More Antennas, Faster Wireless
rouge86 writes "The New Scientist has a story on how researchers broke the network speed record using a wireless network and multiple antennas. They plan to use the demonstration to show how powerful multiple antennas can be. Applications include power saving on mobile phones and reducing interference."
Power saving is very welcome indeed. Today's 3G phones run out of battery in no-time.
There are two kinds of hacking involved here, software and hardware. The commenter above is giving props to the programmers, because in their [apparent] opinion people don't do enough optimization. This kind of thing goes on all the time, but I guess it's good to recognize some people, as opposed to no people.
The other side of this is that some people who understand how to make antennas had to figure out a compact array of antennas which would not need any sort of calibration and which would provide the necessary hardware to even use this software signal processing technique. Those are the people that really impress me, because I am horrible with mathematics.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They said the same about phone networks when satalites were introduced. Now our world is connected by fibre. All of these measures, wireless, ADSL, cable modems are a stopgap for the fact that fibre is still too expensive to run into every house.
If (and when) a breakthrough is made, either with an economic optical switch or the pricing of electronic processing equipment for optical fibre, wireless will once again take a back seat.
d
Ok, after the (mostly) needless citing is done, I find it nave to have faith in science. Then again, it seems to be the most powerful metatool we have found. I call it a metatool for it allows you to both create another tools and to refine itself into being an even better tool. Perhaps Chemistry won't solve all mankind's problems, on its own, or perhaps it will, or perhaps solving that will require several sciences combined. I can't see that far. Science may not be the answer to all (because we know the answer is 42 -see Douglas Addams-), but it's the best approximation we have found yet.