Slashdot Mirror


Terahertz Wireless Chip Will Bring 30Gbps Networks

MrSeb writes "Rohm, a Japanese semiconductor company, has created a silicon chip and antenna that's currently capable of transmitting 1.5Gbps, with the potential to scale up to 30Gbps in the future. While this is a lot faster than anything currently on the market, the significant advance here is the reception and transmission of terahertz waves (300GHz to 3THz) using a chip and antenna that's just two centimeters long. Rohm says it will only cost $5 when it comes to market in a few years — a stark comparison to current terahertz gear that's both large and expensive. The problem with terahertz transmissions, though, is that it's highly directional — with a submillimeter wavelength, it's more like a laser than a signal. Terahertz waves might enable awesome device-to-device networks, but it isn't going to bring 30Gbps internet to a whole city block. More interestingly, submillimeter terahertz radiation is the next step up from the gigahertz radiation used in full-body millimeter wave scanners. Terahertz waves can not only see through clothing, but can also penetrate a few millimeters of skin."

32 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. Next mod... by ThinkDifferently · · Score: 2, Funny

    Build your own fully body scanner.

    1. Re:Next mod... by ddd0004 · · Score: 5, Funny

      This could be very handy for searching for government implanted transmitters inside your own body. I look forward to a day when we can cast aside our crudely fashioned aluminum hats

    2. Re:Next mod... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Terahertz radiation is non-ionizing, unlike say X-Rays. This type of radiation is used in things like bomb detectors and to inspect explosives and other unstable compounds because it can penetrate a few millimeters but does not break down molecular bonds.

    3. Re:Next mod... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Non ionizing != safe.
      There's a reason there's a little grill on your microwave door window.

      Somehow I doubt these will be transmitting a 1000W. It can still be safe, even without the little grill.

    4. Re:Next mod... by Killer · · Score: 2

      You are so incorrect. At least do a cursory Wikipedia search before you make a claim:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation

      Even 1 gamma ray can knock an electron off an atom, causing molecular changes (e.g. damaging DNA). No amount of IR will do this, it will just cause thermal effects (burns).

  2. The Future by masternerdguy · · Score: 2

    What can I do with 30 GiB/s? I'm trying to figure that out, give me some ideas.

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    1. Re:The Future by mwfischer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Run Windows Update and be done in about 15 minutes.

    2. Re:The Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Cook chicken, most likely

    3. Re:The Future by Synerg1y · · Score: 4, Funny

      Share porn with your neighbor across the street at never before seen transfer speeds.

    4. Re:The Future by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean the one restart that takes a minute and a half on Windows 7?

      Followed by thirteen and a half minutes for all the crapware to start up after you log in.

    5. Re:The Future by Lord+Lode · · Score: 4, Funny

      Indeed, 640K ought to be enough for everyone!

    6. Re:The Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They said the same about broadband: "What could anyone possibly do with 20mbps? They barely use the 56k we give them!"

      Give them the bandwidth - they'll find a good use for it. I can see it being very useful in a small/medium server room - 30Gbps makes it a competitive LAN system. Having a bunch of wireless cards would be much easier than running all that cable, even if some manual aiming and orientation of antennas is necessary.

      I also imagine "the cloud" would benefit from this - even 1.5gbps is basically SATA speeds. Latency is higher, but the potential throughput gains are impressive. That may make it possible for "local storage" to be "operating system and cloud sync software", with everything being server-side somewhere. You and I may not join in (I don't like the privacy most of the cloud has), but many people don't give a shit about that.

      Gaming might also benefit. Current online gaming depends a lot on synchronizing things, then letting the clients do a lot of the calculation. Updating the position of falling objects is almost always client-side, with the server checking every once in a while. It's a major headache, code-wise. With a suitably massive pipe, it becomes unnecessary - just send the coordinates every frame.

      Or it makes video streaming work properly. Dealing with current streaming is rough on networks, as it needs to get there quickly. 30gbps to the home, and you can download an entire blu-ray, uncompressed, in two seconds. Latency can be looser - nobody's going to complain if it takes three seconds instead of two. There was an article on /. about that a couple months back.

    7. Re:The Future by maeka · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wireless docking for your mobile device, when combined with inductive power. No more cables.

      You going to rectify that?

    8. Re:The Future by poetmatt · · Score: 4, Informative

      apparently nothing, because higher frequencies have horrible ranges. This stuff might work at ridiculously short range, but also won't be able to penetrate through anything which would enable it to work anywhere significant. Look at how tough even the 2.4ghz stuff like wireless devices can barely even penetrate a few walls, and now we're talking terahertz?

      Long story short, nothing, because this product will never even give you 1.5Gbps.

