Slashdot Mirror
New Lighting Technology To Wipe Out Wi-Fi Access?
Richard Evans writes "Focus on Broadband Wireless Internet Access has an article
[cached by google ]
on the potentially catastrophic interference to Communications Users Of The 2.4 GHz Band e.g. Wi-Fi, DECT and Bluetooth by a new lighting technology called RF Lighting."
So RF lighting is just normal lighting at a different frequency. A frequency that humans can't even see! Trying to listen to the radio or use wireless networking in the presence of RF lighting would be like trying to watch TV with a spotlight in your face.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
The website it cites: Link is *still* blank at least a year after it was cited.
The article also goes into very little detail as to *why* this new lighting technology will be either popular nor necessary. It's vaguely referred to as "very high efficiency."
Summary: Call us when you have real news.
To prevent interference, RF lights should simply practice exponential backoff for colision avoidance like everyone else in the 2.4GHz range. What's more, the lights would then become an effective network load monitor.
--Ben
http://www.fusionlighting.com/technology.htm
The article makes a big point out of the collision between the frequency spectrums, however I personally am interested to find out more about the lighting technology that is "high efficiency and RF based". It seems the article kind of missed that explanation, and I can't find much information on it. The lighting's website is down that is referred to, and as far as I know this could be a "made up" problem (by this dude who wrote the article) primarily because it's only a problem if the lighting technology catches on.
Are the light technology elements mounted in the ceilings like conventional flourescent lights or does it use some kind of a central light-source idea. If it's high-brightness and high-efficiency anyway, the light source could be placed at a central (shielded) location and fiber optics used to distribute the light.
I'm all for new light technologies, although often flourescent lights are pretty good, there is still a lot of room for improvement. (Time delay to full brightness, hazardous materials, cheap ballasts that buzz, bad fluorescent tubes that put off funny-colored lights) But interfering with wireless spectrums (even unlicensed ones) seems like a bad idea in general... the amount of noise in any spectrum is becoming a serious concern for the design of "robust" wireless technologies.
__ No registration required to read this message. They did it in the Matrix.
Read the article:
Eventually the FCC decided to offer a Faustian bargain: Industry could use the existing ISM spectrum if they adhered to certain technical limitations with no expectation of protection.
In other words, as long as you stay within the 2.4 GHz spectrum, you can do what ever you want, as long as you didn't expect to be protected from interference from other devices.
Bluetooth and 802.11B have already violently clashed in this space already. I have seen it myself - with a 802.11B card in one PCMCIA slot, as soon as I turn on a bluetooth card in the other slot, my average ping time on the 802.11B goes up considerably.
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
Why get all in a lather about RF lighting?
If solid state lighting takes off we'll get great efficiency and no 2.4 GHz spectrum pollution.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
This article is utter garbage!!!
The first link (off-site) from the article referred to, in fact the makor of said "RF-Lightning-Craptacular VC-Money Whoring" company has a "our website is under construction" on it.
C'mon people - stop posting obvious flamebait articles at the highest level. This was a freakin waste of everyone's time.
The company I used to work for did the very first large scale (non-test) installation of their lighting products in the US. It sounded like an awesome product. It would provide MORE light for LESS power with LESS maintenance.
:)
We installed a HUGE area with this stuff (took many months to do the install). A year later we ended up yanking every bit of it out. Why? Well, there were SEVERAL technical problems with these things that they hadn't worked out. The short version of how they work is that they irradiate a glove with some sulfur in it with microwaves and turn it into a glowing plasma. Well, that stuff is a bit hot, so you have to continuously rotate the 'bulb' This rotational part breaks, so the light breaks.. the reflectors can't stand the heat, etc.
so don't worry.. they are in bankruptcy...
This looks like a niche product. It's not even clear that Fusion Lighting is still in business. Their web site is essentially defunct. Their web site used to have some nice pictures of glass bulbs and more info, but now, it's just a starter page.
Yeah, those were the promises. I really wish it would have worked out better. a few details of the problems:
#1 - the BULBS might last 11.4 years, but the magnetron that shoots the microwaves into the bulb, and the motor that turns both the fan (that cools) and the bulb (to prevent the plasma from burning through the glass of the bulb) burn out VERY fast. 1st generation units had 50% of the magnetrons burn out within 6 months. We were told this was due to the power supplies. 2nd gen units seemed much more solid in the power department.
#2 - the fan motor / bulb turner would break/no longer rotate. It didn't appear to us that they had a high enough quality motor on these... a large percentage of them would break within 3-6 months. If the motor stops turning that bulb it goes POOF when the plasma burns through.
#3 - the light is NOT white. it is kinda green.. pretty noticibly green actually. People do not seem to like greenish light. Most of us are used to either a yellowish or blueish tint. We had several people complain of feeling sick.. Dunno why green light would do it, but it didn't make our customer happy.
#4 - the high temps that these units achieve lead to a break down in both the reflectors and in plastics used to feed the light into useful places. We replaced many lights with one of these units (like a 5 to 1 ratio maybe) and then used a plastic tube as a 'light pipe' to deliver the light where it was needed. The material in the reflector would either a) degrade, or b) get deposited on the plastic tube due to the high temps. Also the plastic joins on the tubes would degrade seriously in a short (months) time frame. Maintenance costs were incredibly high.
In short: great idea, bad implementation. I have no doubt that if the engineering of these untis was higher (with the subsequently higher cost) that these would work. But then these already pricey (very) units would not be able to compete with existing technologies (like metal halide).
Crow