 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsElectronicsBasicsRepairDesignCADComponentsEquipmentElectrical Engineering ElectronicsKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Electronics Forum / Basics / July 2007Light better than WiFi for network connections?
I'm not sure this is the right group, but I recently read in Scientific American that visible or infrared light would be a better method to use to "talk" from a wired point on a wall to a room full of computers than current WiFi or any other radio-wave solution. The article kept stating that visible or infrared light was better because they're made up of photons which don't interfere the way that radio waves do. Since radio waves are also photons, this seemed like an unreasonable explanation. Does anyone have any idea what the author was trying to say? > I'm not sure this is the right group, but I recently read in > Scientific American that visible or infrared light would be a better [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > unreasonable explanation. Does anyone have any idea what the author > was trying to say? No, why don't you copy the article? Ir links went over like a lead balloon in the mid 1990's. Perhaps you are thinking about fiber to the desktop? > I'm not sure this is the right group, but I recently read in > Scientific American that visible or infrared light would be a better [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > unreasonable explanation. Does anyone have any idea what the author > was trying to say? He tried to explain that you do not get interference between your neighbours lights ond yours, unless your windows closely face each other. In all other cases, light from your neighbours room will hardly light yours. > I'm not sure this is the right group, but I recently read in > Scientific American that visible or infrared light would be a better [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > unreasonable explanation. Does anyone have any idea what the author > was trying to say? Ever hear of IrDA?? No? Hum,wonder why! >> I'm not sure this is the right group, but I recently read in >> Scientific American that visible or infrared light would be a better [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Ever hear of IrDA?? No? Hum,wonder why! Actually, when I used to test cell phones for a living, we kept talking about adding an IR port that met with Microsoft's specs. In theory, you were supposed to be able to point the phone at the right part of your computer and not have to connect it with a cable. This was a short while before we started talking about using Bluetooth instead, IIRC. Of course, my question was why some idiot editors at Scientific American implied that radio waves were different from photons and why the same idiots implied that these differences were responsible for the different types of interference problems.  SignatureAl in St. Lou "Al in Dallas" > I'm not sure this is the right group, but I recently read in > Scientific American that visible or infrared light would be a better [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > unreasonable explanation. Does anyone have any idea what the author > was trying to say? ** Radio waves do not behave like photons in anything like the same way that light does. The frequencies & hence wavelengths are enormously different: Green light = 550 THz = 550,000 GHz !!!!!!!!!!!! So the explanation is perfectly sensible. Unlike you. ....... Phil >I'm not sure this is the right group, but I recently read in >Scientific American that visible or infrared light would be a better [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >unreasonable explanation. Does anyone have any idea what the author >was trying to say? Not without the full article but it's been done and it fell flat on it's arse in the 80s, 90s and probably will do so again. SignatureClint Sharp >>I'm not sure this is the right group, but I recently read in >>Scientific American that visible or infrared light would be a better [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Not without the full article but it's been done and it fell flat on it's >arse in the 80s, 90s and probably will do so again. If you subscribe to Scientific American Digital, you can read the article at http://tinyurl.com/2xmdnu . It's in the July 2007 issue if you want to find it on paper. It's named "Broadband Room Service by Light." SignatureAl in St. Lou |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.