Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Japanese Researchers Transmit 3Gbps Using Terahertz Frequencies

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the greased-lightning dept.

Japan 134

MrSeb writes "Researchers at the Tokyo Institute of Technology have developed a new wireless transmission system that works above all currently regulated spectrum frequencies. The new system works at the range of 300GHz to 3THz (terahertz), which is the Far Infrared (FIR) frequencies of the infrared spectrum. That spectrum is currently totally unregulated by any country or standards organization in the world, making it ripe for development of new technologies. So far the Japanese researchers have transmitted data at 3Gbps, but in theory speeds of up to 100Gbps should be possible."

cancel ×

134 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Gamma Rays (5, Funny)

Sigvatr (1207234) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020391)

How soon will it be until Japan begins transmitting gamma rays?

Re:Gamma Rays (-1, Flamebait)

mrops (927562) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020581)

They do, around Fukushima

Re:Gamma Rays (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40022005)

don't make me angry. you wouldn't like me when i'm angry.

Re:Gamma Rays (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40020609)

Without gamma rays, no mothra would be possibre. Since mothra arready up in sky, they already do gamma ray data transmission, you dumb American.
 
Ah hahahaha. AH HAHAHAHA.
 
  ???

Hmmm... (3, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020421)

Infrared? Not exactly wi-fi. You'd have to be in the same room as the router for this to work. I don't see many practical applications.

Re:Hmmm... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40020435)

That doesn't really matter because you are stupid.

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40020483)

That doesn't really matter because you are stupid.

No you are... He/She is right. Turns out IR doesn't go through walls too well.

we don't need windows where we're going.... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40020599)

That doesn't really matter because you are stupid.

No you are... He/She is right. Turns out IR doesn't go through walls too well.

Works just fine if you up the transmitter power enough.
What are you, some sort of girly man?

Re:we don't need windows where we're going.... (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020997)

yea, emit enough IR and you can make those pesky walls burn away.

Re:we don't need windows where we're going.... (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021183)

yea, emit enough IR and you can make those pesky Balls burn away.

I think that is what we are concerned with most....

Re:Hmmm... (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021723)

That doesn't really matter because you are stupid.

No you are... He/She is right. Turns out IR doesn't go through walls too well.

I thought the stupid part was for not seeing any practical use for a 3Gbit wireless network that doesn't go through walls.

My home computer is in the same room as my Wifi router. And my office computer is within line of sight of the nearest Wifi antenna. My TV, Bluray player and internet modem are all within line of sight, it would be nice to not have to wire them together so I could put the Bluray player next to the couch and have it wirelessly send video to the TV on the other side of the room, and have both able to connect to the internet modem. (ok, both the TV and Bluray player do 801.11g, but I can already buy an internet connection that's faster than that 801.11g - and I pick up interference from a lot of neighbors, I can literally see 37 other 802.11bg Wifi networks from my apartment, I'd be happy to have something with less wall penetration. I can only see 6 Wifi networks operating on 5Ghz, but that's probably more due to market penetration than lower 5Ghz wall penetration)

Re:Hmmm... (0)

what2123 (1116571) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020507)

Some days I wish we had a mod for "Lulz."

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020909)

cuz Funny just doesn't say the same thing?

Re:Hmmm... (0)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021783)

Funny is so late 90's. Kids this days...

Re:Hmmm... (4, Interesting)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020479)

Different wavelengths of IR have different properties. Indeed the BBC article notes: "as terahertz waves penetrate many materials as effectively as X-rays".

Re:Hmmm... (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020739)

But isn't the point of using x-rays for diagnostic purposes is that they only penetrate stuff that isn't dense? Things like walls tend to be dense.

Re:Hmmm... (2)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020837)

But could be ideal for a wireless back-haul, where you are currently using microwave with line of site..

I'm a Nazi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40021329)

and it is called "line of sight".

Re:Hmmm... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020851)

Walls are dense? Where?

The average wall is two half inch think drywall sheets and air. External walls have insulation, but that stuff is designed not to be very dense. Studs are dense, but they are only every 16 or so inches.

Try Concrete (1)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020877)

Concrete is dense by every definition.

Re:Try Concrete (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020965)

Re:Try Concrete (2)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021013)

U win!

Re:Try Concrete (1)

inglorion_on_the_net (1965514) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021843)

This is awesome! The claim earlier in the thread that far infrared penetrates similarly to x-ray means that far infrared could be used instead of x-ray for this purpose.

Re:Try Concrete (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021269)

Very few walls are concrete. Even in office buildings only the exterior walls are likely to be concrete.

Re:Try Concrete (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021477)

How many houses have you lived in that were built out of concrete, Vault Dweller?

Re:Try Concrete (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021623)

Here in Arizona, most of the houses are built out of concrete. It's called "stucco": it's a thin layer of concrete sprayed on top of some substrate (possibly drywall; these houses are dirt-cheap). Obviously, if you're only interested in networking inside your building that's not a problem, but if you're trying to communicate outside your house the walls will be a problem.

