"GiFi" — Short-Range, 5-Gbps Wireless For $10/Chip

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"GiFi" — Short-Range, 5-Gbps Wireless For $10/Chip

Posted by kdawson on Friday February 22, 2008 @02:42AM from the can-you-say-giga dept.

mickq writes "The Age reports that Melbourne scientists have built and demonstrated tiny CMOS chips, 5 mm per side, that can transmit 5 Gbps over short distances — about 10 m. The chip features a tiny 1-mm antenna, a power amp that is only a few microns wide, and power consumption of only 2 W. 'GiFi' appears set to revolutionize short-distance data transmission, and transmits in the relatively uncrowded 60GHz range. Best of all, the chip is only about a year away from public release, and will only cost around US $9.20 to produce."

190 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Bluetooth replacement? by Atlantis-Rising · 2008-02-22 02:44 · Score: 1, Insightful

At first blush, it seems like this is a bluetooth replacement, until you look at the cost of the chips- almost ten dollars per unit! Wowza- that means it'll cost $15 to put it in anything.

'Course, I don't know how expensive bluetooth chips are per unit, but I expect they're cheaper than that- especially with all the tiny USB bluetooth receivers you can find floating around for $19.99 and under these days.

That said, what else would it really replace or be used in?

--
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
1. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by TripMaster+Monkey · 2008-02-22 02:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I believe BlueTooth's max transmission rate is 2.1 Mb/sec (for BlueTooth 2.0). 5 Gb/sec > 2.1 Mb/sec.
  
  USB 1.1 adapters are pretty cheap, too...how much are they being used today?
  
  --
  ____
  ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
2. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by gad_zuki! · 2008-02-22 03:00 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Yeah but blutooth is only a couple of mbps and in practice seems to be much more susceptible to interference. The few times I've tried to use it for large data transfers have been pretty slow. Its just easier to grab a usb cable.
  
  Right now there's a sort of race to come up with a bluetooth replacement. UWB, wireless USB, etc are the things this product wants to compete with.
3. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by esocid · 2008-02-22 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  I would think household wireless routers could utilize this since most small-medium sized houses will have a radius of about 10m from the router, or even businesses that would rather have an indoor WiFi(GiFi) available to customers rather than broadcasting outside of their building.
  
  --
  Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
4. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by CastrTroy · 2008-02-22 03:11 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Not a bad idea. But I wonder how much at 10 m is affected by walls. I also wonder how much it's affected by interference from cordless phones and other wireless devices. Usually when they say the range is 10m, the actual usable distance is half that, and only when there's no walls.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
5. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by petecarlson · 2008-02-22 03:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Walls? Forget about it. This is 60GHz your talking about. Good luck getting it out of the case you put the chip in let alone through a wall, your body, or too much oxygen.
6. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 03:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If you're giving it away to your coffee shop customers then being stopped by walls could be a good thing.
7. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by Atlantis-Rising · 2008-02-22 03:22 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  True, but all USB 1.1 gizmos are backwards compatible with USB 2.0, and this is hardly backwards compatible with Bluetooth.
  
  In this case you have a totally different standard that appears to be competing not so much in the PAN area but in the wireless-USB area, and in that respect I see it competing with UWB and WUSB. However, WUSB is only 480 Mbits per second...
  
  That said, at the moment, WUSB seems to be a solution looking for a problem; which leads back to my original issue. Where is this going to come in handy at this price point? Nobody's going to pay upwards of $35 for a glorified USB cable.
  
  --
  "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
8. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by squizzar · 2008-02-22 03:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It consumes two watts of power. It is not a Bluetooth replacement. Using my phone for comparison: 1100mAh 3.7 V 3.7V / 2W = 1.85 A 1.1 Ah / 1.85 A = 0.59 Hours = approx. 36 Minutes. I know it won't be transmitting the whole time, but essentially this will be useless in a mobile application.
9. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by ElGanzoLoco · 2008-02-22 03:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That said, what else would it really replace or be used in?
  
  Short-range wireless video transmission, for one. From your IPTV box to your TV(s).
  
  Case in point: at home, we just ditched cable and DSL and switched to an optic fibre triple-play (internet/IP TV/telephone) offer, which is much cheaper. For technical reasons the main receiver box can only be located near our entrance door, while the TV sits at the other side of the house.
  
  Out of three possible solutions, none work well:
  -laying an ethernet cable in the ceiling is possible, but a headache
  -IP over the power lines is unreliable
  -WiFi, regardless of the flavor, doesn't provide enough bandwidth (keep in mind that the box streams several HDTV channels at once, for instance when recording one while watching another)
  
  So in our case, the proposed chip and protocol sounds ideal. 10m doesn't seem like a lot, but it's more than enough to cover most apartments / houses, and I expect it will be possible to get signal at much greater distances, with degraded signal. 2.5Gbps over 20m, wirelessly, would rock.
  
  --
  Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
10. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by samkass · 2008-02-22 03:41 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  At this data rate, this appears to be not so much competing with the keyboard/mouse/printer USB connector than it does the DVI video connector. Now all we need is some of Tesla's magic to transmit the electricity wirelessly and we're home free.
  
  --
  E pluribus unum
11. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by rwiggers · 2008-02-22 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Really, high definition video. I mean, remove that horrible cable between the CPU and the monitor. Full HD(1920x1080) uncompressed transfer would be around 1.5Gbps net. And please, don't come with lossy compression, this isn't for watching films.
12. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by bkr1_2k · 2008-02-22 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Of course they're going to be expensive in small quantities, but if this takes off, that price will come down drastically, to something more like $1-2 per chip, which will only increase usage. $10 isn't particularly expensive for cutting edge technology like this to begin with, so it really won't make much of a difference.
  
  I think you'll also find most bluetooth receivers at the $19 price range are pieces of shit that aren't worth the money, and you'll have roughly 1000 times the speed or whatever? (I don't know the max speed of bluetooth but I think it's in the single digit Mbs range.)
  
  --
  "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
13. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by flappinbooger · 2008-02-22 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  x2, yes, this is going to eliminate video cables. Forever. yay!
  
  --
  Flappinbooger isn't my real name
14. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by JDWTopGuy · 2008-02-22 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps you could expound for those of us who don't know. I do (of course) trust everything I read on /. but in the interests of even moar knowledge, links are fine too.
  
  --
  Ron Paul 2012
15. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by bcwright · 2008-02-22 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Besides the issue of how well this will transmit through walls, I don't think you can assume that 10m will be enough to cover a typical house. Unless you can put it close to the geometric center of the house, you're likely to have the signal attenuated at the other side, not to mention other floors. But often the center of the house is taken up by hallways or a stairway or something else where you wouldn't want to put a router. Available phone or cable connections are another consideration. So often you're left with putting it somewhat off-center, possibly even considerably off-center. If you have a "booster" unit to try to cover more of the house, how much would they interfere with each other? Even current wired consumer-grade LAN connections max out at about 1GB/s, so you couldn't put one at either end of the house (far enough apart so as not to interfere with each other too much) and joined by a wired LAN without losing a good bit of your bandwidth.
  
  "Bluetooth replacement" may well be a better description of it's capabilities than "wireless LAN" enhancement. But is 5GB/s interesting enough for people to want to pay for the chip and the rather hefty power consumption when its main use would be to transfer music between your PC and your iPod? (Remember that limiting power consumption in mobile devices is a serious problem - high power consumption = low battery life). It's not as if the existing technologies for doing that are unbearably slow.
  It's a very interesting technology, but we'll have to see what its capabilities and limitations are when and if it's released. I think it's likely that the final version may look significantly different from what's outlined in the article (which is basically a proof-of-concept prototype).
16. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 04:15 · Score: 0
  
  Nobody's going to pay upwards of $35 for a glorified USB cable.
  Except, perhaps, those who pay upwards of $35 for a real USB cable (like the "special" USB cable supposedly needed for my printer - yeah, right).
17. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by ddrichardson · 2008-02-22 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  1100mAh 3.7 V 3.7V / 2W = 1.85 A 1.1 Ah / 1.85 A = 0.59 Hours = approx. 36 Minutes
  
  Em am I not right in thinking that power is equal to voltage by current, so should that not work out as P/V=I, 2/3.7=I=0.54 giving you 1.1/0.54=2.04 Hours?
  
