Light better than WiFi for network connections?

[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
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?

 

[Lord Garth]

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?

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?

 

[Sjouke Burry]

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?

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.

 

[PhattyMo]

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?

Ever hear of IrDA?? No? Hum,wonder why!

 

[Al in Dallas]

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.

 

[Phil Allison]

"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
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?

** 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

 

[Clint 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
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?

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.

 

[Al in Dallas]

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."