- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Light is almost certainly the fastest thing around. So it makes sense that “light-based wireless communications,” or LiFi, could blow the theoretical doors off existing radio-wave wireless standards, to the tune of a maximum 224GB per second. [Edit, 2:40 p.m.: It does not make sense, and those doors would remain on each rhetorical vehicle. As pointed out by commenters, radio waves, in a vacuum, would reasonably be expected to travel at the same speed as light. Ars, but moreso the author personally, regrets the error. Original post continues.]
JFC is this really where you want to get your technology data from? Authors that clearly have no grasp of even the basest fundamentals in the physics involved? Really?
It’s a news site, don’t expect them to have science degree and them adding an edit note after they were corrected shows more integrity than 95% of other news sites.
shows more integrity than 95% of other news sites
Nah, there are many news sites that post corrections. This one was just so blatantly egregious that they had to put a stop to it before their entire corporation became a laughing stock. This isn’t just a ‘news site’. It is a Technology News Site. They had one job and they f’d it up. They shouldn’t even be hiring writers without a science degree let alone one that flunked highschool science.
They shouldn’t even be hiring writers without a science degree
As you mentioned, it’s a Technology News Site, not a Science News Site. Sounds a little arbitrary.
The idea that radio waves are light waves is something I learned from Bill Nye in elementary school, and that was repeated to me throughout my education and was definitely on at least one of the tests I took.
So either Ars is hiring people with very strange educational experiences or they done goofed
No one ever told me this, I learned it myself (together with the fact that “speed of light” is a fucking stupid name), so your mileage may vary.
You know this whole post is doing absolute wonders for demonstrating exactly how reliable this particular Community apparently is. Seriously, posters linking articles with blatant ignorance of the subject matter, defending that choice (and their choice to link it demonstrating their lack of knowledge on the subject matter too), getting crazy up-votes from people who obviously don’t know any better and then your comment of ‘muh, Science vs Technology is an arbitrary distinction and totally not something where both rely on each other intimately’.
[Slow clap] thanks guys. Good to know if I ever need to cite how unreliable this community actually is I’ll forever have this exquisite reference.
The author didn’t know radio waves travel at the speed of light. So he made some good-sounding intro based on incorrect assumptions (which made the whole intro a little cringe) which they apologized for. Yeah, shouldn’t happen, but we’re all human, we make mistakes.
You know that if you go deep down enough, everything is maths? Does it mean everyone should have a maths degree to do anything? Technology isn’t science, technology is practical application of science. So you need to be a scientist to design such technology, but you “only” need to understand the high-level to convey to people how it works, because no one* is really interested in how it works.
* That’s a hyperbole, I don’t mean “no one” literally, you sound like the type of person that would reply with “muh, not no one”, so I’m clarifying in advance¨
I hope you remember this reply of mine every time you make any mistake. Or any time you don’t know something you should know because you for whatever reason missed it (which, again, happens to all of us).
No, this wasn’t “making an honest mistake”. This was having complete ignorance of the subject matter and letting that slip in the first sentence. If you were blogging about mathematical concepts solely as your product niche then absolutely yes you should have a Math degree.
This is “didn’t actually read the book” levels of book reporting, and you’re defending it. Good job mate. Keep striving for the enstupidification of humankind.
don’t cry bebe
Just because the word enshittification got popular lately, doesn’t mean you have to slap it everywhere. Anyway, I agree, I did a good job.
deleted by creator
The worst part of it is that the author also included this quote from the creators of the technology.
“Operating in the optical spectrum, rather than the limited amount of licensed radio wavelengths”
Like it’s right there and they still didn’t clue in.
Light is almost certainly the fastest thing around.
why is that written as if it’s some sort of challenge
Because my ability to disappoint may be faster.
There is potential here, despite the early Wi-Fi-via-flashlight awkwardness. While you can’t turn a LiFi point entirely off, the signal has integrity at 10 percent room illumination (60 lux), and LiFiCo’s FAQ suggests future use of the invisible parts of the light spectrum.
Why didn’t they start with IR? IR natural sources? Because artificial sources are your TV remove and security cameras.
So the bulb works at low illuminations but what about light interferences? If you have other light sources, windows?
Isn’t this similar to the tech used in fiber optics cables? Or am I way off
But it is for wifi communication apparently. Unfortunately short wave lengths are absorbed more easily than longer wave lengths as the current radio/microwave solutions. That is the main physical limitations to overcome
That is the main physical limitations to overcome
Yeah, they just need to do more research and in few years we’ll break the laws of physics.
deleted by creator
The best application I can image would be using them in street lamps to offer consistent coverage in public spaces. Not sure how viable that would be cost wise though.
Covert communications could also be an application. Just need line of sight and a signal could be sent undetected, and if anyone or anything above a certain size gets on position to detect it, their detection would be observed by both sender and receiver. The attempt would likely be noticed even before the detection, so the signal could be stopped until whatever it is that’s looking moves on.
Wouldn’t it be far more effective just to put Wi-Fi routers in said street lamps though? You’d almost certainly need far fewer of them for the same coverage.
Wi-Fi suffers from congestion due to everything using the same bands for everything. My understanding is that LiFi is not meant to replace Wi-Fi but to supplement it.
but… the radio waves used in wifi are… already the same phenomenon as light
