Slashdot Mirror
10Gbps Wireless Transfers
Erasei writes "NTT Science and Core Technology Laboratory Group has developed a wireless communications that is capable of transmitting data at speeds of up to 10Gbps. In order to achieve such high data transmission speeds, the system uses the as-yet-unused 120GHz frequency band. The actual bandwidth the system uses is 17GHz, and the method of modulation employed is amplitude shift keying."
So is this faster than current wired tech, or am I lagging behind?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Yesterday there was an article about 19megabits.. now its 10gbps.. Wow, we are getting faster everyday!
A large number of birds seem to be falling out of the sky fully cooked near the NTT Science and Core Technology Laboratory Group headquarters near the experimental wireless data towers. More on this strange story as it develops.
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
whats the signal range?
Looks like about 2 feet. And it would seem to be highly directional.
Not sure what this would be usefull for..
The law is a weapon of the government, not a protection for the likes of you. Surely you understand that.
I'm not thinking so much of a peer-to-peer or client/server setup where there's a networking handshake, but more along the lines of a broadcast data stream meant for everyone (or maybe just a few certain someones) to pick up.
"It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
NTT Develops 10Gbps Wireless System
October 18, 2002 (TOKYO) -- NTT Science and Core Technology Laboratory Group has developed a wireless communications system using the 120GHz band.
The system, which is capable of transmitting data at speeds of up to 10Gbps, was displayed at the "NTT R&D Forum 2002" event held Oct. 11 in Atsugi.
The new system is four times as fast as the 2.5Gbps wireless system NTT put on show at the same event in 2001. This is the first time the laboratory experimented with a 10Gbps wireless system (photo). There are many potential uses for such a high-speed wireless technology, such as for 10Gbps wireless Ethernet links or for radio links between different buildings where a high volume of data has to be sent to and fro. NTT plans to announce the new system at the "Asia-Pacific Microwave Conference" (APMC) to be held in Kyoto in November.
In order to achieve such high data transmission speeds, the system uses the as-yet-unused 120GHz frequency band. The actual bandwidth the system uses is 17GHz, and the method of modulation employed is amplitude shift keying (ASK), the simplest method of amplitude modulation for digital signals. According to an NTT source, by modifying the modulation method, the throughput rate will be improved.
NTT also used optical communications technology to make the 120GHz system possible. A 120GHz optical pulse signal is generated, and then undergoes amplitude modulation. After modulation, the signal is picked up by a special photodiode capable of responding with the high-speed signal. The output from the photodiode is then transmitted as a wireless signal. The special photodiode used was developed with NTT's own technology, and can handle optical inputs of up to 300GHz.
The main difference between last year's system and the new one is that the receiver frequency detection circuitry has been redesigned, meaning that the receiver can detect signals over a wider bandwidth, and thus the system can operate at faster speeds. The new detection circuit can receive signals from an 8.5GHz band at maximum. Because the system employs two detection circuits working in tandem, the finished system realizes more than a 17GHz band.
At "NTT R&D Forum 2002," the system was shown transmitting non-compressed HDTV-quality (1.5Gbps) video data. In order to extend the range of the transmission, a 20cm-diameter lens was used to focus the beam. In the laboratory, a 10m range for the system has been confirmed, but NTT is expecting to try and extend the range to 100m.
In order to extend the range of the transmission, a 20cm-diameter lens was used to focus the beam. In the laboratory, a 10m range for the system has been confirmed, but NTT is expecting to try and extend the range to 100m
From a scientific standpoint, this is somewhat interesting. I don't see it being news, however, until they seriosuly decrease the size of the transmitters and/or increase the range. The transmitters look to be about the size of a shoebox, which is great for building-to-building, but let us know when they actually bump up the range to say... building-to-building distances.
...is called "fibre optic"; hundred terabits and look ma - no wires!
Radio waves at 120GHZ travel like light. The signal wont go through walls at all.
So, basically, what we're saying is, by the time we get to 1Tb/s, we're all going to have to be close enough that I might as well just hand you a floppy?
