• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

A light can transmit more wireless data than a cellular tower. TED Talk

Braznor

Braznor

Diamond Member
Read/watch it here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/harald_haas_wireless_data_from_every_light_bulb

What if every light bulb in the world could also transmit data? At TEDGlobal, Harald Haas demonstrates, for the first time, a device that could do exactly that. By flickering the light from a single LED, a change too quick for the human eye to detect, he can transmit far more data than a cellular tower — and do it in a way that's more efficient, secure and widespread.
Click to expand...

Cool! 😀
 
what if the brain can read that data? What if the brain can be subconsciously controlled by that data?


Gonna go watch it now ><
 
This has been known since 1880 by Alexander Graham Bell. He used light to transmit sound data. Fiber optic cable is using light to transmit information over a distance.

Now try transferring information through something that isn't transparent with this tech.
 
Last edited:
Yes, light can indeed transmit more data than radio. That's why fibre optics are the backbone of the internet. While his technology sounds impressive, he fails to address some of the obvious flaws with this system.

First of all, visible light cannot pass through objects. Which indeed does make for a more secure connection, since data transmission is limited to the room you're in. However, visible light needs a clear light of sight between the transmitter and receiver. Meaning that mobile devices would not work if they're in a pocket or purse, which is where most people keep them when they're not in use. So you still need radio, otherwise you wouldn't be able to receive texts or phone calls in the dark.

The second issue is how the smartphone communicates with the base station. Nobody's going to want their flashlight or display on all the time. That's going to drain the battery like crazy, and would also be very annoying. Once again it would also require a clear line of site with the base station.

Third is the limited effective range of visible light. Smartphone flashlights and displays aren't bright enough to function effectively outdoors using this system. Especially in the daytime. So at best you'd have one-way communications. Meaning that you'd still need radio for two way communication.

It's actually pretty stupid what he's trying to sell when you actually sit down and think about it. There's just too many compromises to be made in order for it to work for mobile, which is the crux of his argument. This video came out almost four years ago and the technology still hasn't hit mass market. Probably a good reason for that.

Now, where a system like this would work is in static environments like an office. A lot of office buildings leave lights on all the time for security. So it makes sense to harness that wasted energy for data transmission. Since desktops aren't moved around much, you could easily set up a network without having to run CAT5 cable all over the place. At home, they could be used to transmit data to smart TVs and other devices that tend to sit in one spot. I believe some companies have been working on developing such systems. Marketing it though as an alternative for mobile devices is just too far fetched.
 
Last edited:
mmntech said:
Yes, light can indeed transmit more data than radio. That's why fibre optics are the backbone of the internet. While his technology sounds impressive, he fails to address some of the obvious flaws with this system.

First of all, visible light cannot pass through objects. Which indeed does make for a more secure connection, since data transmission is limited to the room you're in. However, visible light needs a clear light of sight between the transmitter and receiver. Meaning that mobile devices would not work if they're in a pocket or purse, which is where most people keep them when they're not in use. So you still need radio, otherwise you wouldn't be able to receive texts or phone calls in the dark.

The second issue is how the smartphone communicates with the base station. Nobody's going to want their flashlight or display on all the time. That's going to drain the battery like crazy, and would also be very annoying. Once again it would also require a clear line of site with the base station.

Third is the limited effective range of visible light. Smartphone flashlights and displays aren't bright enough to function effectively outdoors using this system. Especially in the daytime. So at best you'd have one-way communications. Meaning that you'd still need radio for two way communication.

It's actually pretty stupid what he's trying to sell when you actually sit down and think about it. There's just too many compromises to be made in order for it to work for mobile, which is the crux of his argument. This video came out almost four years ago and the technology still hasn't hit mass market. Probably a good reason for that.

Now, where a system like this would work is in static environments like an office. A lot of office buildings leave lights on all the time for security. So it makes sense to harness that wasted energy for data transmission. Since desktops aren't moved around much, you could easily set up a network without having to run CAT5 cable all over the place. At home, they could be used to transmit data to smart TVs and other devices that tend to sit in one spot. I believe some companies have been working on developing such systems. Marketing it though as an alternative for mobile devices is just too far fetched.
Click to expand...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/traders-with-need-for-speed-turn-to-laser-beams-2014-02-12

Already done.
 
RichUK said:
Lol, any numpty can see this is practically flawed.
Click to expand...

6eb9f176b7df5a40be5a24b06e611b29d5c6c805bcab0d959d95e85781fc4d56.jpg


whats he got to do with it?
 
RichUK said:
Lol, any numpty can see this is practically flawed.
Click to expand...