  --
  A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
18. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  magic to transmit the electricity wirelessly Don't cross the streams!
19. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by tomthegeek · 2008-02-22 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Why not? Some people are paying that for a regular USB cable.
20. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by tomthegeek · 2008-02-22 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  60ghz does not go through walls very well if at all apparently. Better start laying that ethernet.
21. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by Zerth · 2008-02-22 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  I'd use it for wireless(ignoring power) LCDs as the monitor-pc cable is the last holdup for wireless KVMs(although I currently just use a laptop as my KVM).
  
  Wireless external discs would be another. It's not a huge hassle to plug in an eSATA cable, but it would be kinda spiffy to just stack another enclosure on top of your computer(or just in the same room) and have another TB show up in your RAID.
22. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by 172pilot · 2008-02-22 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  We dont need 5gbps earpieces, and using that as an example is like saying "we dont need gas engines because all our towns are only three blocks long - Horses are fine.."
  
  This has all kinds of other uses - Home security cameras, syncing your car's internal MP3 or video player with the latest off of your tivo while you're parked in the garage, backup your laptop when you come home for the night, and more importantly, a MILLION uses we can't even think of right now. If you have one in mind, I suggest you get to work on it before someone else does, and you'll be the next millionaire.
  
  If they can project $10 costs before they're even out, wait 'till someone comes up with the killer app. In the meantime, I'll buy a couple just to sync my ipod while it's still in the car..
  
  --
  -Steve Tired of voting for the "lesser of two evils?" Come talk about it on www.bothsidesarewrong.com
23. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by Sancho · 2008-02-22 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Coupled with the higher power consumption, you have a higher data rate. This means that you'll be using the device for a shorter period of time while syncing your mobile device to your computer. It's entirely possible that it will be a wash, overall, though I think that Bluetooth uses around 1/20th of the power, and has a listed data rate of only 3Mb/s.
  
  Of course, the truth is that it's just too early to speculate on its performance, as real world performance rarely matches up with theoretical performance.
24. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by avronius · 2008-02-22 05:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Think of a [slightly] different market...
  
  Most home theatres have a common issue. Rats nest of cables for the various components. RCA/HDCP/HDMI/Optical/etc. to connect a myriad of components - XBoxn, Wii, Playstationn, receiver, amplifier, DVR, speakers x7, television, htpc, remote control. If you could increase the cost of each of these devices by $10 to eliminate the requirement for cables... you could simplify the installation procedures and improve the "ease of use" factor. Take it out of the box, and press the "join my GiFi network" button. The new DVR shows up on your receiver as device 5 "Stanasonic DVR SNxxxx". The new centre channel speaker shows up as device 23 "Blose Centre Channel speaker SNxxxx". The projector shows up as device 1 "Blite-On Projector SNxxxx". It would be interesting to see if devices that don't require the complete bandwidth available would use less power - ie: speakers wouldn't utilize that bandwidth....
  
  The average home office would benefit from the same technology. Anything that will fit comfortably within a 900 sq ft or smaller room - printer, spouse's computer, kid's computer, scanner, mouse, keyboard.
  
  Perhaps there would be a seperate market for "secure GiFi" - that would involve buying or creating a 256bit encryption key on a small USB token - that would need to be attached to any new devices that you wish to join your SGiFi network.
  
  At the end of the day, for $10 per device, there's a lot of simplicity to be gained here.
25. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by Reo+Strong · 2008-02-22 05:20 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's basic RF. The higher the frequency, the worse the penetration. 700MHz and 900MHz go through just about everything (except dirt and metal). 2.4GHz (802.11b/g) can go through wood panels, drywall, and some forms of metal (not many). I don't know what the mathematical description is for the ratio of frequency vs rates of absorption/penetration, but it gets pretty bad at about 5.8GHz (802.11a). I can't imagine what it is at 60GHz and only 2W of output power.
  
  Linky
  "Indoor wave propagation is also affected by the building material. The density of the materials used in the construction of a building determines the number of walls the RF signal can pass through and still maintain adequate coverage. Paper and vinyl walls have little effect on signal penetration. Solid walls, solid floors and pre-cast concrete walls can limit signal penetration to one or two walls without degrading coverage. This can vary widely based any steel reinforcing within the concrete. Concrete and concrete block walls can limit signal penetration to three or four walls. Wood or drywall typically allows for adequate penetration of five or six walls. A thick metal wall causes signals to reflect off, which results in poor penetration. Steel reinforced concrete flooring restricts coverage between floors to perhaps one or two floors.
  
  The higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength is. Shorter wavelengths have more probability to get absorbed and distorted by a building material. Therefore, 802.11a, which operates in a higher frequency band, is more prone to the building material effect."
  
  --
  "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -Anon.
26. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by Sancho · 2008-02-22 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Such a thing would not be HDCP compliant. Even if you don't want to watch films on it, lots of people do.
  
  Regardless, you wouldn't put lossy compression on the cable from the computer to the monitor--you want information sent to the monitor from the computer to be lossless, anyway.
27. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by zeet · 2008-02-22 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  If you've got phone wiring in the wall already, I've had really good results with HPNA3.0 adapters. They work at better than Ethernet speeds over a couple thousand feet of otherwise untreated wire. There are also Ethernet-over-Coax adapters available, which I have no experience with. And if you've used the old (12Mbps) Ethernet-over-power stuff, take a peek at the new stuff. It now runs at Fast Ethernet speeds, and I've heard good results about it.
28. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 06:12 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Little problem with your math there. I=P/V, not V/P.
  
  3.7V * 1.1Ah = 4Wh. If that were just powering the chip, thats 2 hours, not 1/2 hour.
  
  Now a pessimistic guess that a 5Gbps link will actually get something like 500Mbps of data throughput, thats 62MB/s. At that speed it will take about a minute and a half to copy a DVD image. 2W*1.5s=50mWh, or roughly 1% of the phone's battery life. Seems like it would be perfect for use on a mobile phone.
  
  This is all assuming their claims as relayed by the media are accurate.
29. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by *weasel · 2008-02-22 06:17 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  ... who cares?
  
  This isn't a wifi replacement -at all-. This is a wireless USB replacement and then some.
  
  At 5Gbps you'd have enough throughput to put a hypothetical smartphone on your desk, and not only use your desktop monitor/keyboard/mouse for comfort, but to be able to use your desktop's processor and ram to accelerate the apps that still basically 'live' on your phone.
  
  So imagine a setting where work data is coming off the network, personal settings and user data are coming off your phone, and desktop workstations are glorified accelerator appliances with more comfortable input interfaces that can be swapped out, time-shared, simultaneously-shared, etc. Neat, huh? Any desk would be functionally equivalent and not being at your desk would just mean less convenient peripherals and slower processing.
  
  That level of throughput is also overkill for wireless video from a portable to a headmounted display -- or even a more mundane wireless HDMI replacement for your TV, game console, BDR, DVD, Tivo, etc. Say good bye to that tangle of wires and video switches! There's also killer peer-to-peer networking capabilities you could build onto portables. (low-power, high-speed peer-to-peer internet for social apps, gaming and data sharing? yes please!)
  
  If, in real world use, it could only go 3m at half that throughput and couldn't penetrate through so much as rice paper, it's -still- an incredibly exciting technology that could facilitate a staggering array of apps.
  
  --
  // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
30. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by DrLex · 2008-02-22 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  No magic required! Just take apart a microwave oven, find a way to focus the microwaves into a narrow bundle, and use a microwave antenna to convert it back to electricity. There you have it, wireless power! Heck, why bundle the waves? Just put an industrial-grade magnetron in the middle of your room and you don't even have to aim the emitter towards the antenna.
  
  Small print: the author of this comment is not responsible for any side effects occurring during this experiment.
31. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by sydbarrett74 · 2008-02-22 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  10m doesn't seem like a lot, but it's more than enough to cover most apartments / houses, and I expect it will be possible to get signal at much greater distances, with degraded signal. 2.5Gbps over 20m, wirelessly, would rock. Yeah, some type of repeater would be nice. Although if placed centrally enough, 10m isn't that shabby.
  