And is that a run-on? Sheesh. Critics.
trustedworlds.net - gaming, security, and the gunk that lives in between
Imagine the possibilities... we could slashdot hundreds more sights hundreds times faster!
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
I did some undergraduate research in this area when I was back at Trinity College.
One of my favorite areas of study in this filed was the derivation of optimum receiver principles (including intersymbol interferences and equalization). You really can't appreciate a cellular phone and its chat/texting abilities until you understand just how hard it is to ensure lossless cellular communication between two carriers.
The modulation and coding for fading wireless channels, as well as spread spectrum communication analysis is rather tedius in my opinion, but overall it didn't taint my feeling that wireless is where the future is going and that what I was studying had some actual real-world application to it.
All too often academia is just going thru the motions without delving into the real trials/tribulations/concerns of modern-day corporate research.
Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., Canada, B3H 3J5
"In the laboratory, a 10m range for the system has been confirmed, but NTT is expecting to try and extend the range to 100m."
10 meters would limit its usefulness, but 100 meters would make this very useful. Hopefully, this has a useful range.
Could someone answer the question about how easily this frequency would pass through common substances, like walls?
Also, there was no mention of weather they would seek to license their technology to make this widely available or just make this a very expensive specialized niche product.
Doesn't such a high frequency restrict this to line-of-sight communications only?
... the only danger in space is if we land on the terrible Planet of the Apes ... wait a minute. Statue of Liberty ... THAT WAS OUR PLANET! YOU MANIACS! YOU BLEW IT UP! DAMN YOU! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!"
That is the frequency the aliens use. But I confuse them with aluminum foil!
"I'll handle this
-Homer Simpson
Finally! I have been waiting for this for a long time. I will provide bandwidth to the whole village! Muhahahah! They will all be mine! Mine!
This isn't office wireless. This is a very line-of-sight system that would be used, probably, between buildings, if they get it go that far, I would imagine.
You'd never see anything like this in a home or office, as it couldn't penetrate a sheet of paper, let alone a wall of any type. I suppose it could penetrate if you put enough power into it, but then it would need enough power to melt through the wall before the communication could begin.
Eventually it'll be faster to keep all your data on a SAN than to actually have a drive cabled to your box.
I'm no EE, but I studied enough analog electronics design to know that creating RF circuits at that kind of frequency is no easy feat.
Open up an 802.11 card for instance--these work at about 1/60th of that frequency--and look at the traces for an idea. It's not just what components are connected together--it's the layout of the traces that define most of the circuit. Inductors are little squiggles, a resistor is the thinning of a trace, etc., all of which is highly dependent on frequency.
In other words, these guys are pretty slick and you just have to bow to them.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
It is OPTICAL not RF. For Pete's sake, just use a friggin laser over open air. It's cheap, higher bandwidth and lets you do cool tricks using a couple of well used chalk board erasers. One use that leaps right to the front of MY mind is one of those nifty wireless video gadgets for your living room. "For only $750,000.00 you can beam S-Video quality signals from your DVD player to your big screen (up to 20 feet) WITHOUT WIRES!!!"
In the laboratory, a 10m range for the system has been confirmed, but NTT is expecting to try and extend the range to 100m.
Has anyone looked at the prototype they have in the picture? The transmitter and receiver are on the same table. Sure, I can understand 10gbps per sec over a few feet. They don't even know how this new technology will stand up in normal conditions. There is no way currently this will be used in mainstream. I don't know of anyone that is willing to sit within 10m of the transmitter to receive there wireless connection. I know this will be improved, but the distance will have to grow by leaps and bounds.
Yea, trasmitting 10gbps is nice, but currently what use is it if you can't go within a few feet of the transmitter?
if 120GHz band has been avalible to the public, why did we ever bother mucking about in the 2.4GHz range, when we could have had 100megabit wireless (easily) @ the 120GHz range? not to mention (i'm guessing) a hella lot more range, and let's go ahead and put 500mw-900mw (i think the legal limit is 1w?) sending capability.... this just makes 801.11b look like child's play.... or am i missing somthing here?
moox. for a new generation.
