adding an edit note after they were corrected shows more integrity than 95% of other news sites.
Nah, there are many news sites that post corrections. This one was just so blatantly egregious that they had to put a stop to it before their entire corporation became a laughing stock. This isn't just a 'news site'. It is a Technology News Site. They had one job and they f'd it up. They shouldn't even be hiring writers without a science degree let alone one that flunked highschool science.
why is that written as if it's some sort of challenge
Because my ability to disappoint may be faster.
The worst part of it is that the author also included this quote from the creators of the technology.
“Operating in the optical spectrum, rather than the limited amount of licensed radio wavelengths”
Like it’s right there and they still didn’t clue in.
Yeah, first thing I noticed as well. Hilarious how the guy has no idea what he is talking about
Agreed! I mean the article is interesting but also somewhat click-baitish. I get where you're coming from.