First off he mentions streetlights as another means of transmitting data but since this apparently only works with LED lighting streetlights would not be able to be used as 90+% of streetlights are Low Pressure Sodium design. Same with the hospital situation, they all use florescent bulbs and he did not mention if they can be modulated with his chip, my guess would be no, they cannot and to go back and retro-fit everything to LED would be massively expensive. As already pointed out the best place for this technology to work is in an office environment where many desktop lamps are LED-based or buying one to replace an existing florescent lamp would not be a cost-killer.
 
A lightbulb in the same room has another advantage over a cellphone tower: The lightbulb is several feet away from you. The cellphone tower probably isn't. Inverse square law's a bitch.





Side note: With all these weird lighting technologies, I wonder if pets are going to start going a little bit nuts. I can see LEDs flickering at up to 4kHz, after which the flicker effect starts to fade and it just looks like a solid light. I even see some LED driver design documents that say that 0.1Hz is "adequate" as a minimum PWM or dimming frequency. 😵
Lots of LED lights in car brakelights are also distracting because of how much they flicker.

So looking at a flickering CRT at <75Hz can give me a headache. A cat's or dog's eyes likely are even more sensitive to flicker. They can't just ask for a Tylenol if they feel awful from our newfangled lights. They might just eventually go nuts.


So then several years down the way, every time you fire up a 4K-res movie on Netflix over your LED-Wifi, the dogs in the room start whimpering or growling and everyone wonders why. :hmm:
 
Visible light is really no different than any other EM frequency range regarding the amount of potential throughput in a given frequency band. This is sort of one of those solutions looking for a problem. There really is little to no technical benefit in increasing the complexity of our light sources at a higher cost than dedicated radio equipment. The whole idea reminds me of the weird fetish people have with combining solar technology with road surfaces. It's an increase in cost for little to no benefit (or even detriment).

All in all, a really dumb idea.
 
Ferzerp said:
Visible light is really no different than any other EM frequency range regarding the amount of potential throughput in a given frequency band. This is sort of one of those solutions looking for a problem. There really is little to no technical benefit in increasing the complexity of our light sources at a higher cost than dedicated radio equipment. The whole idea reminds me of the weird fetish people have with combining solar technology with road surfaces. It's an increase in cost for little to no benefit (or even detriment).

All in all, a really dumb idea.
Click to expand...

This is pretty shortsighted. RF communication below 10GHz is increasingly crowded, and even if we move to millimeter wave communication that's still on the order of MHz to GHz of bandwidth. You say channel capacity of visible light communication is similar to RF, so ever thought about the fact that the visible band between 400-700nm is about 320THz wide? That's hundreds of thousands of times wider than any current comm system. Any research or push into that kind of unused bandwidth can only be a good thing for certain applications.

That said, I didn't watch the video, I just support this area of research in general
 
repoman0 said:
This is pretty shortsighted. RF communication below 10GHz is increasingly crowded, and even if we move to millimeter wave communication that's still on the order of MHz to GHz of bandwidth. You say channel capacity of visible light communication is similar to RF, so ever thought about the fact that the visible band between 400-700nm is about 320THz wide? That's hundreds of thousands of times wider than any current comm system. Any research or push into that kind of unused bandwidth can only be a good thing for certain applications.

That said, I didn't watch the video, I just support this area of research in general
Click to expand...

I never said that utilizing the visible EM spectrum for data transmission is a stupid idea. I said that combining it with light sources for illumination is retarded (and that's the way these stories always go).
 
Ferzerp said:
I never said that utilizing the visible EM spectrum for data transmission is a stupid idea. I said that combining it with light sources for illumination is retarded (and that's the way these stories always go).
Click to expand...

Fair enough, it does seem that visible light comm systems would be better off separated from lighting but who knows. Dedicated communications lights in the visible spectrum could be distracting and irritating, maybe that's why people are always trying to combine existing lighting with data transmission.
 
Last edited:
RichUK said:
I'm sorry, but this idea is just full retard.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. The person spearheading the research is hoping that it isn't a bad idea.
We'll find out in a few years if it does ever take off.

harald-wireless-every-light-81828741


It is a 5G[3] visible light communication system that uses light from light-emitting diodes (LEDs) as a medium to deliver networked, mobile, high-speed communication in a similar manner as Wi-Fi.[4] Li-Fi could lead to the Internet of Things, which is everything electronic being connected to the internet, with the LED lights on the electronics being used as Li-Fi internet access points.[5] The Li-Fi market is projected to have a compound annual growth rate of 82% from 2013 to 2018 and to be worth over $6 billion per year by 2018.[6]
Click to expand...
 
repoman0 said:
Fair enough, it does seem that visible light comm systems would be better off separated from lighting but who knows. Dedicated communications lights in the visible spectrum could be distracting and irritating, maybe that's why people are always trying to combine existing lighting with data transmission.
Click to expand...

I really have concerns with things like light pollution, etc, for non point-to-point uses (which we already do anyway) though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top