It wont penetrate anything solid. It will do slightly better in fog than lasers, but not a hell of a lot ... in short, not terribly usefull.
"NTT also used optical communications technology to make the 120GHz system possible. ...After modulation, the signal is picked up by a special photodiode capable of responding with the high-speed signal. ...In order to extend the range of the transmission, a 20cm-diameter lens was used to focus the beam."
Also known as Fast Ronja. Cool as hell though.
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
I don't understand why people don't focus more on security and making the networks non-hackable (or at least reducing the chance) instead of speed. It's great that the thing will go so fast, but if no IT departments will use it because of security issues, it will sell about as good as freezers in the Antarctic.
We develop wireless applications, and we'd sell probably twice as many if the hardware was secure, but sales would not go up at all if the speed of the networks was faster.
Ultra Wide Band technology that uses broad spectrum pulses rather than the traditional carrier frequency approach can potentially be even faster. See here
Now I can use my IPAQ as a wireless live video switcher.
There are many potential uses for such a high-speed wireless technology, such as for 10Gbps wireless Ethernet links or for radio links between different buildings where a high volume of data has to be sent to and fro.
Yeah, like 1.5 terabytes a day!
Kind thoughts do not change the world
Although for some reason this article forgot to mention the
drilling through glass part.
they should be making it longer range, I cant wait until I can go 2 miles from my house and connect to my home network.
keanmarine.com
Dunno about you, but for me 120 GHz falls slightly outside the visible spectrum ... it is microwave-RF.
Don't you read the article?++
The optical signal is modulated, then transmitted on 150Ghz-band RF signal.
There he is in the photo, between the two transmitter thingies.
Does his thunderbolt attack provide the jiggawatts of power needed?
Can we hit 100Gbps if he evolves into Raichu?
Or, most importantly, will this technology help me catch 'em all?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Journalists are fond of using dumbed-down abreviations such as Gbps or other acronyms. But I encourage technical writers to use the correct term, which is Gbit/s. Just as Mbit/s, Kbit/s.
There is something weird with computer science. People in this discipline badly need a common linguo because the field is evolving so fast. And yet, most CS practitionners couldn't be bothered to use the generally accepted vocabulary or abbreviations to describe their domain's problems. They invent their own, or incorrectly reuse existing jargon swiped from other disciplines.
Even worse, each branch of CS reuses general vague terms and overloads them with a different meaning. What's a "server"? What's a "page"? Depends who's talking.
As a result, CS is full of islands of disconnected knowledge and of specialists that cannot communicate with each other. Ever tried to have an OO programmer and a database admin talk to each other?
Mathematicians don't speak each other's linguo. But they carefully avoid using overlapping terms to define different things. That's what we should aim to do.
CS will keep being a cottage industry and a craftman discipline akin to voodoo, with cancelled project when wizardry fails, as long as all CS won't agree to speak a common language. Or at least a language where precision removes the overlapping meaning.
Granted, a precise vocabulary will not cure all the ills of CS. It not a sufficient condition for clear communication. But it's one of the necessary conditions.
So do your part. Write Gbit/s, not GBPS or other atrocities.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
It is OPTICAL not RF.
There is no difference between 'optical' and 'rf'
An electromagnetic wave is an electromagnetic wave.
There are just different frequencies
----
In Soviet Russia, the overlords welcome you!
This would actually be quite funny if this site wer slashdotted as we are currentlydiscussing about its breakthrough in network technologies :-)
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I shudder to think what the propagation loss would be at this high a frequency - so basically you can use it to communicate (ie Transmit data) to another person/device a few feet away - why not just use a cable??
I remember reading up on satellite signals some time ago, and how it said as the signals are such a high frequency (11-12Ghz) that they begin to show some of the properties of light. Most importantly that they cannot pass through as many objects. (Or something similar to that, I don't know much about the physics).
