Slashdot Mirror


1Gbps Optical Wireless Network Might Replace Wi-Fi

Mark.JUK writes "Pennsylvania State University has developed a new method of indoor Optical Wireless network that does not require a line-of-sight and runs at speeds of 1Gbps+. The system uses a high-powered laser diode — a device that converts electricity into light — as the optical transmitter and an avalanche photo diode — a device that converts light to electricity — as the receiver. The light bounces off the walls and is picked up by the receiver. Traditional radio frequency systems (Wi-Fi , WiMAX etc.) do not require line of sight transmission, but can pass through some substances and so present a security problem. Light, in a room without windows, will not escape the room, improving security."

30 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. stop closing that door by weirdcrashingnoises · · Score: 3, Funny

    it's interrupting my downloads!

    --
    sigs... don't talk to me about sigs....
    1. Re:stop closing that door by ionix5891 · · Score: 5, Funny

      dont look at the data-stream with remaining eye

    2. Re:stop closing that door by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Funny

      Stop opening my door! The download is done!!

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  2. Or, you could just use cables by ClosedSource · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is only going to work in the small area that the laser can get to, so cables might be a better solution.

    1. Re:Or, you could just use cables by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It depends what you're wanting it for. This has tremendous potential in areas like NY City and Tokyo where there's enough population density that traditional wireless is hard to do. Even here in a relatively sparsely populated part of Seattle, there's something like 8 access points in use at most times. The added security would be a bonus, just pull down black out curtains when you want to block it completely rather than mostly.

      But you still get the mobility to move around the room. I suppose in the future you could even get a mesh set up as well for going room to room.

  3. Useless for me by aBaldrich · · Score: 5, Funny

    I like to shut the door of my room while watching my movies and other stuff.

    --
    In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
    1. Re:Useless for me by dotgain · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well done! You got the joke!

    2. Re:Useless for me by SteelFist · · Score: 5, Funny

      My room doesn't have a door, you insensitive clod! :(

      Caught one too many times, I take it?

    3. Re:Useless for me by santiagodraco · · Score: 2, Funny

      Neither does your mom's! Shazam!

    4. Re:Useless for me by d'fim · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you don't know, then you've just ruined all your potential jokes about having had sex with her.

      --
      Adherence to the truth is a form of disloyalty.
  4. Headaches... by venkateshkumar99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the LASER is anywhere in the visual spectrum, the whole house could become a perpetual disco ;)

    1. Re:Headaches... by darkpixel2k · · Score: 2, Funny

      or seizure generator!

      Only if you use bittorrent...

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    2. Re:Headaches... by sillybilly · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Persistence of vision kicks in above 25 Hz, and some people can still sense an 85-100 Hz refresh on CRT monitors with their periferal vision, but anything vibrating at a higher frequency is oblivious to the eyes. I'm guessing stuff transmitting in the GBit/s range is operating near 1GHz or close to it, which is well above the 100 Hz flicker you can see. If anything, the laser hitting you in the eyes, especially if it's infrared and invisible, might be the problem.
      One of the issues becomes the data interference from multipath reflection, that used to be a problem with nondirectional rabbit ear antennas in television. The speed of light is 3x10^8 m/s, the frequency we talk about is 1x10^9 /s, so that gives a wavelength for the modulated signal of 0.3 m, or about 1 foot. So path differences on this order or greater cause interference - light reflected off the far corner carrying the old databit comes in 10 nanoseconds later than the light reflecting from the nearby wall, carrying the current databit. This of course can be avoided if the path is restricted, such as aiming to a white spot on a wall, and then focusing a telescope with full magnification zoom onto that spot. This should be cheaper than running cables, however people walking through the room blocking line of sight have to be considered, and the ease of knocking the computer table/devices out of alignment. But a homing-zooming type wide viewfield webcam setup that finds you 10 different dots on the wall, and tells you to pick the one talking to you in software, then zooming in onto that dot, and keeping homed in onto it, that could be done. Or something transparent and automated, such as in a netcafe, you get assigned a new ID/key combo, and you type that in, and the computer goes from dot to dot, and shoots a reply dot 2 cm to the left of the dot, to try to establish handshake, and tries each dot iteratively til it finds the one belonging to it.
      I think even now there is a way to listen to people having conversations by the modulation the window puts onto a reflected infrared laser light. There is already technology that extracts info from laser dots on a wall.
      Still, software can do something about weeding out some of the multipath noise. Or even just focus on a small area of the wall, but broadcast the reply. In a spatially broadcast and not limited to a dot reply world everyone shares the same channel, and from the encoded info the master router station has to decipher which packet came from who. Less bandwidth, but also less hardware, as the router has to have a laser aiming for each of the channels onto a separate spot on the wall. Also, I haven't talked about repeaters, that go around doors and rooms and staircases, possibly being blocked by people walking there. With staircases pulling a wire through the floor might be more straightforward. Or a combo - dot on the wall within a room, and short cabling intra-floor or throught he walls.

