57 points
*

Light is almost certainly the fastest thing around. So it makes sense that “light-based wireless communications,” or LiFi, could blow the theoretical doors off existing radio-wave wireless standards, to the tune of a maximum 224GB per second. [Edit, 2:40 p.m.: It does not make sense, and those doors would remain on each rhetorical vehicle. As pointed out by commenters, radio waves, in a vacuum, would reasonably be expected to travel at the same speed as light. Ars, but moreso the author personally, regrets the error. Original post continues.]

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?

permalink
report
reply
39 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

They shouldn’t even be hiring writers without a science degree

As you mentioned, it’s a Technology News Site, not a Science News Site. Sounds a little arbitrary.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Light is almost certainly the fastest thing around.

why is that written as if it’s some sort of challenge

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Because my ability to disappoint may be faster.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yeah, first thing I noticed as well. Hilarious how the guy has no idea what he is talking about

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Agreed! I mean the article is interesting but also somewhat click-baitish. I get where you’re coming from.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Isn’t this similar to the tech used in fiber optics cables? Or am I way off

permalink
report
reply
3 points
*

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

This is exactly the issue, shorter wave lengths can carry more data, but they are blocked by literally everything between the source and the antenna… Longer wave lengths carry less information, but at least they are more reliable and can pass through many obstacles. It’s a compromised at the end

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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?

permalink
report
reply
1 point
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Wi-Fi suffers from congestion due to everything using the same bands for everything. My understanding is that LiFi is not meant to replace Wi-Fi but to supplement it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

but… the radio waves used in wifi are… already the same phenomenon as light

permalink
report
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 18K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 507K

    Comments