My question is, how much would a heavy rain/hail/snow shower affect a long range link at these high frequencies?
i've already mentioned this before and i don't wish to sound like a trolling wet-blanket, but when is this going to be widely available and adopted? slashdot is chockful of articles of new and emerging technologies that promise ever-increasing leaps and bounds in all these high-tech gadgets that all of us love (which is why we're here on slashdot!). most of these gadgets or other new developments in science and technology only see the light of exhibition or convetion halls and after that, either lousy manging, marketing or just a bad business model kills the product in its infant stages.
the article mentioned that this new wireless system uses a yet un-used 120GHz frequency. i personally feel that this can -both- be a disadvantage and advantage to its entry into the mainstream market. reason being, due to the 120GHz frequency being unused, widespread adoption might be made easier without any regulations but then again, that same lack of regulations would make it hard to regulate and control, and it might be open to abuses by users with malicious intent. worst still, all our beloved governments or telecommunication companies (for some countries, the above two are one and the same for all intents and purposes) will seize the opportunity to reap a handsome profit and end up killing the potential this product might have had in the market.
another factor, and perhaps the -most- important factor to consider is cost. the system may be cheap to built and maybe it didn't cost that much to develop, but we all know capitalism isn't about selling products at a price that indicates its real worth, capabalities, and cost of manufacture or R&D. rather, market demand or greedy corporate figures play an important part, along with sleazy marketing methods that target the ill-informed but rich people, who buy into meaningless numbers generated by the afore-mentioned marketing folks. the success or failure depends on how well the balance, between reaping the most profits and at the same time allowing growth, expansion and demand of the product to propagate is upheld by those corporate capitalist (and usually greedy) folks.
lastly, but not as importantly as the above factor, is whether the four times increase in speed is really needed, or is it on par with a 2.0GHz pentium 4, in that both only have impressive numbers to show off, which represent little of any real-world increase or -need- for performance for most mainstream users. but then again, i've just made a moot point haven't i? the sad reality is that the actual technology or the need for it isn't what sells. its how well its marketed (read: exaggerated and made pretty with big numbers) that really counts, ain't it?
if anyone feels like modding me down, go right ahead. i just had to get that off my mind. i just can't help being a little more and more pessimistic each time a promise of some new-fangled gadget makes headlines on slashdot, only to make headlines a year or two later when it flops over on its belly.
"But they carefully avoid using overlapping terms to define different things. "
It should be kbit/s not Kbit/s. Kilo is abbreviated 'k' to avoid confusion with 'K' for Kelvin.
I encourage you to use the correct term.
Cheers mate.
That's what I want to know. IR is way up in the THz range. You outta be able to modulate a least a Gbps onto it easily. Sure, it wouldn't go very far but so what. Is it just the difficulty in making emitters and detecters which are fast enough? That can't really be that hard. A gige optical SX GBIC module can be had for under $100. Hm. That makes me want to tear a couple apart and see if I can get a link running across a few feet of free space.
What we need is about 19 Mbps on 3G network, with power consumption low enough for cel phone type applications. Too bad no one is doing that.
Remember earlier in the week when /.ers were hammering the story about the guys in Africa who were using HF to send email using packet radio? Every frequency range has its up and down sides. Heck, I think the Navy uses (used?) ULF (Ultra Low Frequency) to communicate with submarines. Only problem is that at those frequencies, a one bandwidth length antenna is a few miles long....
I always like the people who were kind enough to be precise, where
so that Gbps and GBps are different.And while we're on the subject, of course, where
where it's even more helpful to put a "2" subscript on the G to indicate 2**30 instead of 10**9.It's usually too much to hope for from most news sources. Usually only academic papers care enough to be precise with their nomenclature.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
This issue has already been solved:
kb/s = kilobit per second
kB/s = kiloByte per second
Mb/s
MB/s
Gb/s
GB/s
See a trend that is easy to understand?
