Forget Wi-Fi, Newly Tested Li-Fi is 100 Times Faster
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This is cool, but I feel like it will be really impractical for quite a while. How exactly does this function in well lit areas, particularly if the sun happens to be shining through a window?
Or you just start alternating on the 'blinks'. If two machines, the receiver interprets every second 'bit' as intended for it ignores the other, halving the speed.crimson5pheonix said:
Still have my doubts on this being viable anywhere, and what I just mentioned is half-assed nonsense but I expect that regardless of the technical and practical implications of the technology, properly distributing data is one of those things I think they'd sort out just fine.
You young 'uns wiht your wi-fi and your li-fi... I'll stick to good old hi-fi, thank you very much.
Pah. That's still newfangled pishposh. Bifi is the best. And it tastes good too!Queen Michael said:
it's great right up until you need to go round a corner. then it's worse than Ethernet. still.
Also, this isn't going to turn your room light in to a transceiver (which you would need for it to do data exchange) because it has no way to receive a return signal. your also going to need a coherent source to not waste 99% of the signal just lighting the room up.
total garbage idea.
Also, this isn't going to turn your room light in to a transceiver (which you would need for it to do data exchange) because it has no way to receive a return signal. your also going to need a coherent source to not waste 99% of the signal just lighting the room up.
total garbage idea.
I would argue it'd be great for covert ops depending on the reliability of signaling over long distances. Being able to send a lot of data like that could be very useful... but I can't see it being used practically in an office space considering the incredible constraints of setup. You might as well just use cords, no chance of someone standing in your... internet?
It sounds like a great technology theoretically, but keep in mind this inherently has Line of sight issues.
That means if I accidentally move my computer behind something? Lose internet.
Hold it at the wrong angle? Lost connection.
Someone walks past me? Lost connection.
Line of sight based systems can be really finicky. Just try using an actual TV remote and you'll easily understand how annoying that could get...
That means if I accidentally move my computer behind something? Lose internet.
Hold it at the wrong angle? Lost connection.
Someone walks past me? Lost connection.
Line of sight based systems can be really finicky. Just try using an actual TV remote and you'll easily understand how annoying that could get...
As others have said. Really cool, but impractical. In my opinion, Wi-Fi would still be more reliable for basic use, like with tablets, PCs, and phones as they don't require a line of sight connection. And simply wiring my gaming systems in seems much easier and reliable as well.
To use this, your gaming system would practically have to be in the center of the room rather than in a corner or against a wall like most people probably do.
To use this, your gaming system would practically have to be in the center of the room rather than in a corner or against a wall like most people probably do.
So basically it's like using the optical cable without any of the upsides of using the optical cable like being useful?
Keep in mind that this is new tech, meaning it won't really be field/consumer-level usage quite yet. So rather than a "this is coming out" report, this is a "here's a preview of what is potentially coming down the road." I'm sure most of the drawbacks will either be dealt with or worked around before its ready for consumer usage, or it won't ever actually come out.
And yes most of us who can will still be using wired because its still the most reliable connection out there.
And yes most of us who can will still be using wired because its still the most reliable connection out there.
That might work, but it'd be very difficult to actually implement and it cuts the speed of the network to 1/x where x is the number of devices on the network.Jadak said:
This is not gonna work in practice.
Besides many physical issues I also wonder if this crap is gonna interfere with the brain. (Light flashes or lights when it's supposed to be dark and you need to start making melatonin; yay!)
See also: "F.lux".
Besides many physical issues I also wonder if this crap is gonna interfere with the brain. (Light flashes or lights when it's supposed to be dark and you need to start making melatonin; yay!)
See also: "F.lux".
[strikethrough]The fastest I have seen so far with the best router has been 465 Mbs at a distance of 2.5 metres which isn't what I'd call close to 1 gbps, it's what I would call almost half[/strikehtorugh], but I would say that's enough anyway. What router have you seen perform this well? It's latency, not speed which concerns the gamer and the latency is also acceptable these days unless you're playing at a professional level in which case you'd be using wired anyway.Caffiene said:
Edit: I checked it up again and I found some routers that are a lot faster. Thanks to @Dach for correcting me. Sorry to @Caffiene for coming across too harsh. This was uncalled for.
OK, I am curious, how exactly can the ISP control your router?Zacharious-khan said:
OT: Good news for everyone who wants high speeds I guess. Who happen to have their computer in clear line of sight rather than under their desk where it's not in the way. And they happen to be sitting in the same room as their hotspot. And don't have sunlight. And are likely located in such an area that using a cable is more efficient and better.
That would be no diffent then with WI-fi or cablecrimson5pheonix said:
And I would put money on a kind of 4 bit ID is built into the system. So you would run into problems after 17 devices, and it would take a laughably small amount of the cap to do.
No it doesn't. If you have 2 devices on a wifi network rated for say 300 Mbps, both devices could communicate between each other at 300 Mbps. Speed wouldn't start dropping until the router ran out of channels. That's the problem with this system, it has 3 channels (RGB) and every device has to share these 3 channels. Devices can't run concurrently on the same channel because the devices trying to communicate on that channel would interfere with each other and the receiver can't tell the devices apart. Even establishing priority to divide the cycles between them would be a monster problem.direkiller said:
1 Gbps is what they achieved with the proof of concept prototype. They've demonstrated the theoretical capability to achieve 224 Gbps.Caffiene said:
RBG is just the "channels" of the human eye. The visible light spectrum has room for 10,000 times as many channels as the Wi-Fi band.crimson5pheonix said:
Seriously, guys, read the article (and preferably the sources) before you rip into it.