  --
  'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
32. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  That said, at the moment, WUSB seems to be a solution looking for a problem; which leads back to my original issue. Where is this going to come in handy at this price point? Nobody's going to pay upwards of $35 for a glorified USB cable. O RLY?
  
  http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=6801106&st=usb+cable&type=product&id=1091099783464
  
  That's one of the cheaper ones, and it's only 6-ft.
33. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by SuiteSisterMary · 2008-02-22 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  60 Ghz is attenuated by oxygen monocules.
  
  --
  Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
34. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by ThreeGigs · 2008-02-22 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Where is this going to come in handy at this price point? Nobody's going to pay upwards of $35 for a glorified USB cable.
  
  This would fit the bill for an idea I had for supercomputer connections. Depending on how it's implemented, a wireless connection 'fabric' between nodes would allow for ad-hoc connections between any two processors, with no central switch needed. While the wireless speed might be slower per processor than something like Infiniband, the potental for 5000 simultaneous full-bandwidth connections all happening at the same time between 10,000 CPUs has possibilities. So now I'm wondering what each chip's frequency range is, how narrow can it tune to reject adjacent channels, how well it performs in 'noisy' environments, and how quickly can it change channels.
35. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by dave420 · 2008-02-22 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  What is the power consumption of this chip, though? That's one of the reasons for bluetooth's widespread adoption in mobile devices.
36. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by ceoyoyo · 2008-02-22 08:30 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You're kidding, right? Stick one of these in your laptop, then have one that's a dongle (at first) that you can plug into a USB 2(+) port. Instant FAST wireless. Then these will start getting built into things like digital cameras, monitors, etc. Bluetooth is way too slow for any decent digital camera. USB is a pain in many cases. Personally I use a Firewire card reader, and frequently wish it would go faster. 5 Gbps? Yes please. Will I pay $30 for it? Or $50? Definitely. Not that the price won't come down when the things are in everything.
37. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by atomicthumbs · 2008-02-22 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm, something like a rectenna?
  
  --
  http://pinopsida.com
38. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by Chandon+Seldon · 2008-02-22 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Excellent plan. Just don't ever hold two paperclips of the wrong length in opposing hands in that room or you *die*.
  
  --
  -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
39. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by klui · 2008-02-22 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't its wattage be a problem on a handset? Current cellphones transmit at 100mW.
40. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by kryliss · 2008-02-22 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Think of the possibilities
  - Virtually any cable can have a tranceiver connected to it and then to the opposing connector
  - wireless SD Drives with a battery pack/power adapter option
  - Hook up to your car's sound system without wires, power up only long enough to transfer data to the car stereo's memory buffer then go into standby.
  - Add some kind of Logical Unit Numbering and have a stack of Wireless SD Drives sitting in a secure cabinet
  - Mirror drives without a computer.
  - Smart Audio Video Components.
  - No confusing wires for end users, they just have to unpack and power them up. Coded signals from the components know what part of the system(s) they have to talk to, including speakers, microphones, headsets etc..
  - Computer Components
  - Small RJ-45 adapters turns any NIC into a wireless card powered by the NIC itself.
  - Almost all cabling can be eliminated except for power.
  - Built in wireless TV Tuners from the wireless cable/satellite box.
  
  This list can go on forever.....
  
  --
  --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
41. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 11:02 · Score: 0
  
  Why do you consider IP over the power line unreliable?
42. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 11:23 · Score: 0
  
  Consumes 2W != transmits 2W.
43. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by dindi · 2008-02-22 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  If you brought up bluetooth, let me throw my 2c in about the price.
  
  When bloototh WAS about to be coming, they mentioned 10-20cent chips. Then the dongles came out and they were $60-80+. Any device sporing bluetooth, was WAY more expensive than others (mostly cellphones).
  
  Now when they tell me $10, I wonder 1. how much a dongle will be, 2. how much an ipod/other player, cellphone or wireless storage is going to really cost.
  
  Well, if an NSLU2 (linksys file sharing device which is capable of running Linux), is going to cost $90 instead of $80, and I will be able to buy a dongle for other devices to access shared drives, I might be in.
  
  Actually looking at the 1000mb dell switch that has a painful noise next to my Macs, I probably will be in.
  
  But a quick question: could someone please give me a 5Gigabit WIRED solution on a cheap 40-50 HUB and $10-15 dongles. With all the anti wireless advisories from Europe I am double thinking frying my brain with just-another-safe low power wireless gadget.
  
  Why am I still slated to LOUD gigabit switches while they promise 5gigabit wireless??? Whyyyy ?
44. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by CastrTroy · 2008-02-22 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  What's with all the 2.4/5.6 GHz cordless phones. I find I get better reception with the 900 MHz cordless phones (which are getting increasingly hard to find). If what you say is true about higher frequencies being unable to penetrate walls, then why would they keep on moving to higher frequencies?
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
45. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by ElGanzoLoco · 2008-02-22 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you consider IP over the power line unreliable?
  
  Umm, because we already tried. The image is lagging and the sound is jittery, despite the fact that we got the fastest IP over power line converters available - they're rated at something like 85Mbps and sold as "HD" by our provider (Orange) - and although my dad actually re-organized the wiring to get as direct a route as possible. It still sucks.
  
  --
  Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
46. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by ElGanzoLoco · 2008-02-22 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the tip. We do have a phone wiring indeed, so I'll start looking into that HPNA thingie, which I'd never heard about. Do you recommend any product / brand in particular?
  
  The ethernet-over-power plugs we tried are the fastest available (85 Mbps) and it's absolutely unusable. It probably has to do with our electrical wiring than the technology itself, as many people seem to use it without problems.
  
  Cheers!
  
  --
  Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
47. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-23 00:25 · Score: 0
  
  There is only the slight problem of being cooked alive if you get between the transmitter and receiver, but surely the benefits outweigh the risks here.
48. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-23 00:43 · Score: 0
  
  With higher frequency you get more bandwidth (and hopefully better quality), there might also also be an issue with regulations concerning the frequencies that can be used.
49. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by petecarlson · 2008-02-23 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  Better late then never. Perhaps you check your SD messages.
  
  Free Space loss formula can be found here:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_path_loss
  Absorption
  
  Low-frequency radio waves travel easily through brick and stone and VLF even penetrates sea-water. As the frequency rises, absorption effects become more important. At microwave or higher frequencies, absorption by molecular resonance in the atmosphere (mostly water, H2O and oxygen, O2) is a major factor in radio propagation. For example, in the 58-60 GHz band, there is a major absorption peak which makes this band useless for long-distance use. This phenomenon was first discovered during radar research during World War II. Beyond around 400 GHz, the Earth's atmosphere blocks some segments of spectra while still passes some--this is true up to UV light, which is blocked by ozone, but visible light and some of the NIR is transmitted.
  
  Heavy rain and snow also affect microwave reception.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_propagation
50. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by LazyBoy · 2008-02-24 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  Marketing. Bigger numbers look better.
  
  --
  If Chaos Theory has taught us anything, it's that we must kill all the butterflies.
51. Re:Bluetooth replacement? by JDWTopGuy · 2008-02-25 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I check my comment list occasionally to see if anybody replied. Thanks for the links!
  
  --
  Ron Paul 2012
They stole my idea! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 02:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

I took out a patent for an electronic device that sends signals and has the number 10 in it! Those bloody Aussies stole my idea! I'll see you in Texas court!
WUSB by red+star+hardkore · 2008-02-22 02:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

So WUSB is going to be made redundant before it even becomes mainstream?
Pronunciation of Gi-Fi by xdc · 2008-02-22 02:48 · Score: 5, Funny

How do you pronounce Gi-Fi? "guy-fie"? "giffy"? "jiffy"?
1. Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  Gives a new meaning for GiFi Lube..
2. Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi by provigilman · 2008-02-22 02:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  They should probably just make it "G-Fi" (pronounced as 'gee-fi') in order to avoid that confusion.
  