It sounds like they are optically processing the signal and then converting it to electrical using a special photodiode. Later through, they talk about needing a lens to focus the signal. I'm aware that some radio frequencies can be refracted by matter, but if, as others has said, this frequency range would be stopped by most matter, then what could they be making the lens out of? Or are they pulling a switcheroo and using somethig other than the 120GHz band to demo the technology?
Welcome to the net of 1000 lies. Upgrades are scheduled soon that should bring us to the 10,000 lies mark.
I love wireless technology, it's great. But what I want to see is wireless that I can use while riding with my wife on the freeway at 80mph, and with latency thats good enough to game on. Obviously the bandwidth is there for live video streaming, but the latency with my 802.11b network + encryption is still a bit too high.
And applied some common physics. This is just a lab stunt.
Back to my original point, I see no way for this to be useful.. This will never leave the lab until you get it down to a few chips!
The 17GHz bandwidth of the signal is quite impressive, though.
The law is a weapon of the government, not a protection for the likes of you. Surely you understand that.
is it correct to assume that the more radio waves we use (use up?) the more waves are bouncing around the solar system... the better the chance to contact ET life? i say: cool!
Please reserve the word "wireless" for radial covererage. I was hoping this was the newest 802.11* advance, instead it's just plain vanilla point-to-point(line of sight) data transfer.
This is completely boring, and useless to us home users. I can get 10Gbps with a $40 helium-neon laser.
Read the article. Yeah, it's not commercially viable. Yeah, it can't be used for much in the way of practical applications. And yeah, the picture of two boxes siting on a table doesn't really impress anybody.
But! Use your imagination here! Think of the posibilities - we're talking about a fast data transfer rate over short distances. Yeah 10m for now and with perhaps 100m in the future (building to building?) and what then? 1000m. Progress takes time.
And yes lasers can be used with high bandwidth (although you'll be lucky to make a photodiode with that good a bandwidth (~8.6GHz) - the only way I know of doing this is to use a broad resonant photodiode and this needs RF modulation and demodulation to make a useful signal - might be interesting to find out more about the "special" photodetector they developed) but higher frequency should be less susceptable to atmospheric noise and detection noise. Pro's and con's - might not be useful now but give it a couple of years and then we'll see.
You have got to get some video footage of that and post it.
Simply outrageous.
Email me if you ever do.
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
The article being low on content no explanation for ASK other than its simplicity. Isn't this method very susceptible to interference and noise ? Could this performance be achieved with MSK or QPSK ?
"player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
the system uses the as-yet-unused 120GHz frequency band. The actual bandwidth the system uses is 17GHz, and the method of modulation employed is amplitude shift keying.
Its land is mostly mountainous, and its chief export is beans.
As far as I know, 120 GHz is the highest frequency regulated in the U.K.
Does that mean that an unlicensed 200 GHz transmitter would be legal?
October 18th, 2002
Silicon Valley, CA (AP)
This morning, Acme Semiconductor (NASDAQ: ACME) announced the unveiling of their new 15Ghz processors, dubbed JackHammer. Company officials displayed a hands-off demo of Quake 3, which reported a sustained frame rate of over 234,545 frames per second, an astonishing feat. A top-of-the-line 2.6Ghz Intel Pentium 4 produces numbers in the mid hundreds, depending on the established screen resolution.
Company officials told reporters that the Internet is faster on computers based upon the JackHammer. Photoshop filters take dramatically less time to render as well, they added.
Acme says it plans on shipping the processor mid to late 2005.
Stock Ticker - All prices delayed 20 minutes
Acme Semiconductor (ACME) || 14 1/4 || +5 7/8
At that speed, I could use up my server bandwidth in 8 seconds.
Sheesh, elitist much? Your misguided opinion on this subject have been proven wrong more times than I care to demonstrate, but let me try anyway... I remember 'back in the day' being able to buy NICs that encrypted ethernet traffic. Never actually saw one, amongst the thousands of NICs I installed, purchased, or ran across, but they were there.