    9. Re:The Future by Lennie · · Score: 2

      Somehow I have the feeling it might be a bad idea to be operated on by a robot which is connected over wireless.

      Most operations like that happen on an operation table in an operating room I would imagine, probably not the place where wireless is needed.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    10. Re:The Future by Lennie · · Score: 2

      A lot of systems already support 10 Gbps Ethernet on UTP and fibre. 40 and 100 Gbps Ethernet is coming.

      At 10 Gbps, iSCSI is already faster, cheaper and even lower latency than most 8 Gbps FibreChannel solutions, pushing FibreChannel even more into the highend niche markets it already is.

      After the fairly new SATA 6 Gbit/s, it looks like SATA Express is will be connected directly to the PCI Express bus without needing a SATA controller.

      This 30 Gbps wireless stuff is probably only useful for point-to-point and short ranges.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    11. Re:The Future by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can run through your comcast monthly bandwidth cap in 8.3 seconds.

    12. Re:The Future by blueg3 · · Score: 2

      That's a bunch of crap.

      Nothing, because a "GiB" is not a thing. 1 GB is 1073741824 Bytes. It always has been, and it always will be.

      I think it's clear that everyone who uses "GiB" disagrees with you.

      Note that the "G" is not an SI scalar. No one ever said it was, and there's no reason it needs to be.

      Right, except that it uses the same symbol as the SI prefix (not scalar, prefix), has approximately the same value, was specifically chosen to have the same symbol and approximately same value intentionally, and so it easily confused with it.

      T is Tesla. Or is it tera? K is Kelvin, or is it kilo? Gy is Giga...something? Oh no, it's just grays!

      As you mention, there's no ambiguity because you can't have a bare prefix. T is just Tesla, since it's not followed by a unit. T(unit) is a tera-(unit), and (prefix)T is a (prefix)-Tesla. K is easier, since the SI prefix for kilo- is a lowercase k and not an uppercase. Gy is easy because there's no SI unit "y". Sure, it's confusing with "year", which is not an SI unit, but time units are ugly anyway.

      ...if you look at practical usage, where people and fields use units and variables of their own, or don't always use the proper case, it's far worse.

      Yes, idiosyncratic unit systems are hard to understand unless you're familiar with that particular system. Hence standardized unit systems like SI.

      And then there's the mass fraction. Yup, kg/kg. The symbol for this unit? 1. That's right. The digit 1. Anytime you divide a mass by a mass you better add a superfluous 1 in there otherwise you're not compliant with the SI quackery!

      According to whom? There are tons of dimensionless quantities out there, and as far as I know, nobody ever adds a digit "1" when writing them. It is proper to write out that their units (or dimensions) are 1 in pedagogy, when you want to explicitly write out the unit, since you can't very well leave a blank space. Even that's uncommon, though: it's more typical to say that mass fraction is dimensionless or unitless. When writing out quantities, you certainly don't add anything for the units. For example, "The atomic weight of beryllium is 9.01," or "the Reynolds number Re ~= 4 x 10^7."

    13. Re:The Future by pedrop357 · · Score: 2

      I went from XP to Vista and was very disappointed. When my Vista installed died of filesystem corruption, I went to Windows 7 thinking "what the hell, probably just as bad and can't really be worse?"

      Upon second boot, I thought something was wrong when I saw the ESET splash screen come so soon after logging in. I was genuinely surprised and impressed to have my desktop available for use so soon. It was a little sluggish, but far more usable then Vista or XP ever were as soon it was presented to me. Hibernation appeared to work faster in both directions with the system being usable sooner after logging in upon resume.

      My aging P4 3.2, 2GB, Geforce 7300GT (AGP) system boots to a login screen faster with Windows 7 then Vista. XP would boot pretty quickly and get me to a login prompt faster then 7 does. BUT, after the prompt XP was very sluggish and required almost as much time to be usable as it did to boot. The (illustrative only) example I'll give is XP booting to login in about 60 seconds, getting to desktop 10 seconds later and becoming usably responsive about 30 seconds after that. Total time to be usable is about 100 seconds. Windows 7 may take 75 seconds minute to get to the login screen, 2-5 seconds to the desktop,is more usable then XP as soon as the desktop is up and takes another 10-15 before feeling almost lag-free. Total time to usability is 77-95 seconds.

      Windows 7 also seems to completes the post-desktop startup faster then either of the others. I watch the disk light and Process Explorer for CPU and process I/O to gauge this. I know which processes startup after login and noticed that everything was loaded and I/O settled some 20-40 seconds sooner than Vista or XP with identical software and startup apps installed under those OSes.

      I later played around with changing some services from automatic to delayed just to shave time off the login->desktop and post-startup desktop lag. These were services that I knew didn't need to load right away (think MS Live, Adobe, Google updater, Cisco VPN, etc.) This did work for me and gave me a nice bump in response right after login.