  --
  "Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
3. Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi by rvw · 2008-02-22 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  How do you pronounce Gi-Fi? "guy-fie"? "giffy"? "jiffy"? I think: Goofy! Then it can even apply to wireless fetching of your shoes.
4. Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi by MarkovianChained · 2008-02-22 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  I vote for jiffy -- 'cause now you'll be able to get your wireless data in a jiffy!
5. Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi by SharpFang · 2008-02-22 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  yiffy
  
  --
  45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
6. Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi by esocid · 2008-02-22 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  My vote would be for (Gy as in Gyro) Gi-Fi.
  
  --
  Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
7. Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi by Stanistani · 2008-02-22 03:12 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  >>How do you pronounce Gi-Fi? "guy-fie"? "giffy"? "jiffy"?
  >I think: Goofy! Then it can even apply to wireless fetching of your shoes.
  
  Wouldn't that be Pluto?
  
  Of course, Goofy is an amiable guy - he'd probably say "Golly, gee, Mickey! Hyuck!" ...and get them for you.
  
  --
  You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
8. Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi by PrescriptionWarning · 2008-02-22 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  sounds like a lame joke that Seinfeld would make
9. Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi by CastrTroy · 2008-02-22 03:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yes, because "Gyro" has no alternate pronunciations. I've hear Gyro (in reference to the sandwich) be pronounced in no less than 4 ways. Including Jiro, Yiro, Giro (with a hard G), and Hiro (no kidding).
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
10. Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi by poot_rootbeer · 2008-02-22 03:21 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  How do you pronounce Gi-Fi?
  
  Since the abbreviation is derived from "Wi-Fi", and before that "Hi-Fi", I take it that they all rhyme, therefore Gi-Fi would be pronounced "guy - fye".
  
  And it is short for "guygabit fydelity".
11. Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  Depends. If they're intending Gi to be like Giga, as in Gigawatts, then it should be Ji-fi, like High-five without the 've'.
12. Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi by esocid · 2008-02-22 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  I was actually thinking of Gyroscope, but the sandwich did come to mind. So I guess (Hee)-Fi would be an alternative??
  
  --
  Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
13. Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi by liquiddark · 2008-02-22 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  Jigawatts. But you have to have a Delorean nearby for this to sound plausible.
14. Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  Since the abbreviation is derived from "Wi-Fi", and before that "Hi-Fi", I take it that they all rhyme, therefore Gi-Fi would be pronounced "guy - fye".
  I assumed the same thing, however, we all know that "gigabit" is actually pronounced "jiggabit" (same prefix as in "jiggawatt"), therefore this should be pronounced like "jye-fye".
15. Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  Gyro as in gyroscope. This is slashdot, come on.
16. Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi by pizzutz · 2008-02-22 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Micro$oft would never allow it to be called G-Fi.
  
  --
  GE/CS/IT d- s: a- C++++$ UL+++ P-- L++++ E W+++$ N+ o? K- w---() !O M- V- PS+ PE(++) Y+ PGP+++(+) t+++ !5 X++> R- t
17. Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi by Archangel+Michael · 2008-02-22 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  A place offering a open internet via this new protocol will be called .....
  
  wait for it ....
  
  G-SPOT
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
18. Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  I see why High Fidelity is written HiFi, but when read should be pronounced "hyphy". It only makes sense, then, that GiFi be "guyphy", and WiFi, of course "wifey".
19. Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi by Jherek+Carnelian · 2008-02-22 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  How do you pronounce Gi-Fi? "guy-fie"? "giffy"? "jiffy"? Obviously it is "Guy-fie" because this will be the next "guy toy" - hooking up your home-theater system with no cables, new kind of remote controls with little video screens built in, all kinds of potential for guy toys.
20. Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi by provigilman · 2008-02-22 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Oh great, now us guys will never be able to find them!
  
  --
  "Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
21. Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi by zonker · 2008-02-22 14:37 · Score: 0
  
  You're right, if they named it it would be called "Microsoft WiFi 5-Gbps Ultimate Express Edition"
  
  --
  Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
We need a free version by LiquidCoooled · 2008-02-22 02:52 · Score: 3, Funny

If you use the proprietary GiFi protocol you may end up getting into patent trouble.
We should create our own standard which does what we need and is not covered by existing patents.

I suggest we call this protocol PnGi.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper
1. Re:We need a free version by poot_rootbeer · 2008-02-22 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  We should create our own standard which does what we need and is not covered by existing patents.
  I suggest we call this protocol PnGi.
  
  I caught the GIF/PNG reference, but I'm afraid the new name you came up with for the new open source standard just does not sound silly enough.
  
  How about "WuffoMax"?
2. Re:We need a free version by MightyYar · 2008-02-22 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  We could kick it old school and use the recursive acronym...
  
  PING (is not Gifi)
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
3. Re:We need a free version by boristdog · 2008-02-22 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  PnGi? The estate of Burgess Meredith may sue your pants off.
A lot going around by bandersnatch · 2008-02-22 02:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

And this is different from these others... how exactly?

http://www.vubiq.com/news.php
http://gigaom.com/2008/02/20/60-ghz60-second-hd-movie-downloads/
http://bwrc.eecs.berkeley.edu/Research/RF/ogre_project/
1. Re:A lot going around by bkr1_2k · 2008-02-22 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that the folks in the article actually have something that works. Vubiq says they have something but it's larger, and costs $12500 for a "development system", whatever that means, vice $10 for the one linked in the original article. All the other links you provided are still working on designs and haven't proven any design at all.
  
  --
  "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Routers by esocid · 2008-02-22 02:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

I would hope that this drops the price of wireless routers from what they are now, about US$60? The only drawback I could see is how the signal is transmitted through materials, as I live in a three story townhouse and I have a room in the furnished basement. I have a Wireless-G router that I have had no trouble with but from the article it says it is for short distances /= 10m with a 60GHz frequency. I would assume this is a high enough frequency to penetrate most household materials including any cement or cinderblocks. I'm all for it since most routers today just create a lot of noise and/or interference and confuse the laptop I have for some reason.

--
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
1. Re:Routers by red+star+hardkore · 2008-02-22 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  I could be wrong, but as far as I know, the shorter the wavelength (higher frequency), the less penetration.
2. Re:Routers by esocid · 2008-02-22 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  That was supposed to be (less than/= 10m). That'll teach me to preview even if I don't use html.
  
  --
  Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
3. Re:Routers by smokytgab · 2008-02-22 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  No kidding, man. I'm still wired because the cost of a good wireless router and the equivalent wireless cards for all the computers I want to use in my house would be infeasible on my current budget (cheapass). Although the researchers seem to see this as a great technology for transmitting stuff to phones/Blu-ray players/crap like that, this would be _amazing_ for household LAN parties. No more cords, no more signal problems for wireless routers, life would be grand. Not to mention the $10 price tag makes me hope that enough companies will start competing that the price might just be reasonable enough for this kind of use. Hell, with this kind of technology, maybe they'll even get around to giving my dorm wireless internet (it's made out of solid concrete and our IT department's about 5 years behind, but one can still try to dream).
4. Re:Routers by kd5ujz · 2008-02-22 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Thats correct. Higher frequencies are more suceptable to reflection by anthing larger than the wavelength. Thats why this device usese a 1cm antenna. This thing will be mostly line of sight.
  
  --
  -William
  God is everything science has yet to explain.
5. Re:Routers by somersault · 2008-02-22 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  You must be new here. Most /.ers soon forget everything they ever learned about penetration within a couple of months of joining.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
6. Re:Routers by Raistlin77 · 2008-02-22 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  I thought that was a prerequisite...
7. Re:Routers by somersault · 2008-02-22 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  If that were the case then we wouldn't be able to get any new members. For most people, the first time they ever plugged in a USB cable was quite a special moment. It takes a little while for the memes to totally eradicate any manly primal urges and associations that were once within.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
8. Re:Routers by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  well, it won't have anything to do with typical wireless routers because that's not what it's designed to do. But that part aside, the $10 price point is WAY WAY WAY too high for a $60 router or even a $150 router.
  
  These chips need to be a fraction of that $10 price, maybe under a buck, maybe as little as 25 cents before they will be cheap enough to put in products people will be willing to pay for. The cost of the chip cannot be a sixth of the cost, to use your $60 example. Routers have far more costs involved than the actual price of the silicon inside. A $60 router might have $5 worth of parts total. The rest is packaging, marketing, patent licenses, labor, engineering, etc. Not to mention profit.
  