    3. Re:Headaches... by Shatrat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm going on what I know about fiber, but I assume the same holds true for air but with higher values of attenuation and maybe a shift up or down in frequency.
      Basically at frequencies of 1310 nanometers and lower your attenuation is mainly due to scattering.
      Your photon will scatter off any imperfection in the medium larger than it's wavelength so short wavelengths scatter a lot. This continues in fiber up to around 1600 NM where the main cause of attenuation becomes absorbtion of the photon by the atoms it is passing through.
      Another problem with this tech that I didn't think of is dispersion. Dispersion is what makes multimode fiber only good up to around 500 meters. Multimode fiber is going to produce a lot less modal dispersion than something with as many modes as a room. I recommend reading up on single-mode and multimode fiber and modal and chromatic dispersion. It's pretty cool stuff from a geeky perspective.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  5. Ah, and is it Useful? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 3, Informative

    > Light, in a room without windows, will not escape the room, improving security.

    Although at a cost? This system might be useful for Universities that need to provide wireless to a hundred computers in the same room, but it would be almost useless for homes and such, where one of the big reasons to go wireless is to avoid the need to rewire the house. To use a 1 Gbps signal, you'd need a hard-line to the room.

    The other point is that for most applications, it's simply unnecessary to improve over the speed of modern wireless.

    Still, there are a few niches where this would be useful, and it sounds like a really fun idea to develop.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  6. security by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How many homes don't have windows? Of those homes, how often is it that there is a need to connect with a computer inside a closed room? Any system that can connect to a computer inside a closed room can also be connected to from outside the house. Any system that can't be connected to from outside the house also can not connect to a system with the door shut. The number of times the signal can bounce off walls would significantly affect the range of the system. So while a direct path between floors of a house may be 10 meters, the path through the house from the top floor going around everything that is opaque to the system might be 50-60 meters and quite possibly out of range.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  7. Naturally by Junta · · Score: 5, Funny

    Light, in a room without windows, will not escape the room, improving security.

    As usual, Windows makes networking less secure, why am I not surprised.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  8. Windows = A security hazard by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Light, in a room without windows, will not escape the room, improving security."

    Well duh, everyone knows that avoiding Windows improves your security.

  9. Wrong on one count by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The other point is that for most applications, it's simply unnecessary to improve over the speed of modern wireless.

    Uh huh, and 640K should be enough for anyone, and there's no reason to go to broadband when a regular old analog modem is sufficient for most applications, and...well you probably get my point by now.

    1. Re:Wrong on one count by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...And does anyone ever get internet connections even -close- to the 54 MB/Sec of wireless G? If you are streaming media throughout a home its nice, but most people don't use their wi-fi for that, they use it for internet where the primary bottleneck is the internet service, not the wireless router.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Wrong on one count by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      640KB is enough for some people. 6.4MB is enough for a few more, 64MB for a lot more, 640MB for a lot of people. Each increment increases the things you can do. 64KB is enough for editing text. 640KB for rich text and small images. 6.4MB for larger images. 64MB for large raw images. 640MB for SD video. 6.4GB for HD video. 64GB for volumetric 3D images (the visible human dataset is around 40GB). 640GB for volumetric 3D movies. Are there things that 640GB isn't enough for? Almost certainly, but the number of people wanting to do them is relatively small. Far more people want to edit text than want to edit volumetric data.

      In terms of network speed, 802.11n is fast enough to stream HD video. BluRay movies are at most 50Mb/s, while 802.11n has a theoretical speed of 300Mb/s and can get 50Mb/s in the real world quite happily. Are there uses where it's not fast enough? Sure, but not many yet. Eventually it probably will become common to do things that make 802.11n seem slow, but it isn't yet. The only reason why GigE was deployed in a lot of places was that it was as cheap as 100Mbit Ethernet.