Nobody refused to buy an HP/UX box, or a Sun E2k because their NICs were'nt 'secure', and nobody ripped out all of their 10Mb Ethernet infrasructure for the cause of security either.
What caused organizations to pull out all of their old NICs though? Speed. It will always be speed. What kind of world do you live in where you think that 2x as many wireless nodes would be sold if they were 'more secure'? I sell them for a living, and nobody I work with is worried about security. I'd love it if they were so I could sell our IPSEC solution to them as well, but...
Sometimes I'm amazed at how out of touch with the real world us geek types can get...
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
"NTT... has developed a wireless communications that..."
Society has also developed a grammaticals that communicate helps. Try it, you should.
"I am a cipher, a cipher, wrapped in an enigma, smothered in secret sauce" -Jimmy James
Well, one improvement would be to utilize more of the available spectrum. Like the 400nm-550nm band containing new colors called "blue" and "green" ;>. Congrats on being able to see into the near-IR, tho. Can you see through clothes like the old sony camcorders could? Schweet.
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
Yes, we do. Do you? It uses optical means to generate the 120 GHz RF inside each unit, NOT BETWEEN THE BOXES.
Obligatory nit: Optical is RF. Just really high in frequency (THz).
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Ok I just sneezed ice tea onto my keyboard. God I wish I had some mod points.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
@ 12000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0GHz.
non-compressed HDTV-quality (1.5Gbps)
Is this right? Did I see Gigabit per second? I assume that it's actually 1.5Mbps?
Regardless, am I the only one who gets scared when a company says "max" or "up to." How about a average/nominal rating, so that we can see what most users get on a normal day, as opposed to every-second-sunday-when-the-moon-is-full. On a lot of devices, max rating is crap, as it rarely indicates the transfer speed achieved in most cases.
Just in note to the previous, 1.5Gigs per second of data seems a lot for a TV-type signal. Can we actually see anything resembling this coming in to our TV.
I couldn't find anything on what exactly is the centre frequency for this, but around 120GHz is certainly allocated and in use--119.98-120.02 to ham use and 101-120 GHz to radio astronomy (search for intentional extraterrestrial emission). Perhaps they mean "previously unused for wireless computer communication"?
Posting anonymously because last time I pointed this guy out, *I* got modded down.
120GHz? Not anywhere near me, thank you. 2 and 5 GHz worry me enough as it is.
They claim to use the simplest modulation scheme, that not so true: On-Off keying is the simplest (OOK modulation) it is actualy so simple that it can be regarded as either FM or AM. It is both.
Now, if they do provide 10Gbps using 17GHz, the they are getting the juice out of their bandwidth for this rather crude modulation scheme (1.7 ratio, they could get to 1.2 with stg more clever).
other nit: Optical is by definition not RF. They are both EMR, but the 'R' band of the spectrum is sub-Optical. That's the point of the terms. They are a contrastive pair.
How cool would it be to use this to replace IDE/SCSI cabling?
Many birds can "feel" radar pulses, and their typical response is to fold their wings and fall. One effect of this is the fact that, if there are birds in the vicinity of an airport, pilots are encouraged to turn on their aircraft's radar to avoid birdstrikes on takeoff.
Don't you generally want to send more data over less bandwidth?
Failing the "more data" point, I'd like to see a lot less bandwidth used, just to accomodate the artificial "crowding" of the spectrum. At this point, 10Gbps isn't very useful yet.
I mean, look, people! You're talking about 1.7 GHz/bit. To put that in comparison, think of extreme environments. If a deep-space probe developer only had a 17Hz signal, would you want to get only 1 bit per second, instead of the theoretically possible 8 bits per second? (IIRC, the theoretical limit for data transfer on a specific RF wavelength is freq/2. Any more, and you can't tell signal from noise without something as redundant as a UPS address stamp.)
I know this sounds like a "640k is all you'll need"-type-argument, but why not use a smaller bandwidth, and allow for multiple independant channels? If you need additional data transfer, you could use channel bonding.