  $10 is simply far too expensive to be any good for anything right now. Under a buck, under 50 cents each, then maybe MAYBE it will be worth a look.
9. Re:Routers by Shual · 2008-02-22 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Don't confuse the manufacturing cost of the wireless chip with what you pay for the router. 802.11g chips are around 8$ these days.
Latency? by PolarBearFire · 2008-02-22 02:58 · Score: 1

High transfer speeds is good but without good latency, wireless will not be a replacement for normal broadband for me.
1. Re:Latency? by Guysmiley777 · 2008-02-22 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  With a range of 10 meters this will not be a replacement for normal broadband.
  
  --
  Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
2. Re:Latency? by p3d0 · 2008-02-22 06:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This is one of the dumbest replies I have ever seen.
  
  --
  Patrick Doyle
  I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
"GiFi"??? by gstoddart · 2008-02-22 02:58 · Score: 4, Funny

Wow, do we ever abuse these words.

From "Hi-Fi" (High Fidelity) to "Wi-Fi" (Wireless, but the Fi sounds cool and people vaguely know what you mean) to "GiFi" as gigabit wireless, you've basically lost the actual underlying words.

It almost seems like the whole "Fi" part is now just generally meaning "technology thingy".

So, is a baker PieFi? A politician LieFi? Someone, please, stop the madness. :-P

Cheers

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
1. Re:"GiFi"??? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 03:34 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Right, because everyone remembers that "window" used to literally mean "eye of the wind". No-one cares about the "underlying" words, they're just groups of letters people put together when they discover a new concept they need a new word for.
  
  So what if the "fi" suffix takes on a new meaning, different from its original one? Languages change, that's what they do. The only languages that don't evolve are _extinct_ languages. Get over it.
  
  Disclaimer: IAAL (I am a linguist)
  Captcha: hubris (heh)
2. Re:"GiFi"??? by Bill+Wong · 2008-02-22 03:48 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Wi-Fi stands for Wireless Fidelity as per the Wi-Fi Alliance.
3. Re:"GiFi"??? by realthing02 · 2008-02-22 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, that begs the question ;)
4. Re:"GiFi"??? by gstoddart · 2008-02-22 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  So what if the "fi" suffix takes on a new meaning, different from its original one? Languages change, that's what they do. The only languages that don't evolve are _extinct_ languages. Get over it.
  
  You know, the school of thought that language evolves badly and shouldn't be commented on is just as annoying as thought that language doesn't and shouldn't evolve which you incorrectly attribute to me.
  they're just groups of letters people put together when they discover a new concept they need a new word for
  
  Is the official position of linguists that words are just random collections of letters chosen for convenience without any underlying structure to it? I think I have less respect for linguists now than before.
  
  Of course languages change, that's fine. I'm just pointing out that this one is just weird and fairly unique to modern technology since it's just a lazy shorthand since the second use of "Fi" only happened within the last decade to the best of my knowledge.
  
  Change does happen, not all of it is for the better, and not to be cataloged by academics who try to be objective about such things.
  
  Go look up wanker, linguist boy. ;-)
  
  Cheers
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
5. Re:"GiFi"??? by Evil-G · 2008-02-22 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  > So, is a baker PieFi? A politician LieFi? Someone, please, stop the madness. :-P
  
  You're nearly there - try Pi-Fi and Li-Fi instead, just to make sure it is completely unclear what the meaning may be.
6. Re:"GiFi"??? by tlhIngan · 2008-02-22 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  From "Hi-Fi" (High Fidelity) to "Wi-Fi" (Wireless, but the Fi sounds cool and people vaguely know what you mean) to "GiFi" as gigabit wireless, you've basically lost the actual underlying words.
  
  True, but the WiFi Alliance (the ones behind the "WiFi" name, logo, and certification (as well as the "Wireless x" branding), and completely UNrelated to the IEEE) does it because they want to ensure compatitibility between various products. You do, after all, want to be able to connect your Intel chipset to your Netgear router while your friend's PC uses a D-Link card, for example. So it can be considered "wireless fidelity" in how 802.11-compatible all these devices are to the IEEE spec. (They're also the folks behind WPA while the IEEE and WPA worked to make 802.11i (known as WPA2)).
  
  Alas, even certificated devices often have issues connecting in these modes, but that's another problem.
7. Re:"GiFi"??? by flyingfsck · 2008-02-22 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, GIFI stands for General Index Of Financial Information! Created by the Canada Revenue Agency in 1999, the GIFI is a system which assigns a unique code to a list of items commonly found on income statements, balance sheets, and statements of retained earnings. The purpose of the GIFI is to allow the CRA to collect and process financial information more efficiently; for instance, the GIFI lets the CRA validate tax information electronically rather than manually. Unpleasant...
  
  --
  Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
8. Re:"GiFi"??? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  You forgot sci-fi.
9. Re:"GiFi"??? by RealGrouchy · 2008-02-22 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  So, is a baker PieFi? A politician LieFi? Someone, please, stop the madness. WhyFi?
  
  - RG>
  
  --
  Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
10. Re:"GiFi"??? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 11:54 · Score: 0
  
  Linguists don't decide anything, we just observe what happens. There is no "good" or "bad" evolution of languages; sometimes etymology makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. I wouldn't say terms are created "randomly", but they definitely aren't created according to strict logical criteria.
  
  Consider the word "homophobe", for instance. Take it apart and you get "homo", same, and "phobos", fear/dislike. Logically, it would describe someone who dislikes others who are similar to them. But it doesn't mean this, we all know what it means. The point is, etymology and "literal" meaning don't matter. We make noise with our mouth (or create symbols with our fingers) in order to communicate an idea, and the idea gets through. An etymology that makes sense is just an added bonus, but definitely isn't necessary.
  
  If "Gi-Fi" gets adopted by english speakers (that is, after all, by far the most relevant criteria to determine whether a word is correct), then its etymology will be something along the lines of "from the early wireless technology 'Wi-Fi', with the suffix replaced by 'Gi' to indicate transmission speeds in the Gigabit/s range". Plenty of words have this kind of etymology, and only fools think they're doing the language a favour by trying to fight against this. The fight was lost centuries before we were born, so what's the point?
11. Re:"GiFi"??? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 16:35 · Score: 0
  
  From wikipedia:
  
  Wi-Fi (pronounced wye fye, IPA: /wafa/), a wireless-technology brand owned by the Wi-Fi Alliance, promotes standards with the aim of improving the interoperability of wireless local area network products based on the IEEE 802.11 standards. Common applications for Wi-Fi include Internet and VoIP phone access, gaming, and network connectivity for consumer electronics such as televisions, DVD players, and digital cameras.
  
  Wi-Fi is an abbreviation of Wireless Fidelity.
12. Re:"GiFi"??? by The+trees · 2008-02-22 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  It almost seems like the whole "Fi" part is now just generally meaning "technology thingy". So, is a baker PieFi? A politician LieFi? Someone, please, stop the madness. :-P
  Technology thingy, remember? So those terms only apply if you have a robot baker or robot politician.
  
  --
  $ make work
  make: *** No rule to make target `work'. Stop.
Wow by eclectro · 2008-02-22 02:59 · Score: 3, Funny

This thing does so much, that if anything can get me a date, this chip can.

--
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
1. Re:Wow by gstoddart · 2008-02-22 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  This thing does so much, that if anything can get me a date, this chip can.
  
  Oh, I'm sorry, didn't you get the memo? Believing a chip will get you a date disqualifies you from getting a date.
  
  The women updated the rules again.
  
  Cheers
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
2. Re:Wow by DeadChobi · 2008-02-22 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  They do that every time we discover one of their rules. It keeps us on our toes, as well as providing them with hours of entertainment as they describe our latest fuckup to all their friends and coworkers.
  
  --
  SRSLY.
3. Re:Wow by LuxMaker · 2008-02-22 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  This thing does so much, that if anything can get me a date, this chip can.
  