      I moved from 100Mb/s wired Ethernet to 802.11g because, for most uses, the convenience of not having to use a wire was more useful than the extra speed. From there, I'd rather move to 802.11n and have one access point for the house than 1Gb/s optical networking and need one in every room.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  10. HP used to sell a product like this by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IR office networks were popular around 15 years ago. HP used to have a "NetBeame" IR access point product line. (There's one on eBay for $49.) There's Linux support for IRNet. The Infrared Data Association is already promoting gigabit IrDA.

    The concept of diffuse IR networking works fine, but it never really caught on. You can usually get a signal with one bounce, typically off the ceiling, but more than one bounce and it tends not to work. You don't get any useful diffraction around obstacles at IR frequencies, so shadows are a problem. If you populate the ceiling with little IR domes, it works fine, and I've seen that done, but it's obsolete technology now.

  11. unlikely to get anywhere by v1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    users won't tolerate very intermittent connections, and won't tolerate having to aim their system at all. I remember using irda brirefly, and it was very touchy.

    Wifi is generally omnidirectional. light doesn't work that way - you can get a very strong signal 20 feet from it, or a nonexistent signal six inches away, if you're in a bad spot. And this effect occurs in both directions, and has different deadzones. So not only are you having a problem receiving, you're also having a differnt problem sending, requiring a great deal more adjustment to get communications going. Having to solve two positional problems simultaneously effectively quadruples the difficulty of the task.

    It's also going to be a great deal more environmentally sensitive. You can drop a bar or two if someone sets their laptop bag down beside your laptop and clouds direct line between you and the access point. Imagine how much worse that can get with light, and at a greater distance - you won't just lose a bar or two, you're almost certain to get completely disconnected. A couple chatting as they walk down the hall ten feet from you could ground you for several seconds, giving you absolutely no hint of what caused it.

    No, this technology's not going anywhere. Sure it works, but it's nowhere near as reliable as the public will demand. Look how badly people flip out now over an occasional dropped call.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  12. What happens if... by magsol · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...a friend of mine runs into the room in the middle of a download and starts playing with a flashlight?

    --
    "I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
  13. Re:Light cant pass thru walls by yup2000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    since when can't lasers pass through walls!? :) Use a BIGGER lazer!

  14. windowless rooms by johnrpenner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    great - so now millions of drones will have to sit in windowless rooms so the network wont leak out... and the air and the trees and the birds cant leak in... dismal existence... borg colony bleah! :-P

  15. Re:wait... by Bromskloss · · Score: 2, Funny

    what if you open the door? Will internet leak out of the room?

    I suppose a double door or, more entertainingly, a revolving door, could help with this...

    Have a look at this. We're intercepting an electromagnetic signal in the terahertz range and it seem to have some kind of beating. I think we just might have found a pulsar!

    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
  16. Somebody has to say it... by Angst+Badger · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do not check network signal with remaining eye.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
  17. what about the return data? by CFD339 · · Score: 2, Insightful

          If I ignore the encoding issues and assume some mix of frequency and amplitude shifts or whatever to get that kind of bandwidth, I can go along with the idea that a well placed optical transmitter could bounce light around the room enough to do this -- but what about the return signal from the workstation or device? That would hardly be placed in an optimal location.

          Further, consider that wireless is most useful for mobile and transient devices -- laptops, sure; but what about cell phones, pda's, sensors, and all manner of other wireless things. These are frequently -- even usually -- not placed in direct visual sight.

          Frankly, I see this technology as potentially useful in long distance settings between stationary platforms (particularly in space) but not so much for day to day campus or home-office use.

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  18. Point to point by symbolset · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's a laser so the beam can be tight. That lends itself to geeking it to reflective targets mutually visible in outdoor applications. If people can get wifi at 237 miles, this tech may be capable of extending both the range and bandwidth of point to point communications. That would extend the reach of the Internet to a lot of people isolated by distance and infrastructure. That would be cool.

    And then there's the neighborhood network thing. I can gather maybe 250 single family homes into a network with a fenceline network without crossing a right-of-way with a cable. Leveraging this tech I could probably extend that reach to 30,000 families. If you can build a 1 Gbps network that large in the US, the Internet will beat a path to you because you've got something they want: earners with eyeballs. Real bandwidth becomes free, which changes a whole bunch of things in a totally positive way

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.