224GB/s, killer security, no radio interference—but you can’t block the beam.

  • Endlessvoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I burst out laughing while reading this article, it’s laughably bad, written by someone who doesn’t have the slightest understanding of the content matter.

    Virtually all existing communication mediums are light based, since “Light” is a term that covers electromagnetic waves spanning a range from radio waves, all the way up to xrays, with visible light getting a small part of that range in the middle.

    With all light there is a tradeoff where higher frequency light can carry more information at the cost of lower penetration. It’s why your 5Ghz wifi is faster than your 2.4Ghz wifi but the 5Ghz doesn’t reach as far in your house

    Visible light is in the 400-800Thz (Terahertz), so it’s orders of magnitude better for transmitting a lot of data but since it’s blocked by most materials it works better if you use something to channel it, like a glass tube. Which is why visible light is already used extensively as the backbone of the internet, aka fiber optic cable. (to be completely accurate, most fiber optics use near visible infrared light, just below the visible spectrum, since it doesn’t scatter in glass as easily)

    The new communication standard referenced is nothing ground breaking, it’s just a standard for any niche application which can make use of it. It’s not a new technology, and if it was better than existing methods we would already be using it.

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lol i thought this would be about directed wireless stuff, like comms lasers, but nope just… wifi with LEDs…

  • Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean … that’s great for outer space. Not so much down here, except in pretty niche applications.

    I mean, you’re basically making a data lamp. Hold your phone up to it, get super fast wifi. That’s … niche at best, here on Earth. More refined VR eventually, I suppose?

    • eroc1990@lemmy.parastor.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Could also be useful for internal data transmission inside a chassis where, for whatever reason, a direct physical connection isn’t possible.

      EDIT: Spelling

      • BitSound@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, this could be great for clustered computing. I only did software for a supercomputer company a while back so maybe there’s reasons this wouldn’t work, but it seems pretty useful within a rack. It’d probably make people over at [email protected] sad to see those cables go away though.

          • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            No wires for line of site. No digging, no runs, no fragile expensive tips, etc. That is if and when it stabilizes as a medium.

            • thevoyage@no.lastname.nz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              You then have a communication system that can be shut down by fog or heavy rain though.

              It’s slightly less stupid in interior applications, but data centre applications will almost always be better suited to wired.

        • feitingen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not really since then all computers share the same link and bandwidth, and latency will be very inconsistent with more than two computers since there will be crosstalk and retransmissions.

          With cheaper cables, each computers can max out the bandwidth of each cable, and get much lower latency since there’s no crosstalk.

          The only benefit is that you don’t have to run cables, everything else is worse.

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      They use collimated lasers in space to reduce beam divergence. Distances in space are HUUUGE. A simple bulb or even LED does not cut it.

    • Cethin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I could totally see outside-in VR using this. You already have to be in view of a lighthouse, so adding extra equipment to transfer data instead of using a cable would be nice. You’d then need to include a battery in the headset, but all in all it’d probably be better than a cable. Other than that, yeah. I don’t see a use for this for many consumer products.

  • weedazz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    Imagine if they encased this light beam in some kind of fiber encasing so it retain it benefits but not worry about getting blocked. We could even call it a fiber optic cable or something

    • beeng@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s benefit compared to current technology is that it isn’t contained in a cable.

  • Raltoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The speed claim isn’t true, it’s ~150mbs being offered, and it doesn’t work if the air is bit dusty or foggy.

    So TL;DR: It’s slower, more unstable and more expensive than already available directional “wifi” antennas that can do 10gbit over quite some distance.

  • itsdavetho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    After reading this article I googled for practical applications and they all sounded very promising but it’s emphasised that connectivity is basically relying upon a “line of sight” kind of deal - which had me wondering, could mirrors be used to reflect the light then, or would it some how distort the light rendering it unusable?

  • Bappity@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    are we seriously gonna have to line our houses with transmitters now like vr lighthouses >_>

  • HousePanther@lemmy.goblackcat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is an interesting technology. I hope that there is some room for improvement as researchers discover more about the way this technology behaves because it seems to have a lot of promise.

  • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think there’s space for this in very specific use cases, none if which will be relevant to the average home or work customer. I’m thinking more like a small number of laboratory scenarios.