  No, that would be the Gay-Fi chip you are looking for. ;)
  
  --
  I regret that I only have one mod point to give per post.
Hot Gifi by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 02:59 · Score: 0

so the chip area is 25 sq mm and the power consumption is 2 watts

thats one hot chip...
X-Rays by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 03:00 · Score: 0

Does it show pictures of your bones too?
1. Re:X-Rays by red+star+hardkore · 2008-02-22 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  X-rays are between 10^12(THz) and 10^15(EHz) rather than 10^9(GHz).
Wireless Mouse by Spazmania · 2008-02-22 03:00 · Score: 1

OKay, so I can seriously power up my wireless mouse. What else is it good for?

--
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
1. Re:Wireless Mouse by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 03:07 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  How about simply setting your ipod or smart phone near your computer and having everything sync up lickety split without having to use a cable.
  
  Or how about a wireless connection between a set-top box and the TV that is mounted a couple feet up on the wall? Or a wireless connection between a computer and the display.
  
  Or instantly creating a local network of all computers in a room?
  
  Or ...
2. Re:Wireless Mouse by pushing-robot · 2008-02-22 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Wireless HDTV (and computer monitors). Imagine a home theater system sans AV cables.
  
  And wireless 5Gbit networking would be awesome, even if you did need a tiny repeater every 30 feet.
  
  --
  How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
3. Re:Wireless Mouse by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  ah, the irony of slashdork rears it's ugly head once again. why bother to mention ipod when they have zero wireless support? at least microsoft tries to give the customer what they want in this area but the slashlemmings just continue to caw on about apple.
4. Re:Wireless Mouse by cybernanga · 2008-02-22 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Traditional iPods have had no wireless support until now because of battery life issues. (Same reason the iPhone has no 3G). As this is a new technology with low power-consumption, it may be included in the next versions.
  
  Additionally, if you look at the latest iPods, (iPod Touch, and iPhone) they DO have wireless support.
  
  --
  www.Buy-Proxy.com - A "buyer-driven" global marketplace.
5. Re:Wireless Mouse by Spazmania · 2008-02-22 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  Imagine a home theater system sans cables.
  
  Until you can figure out how to snatch lots of power from the ether, you'll have to keep dreaming about that one.
  
  Besides, as noted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency, 60ghz is subject to attenuation due to resonance with oxygen molecules. How do you feel about watching TV with a gas mask?
  
  --
  Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Potential uses by davidwr · 2008-02-22 03:02 · Score: 1

Home entertainment centers: No more nasty cables.

NAT drive near PC or wireless hub: ditto

Mobile phone/bluetooth: Upload those movies before your next plane trip.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Translation by Anita+Coney · 2008-02-22 03:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Best of all, the chip is only about a year away from public release, and will only cost around US $9.20 to produce"

To translate: This is vaporware, it may never be released in our lifetime, it may never actually work, and I have no fricken clue as to what it will actually cost.

--
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
1. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 03:19 · Score: 0
  
  from the article: ... To translate: This is vaporware ...
  
  Given the stated chip area (25 sq mm) and the stated power consumed (2 watts) I'm not sure that this is vaporware but it may get damn close to becoming liquidware (liquid silicon)
2. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 03:50 · Score: 0
  
  You are likely right about this specific product, but this kind of technology is coming fast. Sadly, what these guy are real going to do is soak up as many patents as possible, then wait until someone does finally make a profitable product and sue.
3. Re:Translation by Jamil+Karim · 2008-02-22 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  "Best of all, the chip is only about a year away from public release, and will only cost around US $9.20 to produce"
  
  To translate: This is vaporware, it may never be released in our lifetime, it may never actually work, and I have no fricken clue as to what it will actually cost. Next year's model has five 10 pound weights attached to the device. A user just has to lift the weights, and as they fall, they power the chip for 4 hours!!! When they reach the bottom, just move them back to the top!
4. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  Too right mate! Also, if one tiny antenna can read it from 5 feet, then an array of 100,000 tiny antennas in a parabolic dish with noise canceling software can read it from 1000 feet away. Oops, I'll bet they are sending everything in the clear to make it easy. Same lame excuses for lame security in WEP and Bluetooth.
5. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  Who in the world rated this absurdly jaded and needlessly negative comment as insightful?
Only Cost $9.20 to Produce... by eno2001 · 2008-02-22 03:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

...and will cost $500 to get in your grubby paws. That is until the amazing powers of supply and demand take effect and the price drops over an unjustifiable period of time. The demand for 5G wireless will be huge...

--
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
1. Re:Only Cost $9.20 to Produce... by IndustrialComplex · 2008-02-22 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  If it costs $500, then the demand will probably not be as huge as you imagine.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
2. Re:Only Cost $9.20 to Produce... by Dan541 · 2008-02-22 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  ...and will cost $500 to get in your grubby paws. That is until the amazing powers of supply and demand take effect and the price drops over an unjustifiable period of time. The demand for 5G wireless will be huge... Considering its range why not just use a cable its allot cheaper.
  
  I don't see any real use for this it lacks the range to provide Internet access to ALL of my house and I hardly need high speed data transfer to my mouse.
  
  ~Dan
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
3. Re:Only Cost $9.20 to Produce... by bkr1_2k · 2008-02-22 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  You might not need it to your mouse, but would you want it to your billion inch HD plazma hanging on the wall so you don't need to run cables? There are plenty of uses for this. No, none of them are necessary and it's certainly more expensive than cables, for now, but more uses will present themselves in the future too. People didn't used to have any need of a home computer, but that didn't stop the industry from developing such that it's considered a standard appliance in most houses (in developed countries) these days.
  
  --
  "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
4. Re:Only Cost $9.20 to Produce... by SuiteSisterMary · 2008-02-22 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  I, for one, would love to get rid of the massive collection of cables in my home theater. I, for one, would love being able to stop playing the 'do I have an open component/HDMI/optical/coax/whatever port' game. I, for one, would love to be able to buy a new piece of kit, plug it in, stick it on it's shelf, and pair it with the video display and audio receiver, bluetooth style, and that's IT. It just works at that point.
  
  --
  Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Trademark Infringement by DogAlmity · 2008-02-22 03:09 · Score: 4, Funny

There's already a gay internet cafe near my house called Guy-Fi, and I think they're gonna be pissed.
What about interference problems? by red+star+hardkore · 2008-02-22 03:12 · Score: 1

As it's such a high frequency that according to some quick research is highly susceptible to interference, wouldn't that make it difficult to integrate into a laptop or similar? And I suppose we could forget about internal cards for desktops, or expansion cards, as the steel/aluminium chassis' of PC's would block the signal?
1. Re:What about interference problems? by EmagGeek · 2008-02-22 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  At 60GHz, interference from WHAT? That's a very uncrowded part of the spectrum and there isn't too much natural noise up that high, let alone man made.
  
  Care to cite that "quick research?"
2 Watts? by Undead+Ed · 2008-02-22 03:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't think so.

The dimensions that are discussed are unrealistic when considering heat dissipation let alone power conduction at that scale.

Further, it is a far cry from ideal lab results to real world conditions with the myriad of problems facing super high frequency technology!

I smell a rain dance - a promotional announcement to attract financial angels.

Ed
1. Re:2 Watts? by smellsofbikes · 2008-02-22 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  My company is putting 600mW through 9mm^2, (switched through on-die mosfets) so 2000mW through 25mm^2 is high but not actually delusional. However, that 9mm^2 is the actual die size, not the package size. I don't know which they're talking about. If they're shady about package size, they'll quote die size, but if they're actually quoting package size then they're a big step closer to delusional.
  
  --
  Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
2. Re:2 Watts? by Undead+Ed · 2008-02-22 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  "My company is putting 600mW through 9mm^2"
  
  Impressive. Still, I expect you are switching into a resistive load.
  
  These people are talking about 'consuming' 2 watts with an undetermined gigahertz RF output on CMOS. Think standing waves. Think trying to push that kind of output through a 1 mm antenna.
  
  I have played a little with WiFi transceivers putting out 1/10th that power on much larger chips and they run hot.
  
  Just sounds too good to be true.
  