This'll especially help wireless providers, who have to relay their signal from tower to tower without hitting the tower-after-the-next with a poorer signal. (Signals will travel beyond the horizon, but not very reliably.) Currently, they use polarization of their signal.
What's this Submit thingy do?
People in this discipline badly need a common linguo
Last I checked "linguo" is only a word in Esperanto. You're suggesting this be the Lingua Franca?
-----
A Black man, a Mexican, and a Pole walk into a bar. The bartender says "what is this, a joke?"
I'm a friend of a friend of the working class.
Actually, this guy has been using a "system" for some time now. This is a new account but he follows a similar modus operandi while juggling various accounts (cf. PhysicsGenius and Professor%20Collins, to name a few). Once he gets santioned for the troll he is, he starts a new account to build up some karma. Positive karma accounts lie in wait so he can moderate up other troll accounts. This is the source of Insightful and Interesting mods. Of course, the Funny mods can be anyone; you have to admit some of the technobabble is pretty hilarious.
If you really want to fight this behavior, do your metamoderation with an eye for the "trolls modding trolls" abuse.
When dealing with data transmission, we speak in terms of bits per second, and G=1,000,000,000
Terms lik GBps and whatnot are 'made up' terms used by the computer world to try to sound smart.
As soon as someone talks about anyhting other than bits per second, with standard metric prefixes (with standard metric meanings), it becomes ambiguous.
B meaning byte and b meaning bit are a made up convention that some people adhere to, but not an engineering standard, I don't believe.
And since when is it NOT Gbps? bps has been a standard data communications term for a LONG time.
120Ghz is not optical.
This thing uses lasers internally go generate the 120Ghz wave.
Optical & RF specify two regions of the EM spectrum.
When someone says RF that means it's between 3khz and 300Ghz.
We do not consider gamma rays to be RF. Nor do we consider visible light to be RF. Nor do we consider the FM radio in your car to be an 'optical receiver'
Will they be able to resist the slashdotting???
;)
Nah!
any idea what will be the effect of radio waves at 120GHz on human tissue and for that matters on other materials. From the concern with 2.4 GHz communication which seems pretty close to what microwave uses to heat water molecules, I would think there is no problem to human tissue at 120GHz but how does one know ?? any emphirical formulae relating frequency to material it can heat ??
Do we write mi/h? No. It's 50Mph or 100kph, or whathaveyou.
So in the real world, it's ?bps, with whatever prefix. 115.2kbps, 10Mbps, 10Gbps. Deal.
Damn! Didn't see that one coming!
Go to hell, Erik Krout.
The paperless office will finally become a reality. Not because of more efficient methods of storing scribbles and notes, but because of the hazards it presents to the propagation of wireless transmissions.
Bleh.
Did I miss the part where RF stopped being
... etc.
"Radio Frequency"
??? Optical frequencies are orders of magnitude away from being Radio frequencies.
There are many differences between Optical frequencies and Radio frequencies.
* Optical frequencies cause more shadows. (Radio shadows do exist, but only on infrequent occasions.)
* Optical frequency waves are more directional. Radio frequencies diffract more easily.
To understand this important story, you have to understand how the telephone
company works. Your telephone is connected to a local computer, which is in
turn connected to a regional computer, which is in turn connected to a
loudspeaker the size of a garbage truck on the lawn of Edna A. Bargewater of
Lawrence, Kan.
Whenever you talk on the phone, your local computer listens in. If it
suspects you're going to discuss an intimate topic, it notifies the computer
above it, which listens in and decides whether to alert the one above it,
until finally, if you really humiliate yourself, maybe break down in tears
and tell your closest friend about a sordid incident from your past
involving a seedy motel, a neighbor's spouse, an entire religious order, a
garden hose and six quarts of tapioca pudding, the top computer feeds your
conversation into Edna's loudspeaker, and she and her friends come out on
the porch to listen and drink gin and laugh themselves silly.
-- Dave Barry, "Won't It Be Just Great Owning Our Own Phones?"
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...