      It's not Microsoft's fault that nearly every app vendor now feels the need to install a startup app and/or a service. Nor is it entirely their fault that OEMs feel the need to load a dozen apps that all want to run at startup.

    14. Re:The Future by swillden · · Score: 2

      Nah, he was overly bombastic, but correct. The confusion is solely caused by the attempts to 'sensibly revise' a perfectly sensible binary numbering scheme. It's an attempt to force a decimal hierarchy on a system that is not decimal... attempting to make reality fit bureaucratic dictates, rather than the other way around.

      Except that parts of reality aren't binary.

      For example, communication protocols (like this one) are specified in powers-of-10 units because they're based on measuring wireless frequencies, which are measured in powers-of-10 hertz -- in this case, I'm sure that 1.5 Gbps means 1.5E9 bits per second. A 14.4 kbps modem transmitted 14,400 bits per second. A T-1 line transmits 1.54 Mbps, meaning 1,540,000 bits per second -- and note that framing and other overhead bits mean that you can't just divide by 8 to get bytes per second.

      In addition, hard disk storage has always been base 10, going back to the very first drives in the early 60s -- during which time RAM was also measured in base 10 units because it wasn't, in fact, in powers of 2, so any power-of-2 measurement would have been an approximation. For example, the IBM 1401 maxed out at 16K bytes (though they weren't called bytes), where 16K meant 16,000, not 16,384. Now, of course, we're gradually moving to flash-based storage, which works more like RAM, for which base 2 sizing works better because base 2 addressing works better.

      Floppy disk storage is particularly weird in that it started out with base 2 units and progressed to a weird amalgamation of base 2 and base 10. A "360 KB" floppy held exactly 360 * 1024 bytes, but a "1.44 MB" floppy held 1,440 * 1024 = 1,474,560 bytes, which is properly 1.47456 MB or 1.40625 MiB.

      There's a mixture of base 2 and base 10 measurements in the computing world, and there always has been. Early on, base 10 dominated. Now, base 2 dominates, so I could argue that your position that the prefixes all mean base 2 is an attempt to rewrite the history of computing -- but even now it's still not ALL base 2. So there's a real need for a way to specify what you mean, exactly, and IMO it's better to say 3 MiB and 3 MB rather than 3 MB-but-this-time-I-mean-binary-megabytes and 3 MB-but-this-time-I-mean-SI-megabytes. Granted that the pronunciation of the base 2 units is a little weird (kibibyte, mebibyte, gibibyte, tebibyte), but when precision matters it's good to have that option.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  3. Doesnt matter by Moheeheeko · · Score: 5, Funny

    ISPs will still throttle your ass to 55 Mbps

  4. Step into the Tear o' Hurts scanner citizen by Nadaka · · Score: 2

    Step into the Tear o' Hurts scanner citizen, if you choose not to you may instead choose to be violated by the TSA sanctioned probulation team currently on work release from a local for profit penitentiary.

  5. Run it by a RF EE next time by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Run it by a RF EE next time, or at least an advanced ham radio guy.

    using a chip and antenna that's just two centimeters long

    a stark comparison to current terahertz gear that's both large and expensive.

    with a submillimeter wavelength

    First of all its hard from a RF perspective to make stuff thats more than a 1/4 wavelength long. Obviously possible, but much harder. For example, I'm working on a K band transverter and one nightmare is standard SMA connectors resonate at 18 GHz or so, making them quite exciting to use. Yes I already know about the expensive and complicated and almost but not quite SMA compatible connectors I can use. Aside from connector and feedline issues, Its actually EASIER to make small stuff than large stuff at high frequencies / small wavelengths. Cable attenuation makes you put the whole RF works at the dish feedpoint above 50 GHz or so, if you want decent performance. The smaller it is, the lighter it is, more or less, making the mechanical engineering job simpler. Its not like 50 GHz amplifier dies are currently the size of dinner plates and will someday be the size of rice grains... they're already tiny. Ditto this chip. Also the silicon is cheap, the tools are expensive. A new ultrasonic wirebond machine must be worth, i donno, tens to hundreds of thousands of cheap MMIC dies? When you buy MMIC dies, its not like they're blowing lots of money on packaging... And thats before you hire the rare skilled labor to set up and operate and maintain the already expensive wire bonder. Wirebonding zero ohm resistors wouldn't really change the overall cost vs wirebonding some fancy dies because of the huge fixed and variable costs of the technology, so changing the die cost from ten dollars to ten cents isn't gonna help if the overall project cost due to R+D and manufacturing and test gear averages out to ten grand per active device...