  Ed
3. Re:2 Watts? by smellsofbikes · 2008-02-22 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'm about as far from being an RF engineer as possible, while still holding the title of electron-rassler.
  What we're making are switching power supply chips, so this is the control circuitry and FET that are switching into a big inductor and capacitor -- so there is some excitement past just resistive loads. But, still, we don't ever have the FET in between 'off' and 'on' for more than a nanosecond. I don't know anything about digital RF, but it's hard for me to imagine they can switch a big FET that fast, and if they're spending any time in the middle at all, they have a very serious heat dissipation problem. So, yeah, I agree -- it seems questionable at best. If they can do it, they've got some great engineers.
  
  --
  Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
4. Re:2 Watts? by mako1138 · 2008-02-22 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, a 2W PA at 60 GHz would be very impressive.
  
  The guy has some publications. There's a conference paper called "Implementation of a Gigabit Per Second Millimetre Wave Transceiver on CMOS", but I don't have access to IEEE papers, unfortunately.
  
  Here's a 60 GHz PA that's about 50 mW: http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~sorinv/papers/rfic_06_tyao.pdf
  
  This one claims 23 dBm out (200 mW): http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4117364
  
  So maybe it's some class-E deal.
5. Re:2 Watts? by Undead+Ed · 2008-02-22 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  "Here's a 60 GHz PA that's about 50 mW"
  
  Now that is fascinating!
  
  Perhaps 2 watts at these frequencies isn't out of the question.
  
  Thanks for the heads up.
  
  Ed
huge power consumption by cerelib · 2008-02-22 03:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

His chip uses only a tiny one-millimetre-wide antenna and less than two watts of power
Typically, these types of networks measure power consumption in mW, not W.
1. Re:huge power consumption by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  For smaller devices, yes, that is a dampening fact. What about HDTVs and cable boxes? Would this be enough wireless bandwidth to take away the cables from your home theatre rig and a low enough wattage (compared to the overall usage of the device in which the chip is housed) to make it's power consumption acceptable?
2. Re:huge power consumption by fenrisulfur · 2008-02-22 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  I think you mixed up power consumption for power output.
  But I may be wrong.
3. Re:huge power consumption by josh82 · 2008-02-22 06:43 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  "His chip uses only a tiny one-millimetre-wide antenna and less than two watts of power"
  
  "Typically, these types of networks measure power consumption in mW, not W."
  
  All right: two thousand milliwatts then, smartass.
4. Re:huge power consumption by vio · 2008-02-22 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Curious myself, I found some benchmarks somewhere measuring wireless usage...
  
  http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3597&article=wireless+and+battery+power
  
  Seems like a "regular" (g/n) wireless radio uses between 0.5W and 1.5W depending on what its doing... while the 5-Gbps device uses 2W while transferring significantly faster (but over a way shorter distance)...
  
  I didn't see any measurements in mW, but whatever.
5. Re:huge power consumption by cerelib · 2008-02-22 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  This and WiFi have completely different uses. The types of network devices I was talking about are Bluetooth and ZigBee. If it consumes ~2W, then it probably can't be used, practically or efficiently, in these types of devices. So who is going to use this?
Two watts by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 03:16 · Score: 0

This device is a power hungry speed demon. This clearly isn't wireless mouse territory.
GiFi? by sm62704 · 2008-02-22 03:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Short for "GirlFriend"? Ok, I was joking there but I'm still wondering what in the hell the "fi" is for. WiFi the Wi is "wide" and GiFi the Gi is obviously "gigabit". The old "HiFi" stood for "high fidelity".

WTF does "Fi" stand for in WiFi and GiFi?

--
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
1. Re:GiFi? by djasbestos · 2008-02-22 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  I was told "Wired Fidelity" at one point, touting the reliability of WiFi and comparable speed (initially) to 10 Mbit hardline ethernet..."it's like ethernet except no wires!". Take that for a what you will.
2. Re:GiFi? by tolan-b · 2008-02-22 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  The Wi in WiFi is for wireless.
  
  The Fi clearly has been taken from Hi-Fi so means fidelity, which obviously means nothing in this case and they've just made something up that sounds like something peple are used to.
  
  *checks wikipedia* Yep apparently it's meant to be Wireless Fidelity. Which is a load of shite imho.
3. Re:GiFi? by tolan-b · 2008-02-22 03:30 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Here's some more info. Yep it's just a brand name. The WIFi alliance referred to it in slogans as wireless fidelity though, even though it doesn't mean anything, and apparently now they're trying to backtrack on it.
  
  http://www.teleclick.ca/2005/12/what-is-the-true-meaning-of-wi-fi/
4. Re:GiFi? by sm62704 · 2008-02-22 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Reliability=fidelity? Dunno, sounds dubious to me. I think it was some originality-challenged ass burger that didn't know what HiFi stood for but thought it sounded cool. But I keep hoping I'm wrong.
  
  TWAIN, now, that's a good one, I like TWAIN.
  
  --
  mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
5. Re:GiFi? by sm62704 · 2008-02-22 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  The Wi in WiFi is for wireless.
  
  That part's obvious, the Fi makes me think somebody uncool is trying to be cool.
  
  --
  mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
6. Re:GiFi? by djasbestos · 2008-02-22 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Just what I heard, hehehe. I concur with your assessment. But if it hadn't been some lamewad, I wouldn't have the urbane name of my WAP: WizzleFizzle
7. Re:GiFi? by tolan-b · 2008-03-04 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  I thought so too, but the OP said it stood for wide.
2W???? by EmagGeek · 2008-02-22 03:27 · Score: 1

In a 5mm package, that would probably cause rapid failure due to heat without some form of high-flux heat sinking capability.

If it's a QFN package, it probably has a thermal relief slug, but still, 2W is a boatload of energy to dissipate.
Only? by QuietLagoon · 2008-02-22 03:28 · Score: 1

power consumption of only 2 W
Two watts of power usage is at conflict with the form factor. That amount of power usage will prevent the device from being used in items which need the tiny form factor.
nothing to do with routers by daniel422 · 2008-02-22 03:40 · Score: 1

This will have nothing to do with routers or wireless internet access of any kind. This will strictly be for unit-unit communication that is line of sight (since 60GHz won't penetrate ANYTHING), can't use wires, and needs high speed. It is NOT a bluetooth replacement or WUSB replacement. I'm trying to think of the applications for this, since line of sight will be critical and there are few things I can think of that would require 5Gbps and still be line of sight. Bluetooth is still fairly expensive to implement - despite the crappy $20 BT units you can buy in the store today. A BT module - that is a complete OEM bluetooth solution that is pre FCC and BT certified costs about $16-$20. Doing discrete designs can bring this down significantly.
$10 is cheap for such a chip. That's a final consumer cost of at least $50. This ain't gonna help your wifi.
1. Re:nothing to do with routers by Raistlin77 · 2008-02-22 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  I'm trying to think of the applications for this, since line of sight will be critical and there are few things I can think of that would require 5Gbps and still be line of sight.
  
  Home theater maybe? All of your equipment can be in a location other than the front of the room, leaving just the display and speakers in the general viewing area (as in seen from guests viewing positions), and the chip(s) could be used to transmit wireless HD audio and video to the display and speakers.
2. Re:nothing to do with routers by DocWat232 · 2008-02-22 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  Home theater would be great. Then there wouldn't be any wires for the cat to chew on!
  
  --
  DocWat232
3. Re:nothing to do with routers by daniel422 · 2008-02-24 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I thought of that later, too. That's the one good consumer use I could see for this product. I'm still curious about the penetration ability of 60GHz. Pure line of sight could be a problem. Otherwise it seems destined for industrial interconnects - like one FPGA to another board to board but without wires. 5Gbps is pretty darn fast. This chip might only be $10, but it's associated components that can drive 5G data rates will be more expensive, I think. That alone could make this cost prohibitive for home theater in the short term. The broadcast guys are moving up to 3G data rates on their serial digital video transmissions (that's full 1080p with embedded audio). Cost is less an object for them - it might fit there also.
Price per chip is meaningless by Rgb465 · 2008-02-22 03:44 · Score: 1

Price per chip is meaningless -- just look at CAN controllers. Self-contained CAN transceiver ICs can be found for as cheap as a dollar a piece, but finding a usable USB CAN dongle or PCMCIA card for less than $200 is an exercise in masochism.
Solar Powered Networking by zakeria · 2008-02-22 04:02 · Score: 1

If these chips become reality I'll be spreading them all over the place up tree's ontop of buildings wow I can see it now the people's network, now nobody can stop us file sharing.
Hotspots by Tarlus · 2008-02-22 04:06 · Score: 3, Funny

So if local coffee shops offer internet access with one of these, they can advertise that they have wireless G-spots!

--
/* No Comment */
1. Re:Hotspots by sctaylorcan · 2008-02-22 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  So if local coffee shops offer internet access with one of these, they can advertise that they have wireless G-spots!
  ... which would finally raise above zero the probability of a /.er ever finding said spot :)
I hope they dont screw up by johnsie · 2008-02-22 04:11 · Score: 0

They screwed up bluetooth on phones... It could've been so much better if they'd let people send sms messages to people nearby using bluetooth or having bluetooth chat on all phones. Then I'd be able to stalk people while commuting.
Bring it on by OxFF52 · 2008-02-22 04:30 · Score: 2, Informative

While they are the first ones out of the gate with an all-in-one CMOS solution, I doubt they will be the only ones. Look for Intel to have something available later this year (with the marketing power to make it successful). What we need now is someone like Sony or Toshiba to jump on board so that TVs (er, should I say monitors now) and audio receivers are integrated as well.

I mean WOW... $10 for something that has the transceiver and antenna on ONE single CMOS chip is awesome. Prior technologies required so silicon and multiple chips, etc. This will be huge!

Set-top-boxes will be the LAST ones to get involved. This is unfortunate since they are essentially what 90% of the population will be looking for (cable, satellite, IPTV).

I've seen a lot of responses whether this will be a replacement for blue-tooth or USB. Well, it's not really in the same category, so NO, it won't be either of those. USB is wired, bluetooth is not, but GiFi could really be so much more (I really hate the term GiFi and prefer "WirelessHD"). In that respect (see http://www.wirelesshd.org/), it should really be thought of as an ad-hoc wireless network... not a TCP/IP network, but one dedicated to the coordination of media transmitters and receivers. At least that is my hope, because if it gets shoe-horned into something that already exists like WiFi, or bluetooth it will be a total waste of energy.

--
programming myself into obsolescence
Oh, Wirelesss. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 04:36 · Score: 1, Funny

And here I thought that they finally got the GIF format to work with more than 256 colors.
Re:Pronunciation of Gi-Fi...in Laguna Beach = by BoRegardless · 2008-02-22 04:37 · Score: 1

Guy Fi ;-)
Possible apps by Amphetam1ne · 2008-02-22 04:58 · Score: 1

Lillypad mesh networks anyone?

Or how about for filesharing? put this in a little box with a chunk of SSS or a microdrive and a USB2. Upload a list of keywords to search for. Walk around all day letting the device trade files with random people on the street. Plug into PC and see what you've caught. File trawling.

--
I only buy pepper spray that's been tested on anti-vivisectionists.
Jiffy-Tube by goombah99 · 2008-02-22 05:08 · Score: 1

Won't that not mean Jiffy-Tube. Compression of course would be a way to lube the jiffy tube.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Wireless link != cable by rhyre417 · 2008-02-22 05:09 · Score: 1

>Nobody's going to pay upwards of $35 for a glorified USB cable. The point here, is you pay $10 per device for connection to everything else. The device is part of a network, not a point-to-point link. I'll certainly keep my Gigabit-connected devices within 10m of each other when it suits me. Time for Roadrunner would quit screwing w/ DNS (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20016620-TWC-Austin-with-domain-redirect-now) and focus on increasing their speed to 100Mbps.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2008-02-22 05:15 · Score: 1, Funny

Comment removed based on user account deletion
HDMI - UWB - WiHD by OxFF52 · 2008-02-22 05:16 · Score: 1

Australia beats the US and Japan in coming up with a cheap CMOS chip designed to deliver the 60 Ghz solution for WirelessHD (see http://www.wirelesshd.org/). That's an incredible feet considering IBM started this effort over two years ago and has yet to deliver a workable solution; however, the article does mention that the University "collaborated" with IBM.

Ultimately however, the companies who are already working together on a WirelessHD solution (such as Intel, LG, Toshiba, and Sony, to name a few) already have working products in the market for Ultrawideband (UWB). Many of you will be purchasing these this Christmas (2008) to offset expensive HDMI cables and connect your HDTV to a PC/Media server in another room. If the 60 Ghz frequency gets approval from the FCC (which will take years), then look for WirelessHD to replace UWB by 2010.

--
programming myself into obsolescence
Combine with mesh networks?! by LiquidDeath · 2008-02-22 05:30 · Score: 1

I figure combine this w/ mesh networks and this could easily replace WiFi
And how does it connect to the computer? by Brycycle · 2008-02-22 05:31 · Score: 1

No, I haven't RTFA, and maybe it explains this for me, but I wonder how they plan on connecting such a device? I'm mean other than USB 3.0, which has a fairly close bandwidth, what other port has enough bandwidth to take in a full load?
1. Re:And how does it connect to the computer? by OrangeTide · 2008-02-22 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  CardBus, PCI, local bus.
  
  put the device on a laptop's mainboard or on a device's internal bus. your question is like asking if you can run a USB host controller over your USB and Firewire 400 ports. no there isn't enough bandwidth for the overhead, and no it doesn't make sense to connect it that way.
  
  the 10m range means it's not really a substitute for 802.11. Also 60GHz range is, to the best of my knowledge, not very effective at going through walls.
  
  I can see it as a crazy fast substitute for bluetooth with tremendous power requirements. let's assume you don't need to draw 2W for very long on a battery powered device. Really I think it has the most promise as a wireless replacement for Firewire for doing A/V stuff. The price point is right for putting in pro-sumer audio/video equipment and camcorders. but it's not the right price for putting in a $30 wireless router (802.11 chips are way cheaper) or a $50 wireless mouse (bluetooth is slightly more power friendly and massively cheaper). Although a gaming mouse that needs 5Gbps because it has so many DPIs would be an interesting novelty. Would the optical sensor be able to see bacteria then?
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
You need to brush up on waves by Anonymous Coward · 2008-02-22 05:45 · Score: 0

Actually, the effect would be the exact opposite. The higher the frequency, the easier it's blocked, so rather than going through cement, it might be blocked by a piece of paper.

f = 1 / wavelength => Longer wavelength means shorter frequency, smaller wavelength means higher frequency

The longer the wavelength, the better it is for travelling large distances and minimizing interference. That's the reason the 600 MHz range is so valuable (remember the auction Google, Apple and the rest are bidding on?). However, the larger the frequency, the more bandwidth you have, though it takes more power to transmit at that frequency & AFAIK, there's also other design issues to solve.
O-rama by goombah99 · 2008-02-22 06:32 · Score: 1

there was a time in the 50's and 60's when everything new had the suffix O-rama. Now it's Obama.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Prototype available now by morcheeba · 2008-02-22 06:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've been working on a totally wireless monitor for years, and I've almost got the solution - details here.

To make it the most efficient, I use a directed beam of energy. I also pre-convert that energy to photons before sending it, so that the monitor won't have to waste energy doing the conversion. I also pre-modulate the signal spatially so that I only send the energy needed -- again, another win for efficiency.

--
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
Next, we still its rib by Chabil+Ha' · 2008-02-22 06:56 · Score: 1

and create GalFi

--
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
Power and Size of Chip by mkiwi · 2008-02-22 10:26 · Score: 1

If the summary is correct then there is 2W inside a 5mm x 5mm area (plus some height). This is a lot of power for that amount of space. (i.e. touch it and you get a really severe burn.)

I'd be interested to see if they can get any products to use this chip that can be plastic.
Anteana Optional by jameskojiro · 2008-02-22 11:01 · Score: 1

Would having another deally booper hooked up to this chip increase range?

--
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Yes, but what does GIFI have to do with by einhverfr · 2008-02-22 11:42 · Score: 1

wireless communications?

GIFI stands for Generan Index of Financial Information, and is a system used in many countries to map bookkeeping accounts to tax categories.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Delivery of Flowers and Gifts by shiana123 · 2008-02-23 01:22 · Score: 1

It was a amazing experience to visit this website and read the articles and contents. http://www.saadepunjab.com/