    Secondly complete THZ systems are large and remain large and will probably always be "large". The internal chips are already small, and, frankly, relatively cheap. Antenna cannot be magically shrunk for same performance. Support gear like bias and main power regulators don't "know" they're powering microwave gear and should therefore be shrinking at a microwave pace. DSP processors don't "know" they're connected to a shrinking MMIC die and therefore they should be shrinking at a microwave pace. Support gear does shrink over time at the rate of normal support gear shrinkage, which isn't that fast. For example, not much has changed in the world of linear voltage regulators in the last 30 years... somewhat lower current references, MOS pass transistors instead of bipolar means lower voltage drop, um... thats about it?

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:Run it by a RF EE next time by vlm · · Score: 2

      LOL... at "sub millimeter wavelengths" 2 cm is practically a longwire or a beverage antenna... 20, 30, 40 wavelengths long. Whatever they're doing, its pretty directive, and its never going to shrink, a 30 wavelength long sub millimeter band antenna is always going to be around 2 cm or so.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  6. What about saturation? by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All the wireless tech in the world doesn't seem to be able to stand up against saturation in the band.

    I say this, of course, as someone who lives in an apartment complex of 100's of units, all in close enough proximity that Wireless-N signals can be picked up pretty much anywhere in the complex from any users apartment. I had to forego wireless entirely and hard wire everything because every band was completely saturated with dozens of wireless networks. With the smart-switching shit that automatically looks for clean channels it's even worse; I've taken to illustrating the problem to friends at parties with the wifi scanner app on my phone, we all get a good laugh watching 10 networks bounce up and down the band constantly "Channel 1 is clean, quick, switch to channel 1! Shit, 9 other networks came with me...look, channel 3 is clean, quick, switch to channel 3! Fuck, they're following me! Channel 7 is clean, quick, switch to channel 7!!" all day long.

    The wireless band is becoming way over saturated. Now that we have cars with built in hotspots it's going to get even worse. We need some sort of fundamental shift in the way we do wireless networking, either that, or we need to greatly expand the band and the range between channels so that 30 devices can cohabitate the same frequency range without completely fucking up throughput.

    1. Re:What about saturation? by Arrepiadd · · Score: 2

      As it's mentioned in the summary, the Terahertz frequencies are very directional, unlike the typical GHz stuff of wireless networks. So, instead of broadcasting for all the neighborhood you are transmitting more on a point to point fashion. Saturation is almost irrelevant in this scenario (as long as the signal dies off within the solar system).

    2. Re:What about saturation? by __aailrp9629 · · Score: 2

      I know it's traditional to skip reading the article, but the summary points out that this will be a directional-only signal. Directional signals generally don't have saturation problems, because they propagate (to simplify) in cones rather than spheres.

  7. Re:Getting tired of this.... by timeOday · · Score: 4, Interesting
    30 years ago we were still paying $1.50 per minute to make international calls and you weren't allowed to plug a modulator/demodulator (aka "modem") into your phone line. 10 years ago, email was considered a high-bandwidth application for cellphones. 5 years ago the idea of widespread video streaming over the Internet was commonly dismissed on slashdot as infeasible.

    To complain that network technology never really improves is the height of absurdity.

    Despite what the blurb says, this technology may finally be a good competitor for wired ethernet to the home. It's directional, so it doesn't have to be shared among a huge number of houses, and at $5/pop you can build a "disco-ball" covered with them to blanket an area. It won't penetrate walls well, but will penetrate adverse weather better than laser light.

    Short of replacing Comcast, at least we can finally have a wireless HDMI "cable" that is affordable, so I can hook any number of terminals to a computer without having to bunch them all together.

  8. Re:Seriously... by Lord+Lode · · Score: 2, Funny

    It isn't if you attach it to sharks. Then, instead, it's deadly.

  9. Re:YUO _FAIL IT by Frenzied+Apathy · · Score: 2

    Do NOT click the above link!!!!!!

    --
    The cake is a lie.
  10. Re:Getting tired of this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    We should be able to implement a filter that stops these kinds of posts within a few years.

  11. Terahertz is not very practical by NixieBunny · · Score: 5, Informative

    This article is basically nonsense. I work with folks who actually make terahertz radio equipment for radio astronomy. It seems like the last place in the spectrum you'd go to for anything practical. The technology is very primitive, since there has been little application for it, since the signals are quickly absorbed by water vapor in the atmosphere. My coworkers are currently in Antarctica to do some astronomy, because there's very little water in the air there.

    A stable local oscillator that puts out any useful amount of terahertz power is very difficult to make. You are lucky to get a few microwatts. The signals aren't quite as directional as a laser, but they're too directional to be of much use for the wireless networking that we are familiar with.

    There are optical ways of making signals at terahertz frequencies, which may hold more promise, but they're being used in only a few exotic applications, such as the ALMA interferometer array in Chile.

    --
    The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.