In other parts of the country, bricks are still pretty popular for exterior walls, even if they're just a facade.

Re:Try Concrete (2)

Taty'sEyes (2373326) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021647)

Remember his POV, basement walls tend to be concrete.

Re:Try Concrete (2)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021837)

I know some houses that have concrete walls. And where I live, granite houses are pretty common (and they have some internal master walls made of granite). My house is made of bricks and a layer of concrete, and lots of apartments, office buildings and schools are built the same way.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

Kelerei (2619511) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020985)

Walls are dense? Where?

The average wall is two half inch think drywall sheets and air. External walls have insulation, but that stuff is designed not to be very dense. Studs are dense, but they are only every 16 or so inches.

Perhaps in your part of the world, the average wall is like that -- but that doesn't mean that that's applicable throughout the rest of the world. Over here (Cape Town), stuff generally gets built with bricks, and the walls of my apartment are of sufficient thickness that my Desire HD has an extremely hard time picking up the wireless signal from an adjacent room.

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40021173)

my apartment are of sufficient thickness that my Desire HD has an extremely hard time picking up the wireless signal from an adjacent room.

Apartments are frequently made with sound insolation on the interior walls. Some of these materials are highly reflective and/or absorbant to a wide range of frequencies. It sounds like this is the material in your walls. Its not so much that your walls are dense, its that they are built with material designed to stop propagation of various frequencies.

If you care, in an apartment setting, this also has advantages as it reduces the overall noise level at apartments and helps ensure signal propagation within the unit without flooding everyone else for a surrounding block. At many apartments, use of WIFI can be nearly impossible because so many AP's are in use with signal propagation spreading throughout the place.

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40021325)

Apartments are frequently made with sound insolation on the interior walls.

Not, it appears, any in the area I live.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021285)

That's probably because you are holding the phone upside down from being so far south. Try flipping it over.

Even interior walls are brick? That seems highly wasteful.

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40021803)

I think he means concrete, not brick. In The Netherlands most houses are made from concrete and as such most walls are also.

Re:Hmmm... (2)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#40022165)

diversity and taste. that's why there are more options for aesthetics than what purely pragmatic, utilitarian points of view have to offer. it turns out that people will design things all kinds of crazy ways with crazy materials just to stand apart, break the monotony, add value, or serve a particular purpose that is outside of average. yes, interior walls can be brick. in a lot of homes, in a lot of places. stop trying to excuse your assumptions by projecting your ignorance as insults, you look stupid. much more wasteful than interior brick walls is the electricity you used to make all these posts arguing about average wall density.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

superdave80 (1226592) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021663)

Thickness and density are two completely different things.

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40021569)

For a nerd site there are lots of dumb asses on here...

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40021091)

So, not very well then.

Re:Hmmm... (3, Interesting)

heypete (60671) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020509)

Infrared? Not exactly wi-fi. You'd have to be in the same room as the router for this to work. I don't see many practical applications.

It sounds actually quite reasonable for private wireless networks: put a transceiver on the ceiling or an elevated part of the wall and provide high-speed access to network devices in that room.

Assuming the waves wouldn't penetrate ordinary building materials (though the wikipedia [wikipedia.org] suggests that some building materials are not reasonably opaque to these waves) then one could have the convenience of a wireless network without the security risks involved with longer-range radio waves that can be picked up at much greater distances.

BAAAD Tactic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40021365)

Ms Eve(sdropper) will point a powerful telescope at your window and get a sufficient signal.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

redfox2012 (1150371) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020677)

You'd have to be in the same room as the router for this to work.

Sounds ideal, I'll have one in each classroom please!

Re:Hmmm... (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021641)

And if you're getting your routers with a government stimulus grant, you can buy top-of-the-line $22,000 Cisco routers for every single classroom too!

Applications (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020717)

Media center interconnects. Large rooms, e.g. event centers.

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40020871)

Infrared? ...I don't see many practical applications.

Channel surfing really fast.

Re:Hmmm... (2)

dissy (172727) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021459)

Infrared? Not exactly wi-fi. You'd have to be in the same room as the router for this to work. I don't see many practical applications.

No terahertz is not exactly wifi. Both are blocked by thick metal for example, neither are blocked by wood glass or plastic.

In fact the only things I know of that will block terahertz which wifi goes through are water and bone.
If your walls are made of water or bone, then yes you will need to stay with gigahertz frequencies :P

Re:Hmmm... (2)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021535)

Infrared? Not exactly wi-fi. You'd have to be in the same room as the router for this to work. I don't see many practical applications.

Then you haven't seen how much it costs to wire an office and provide network ports.... *and* keep it neat "Why do those wires have to come down the wall, why can't they go through the floor? Because I'd have to core through 8" of concrete to do that. Well, just do it, it's only money!" (then the same thing happens next year when the cubes are moved).

If I could hang 4 or 6 of these off the ceiling to provide network coverage to a 40 person open office area, it could be a huge money (and headache) saver. Especially when the cubes are rearranged every year for "efficiency and productivity" (which in some years means squeezing more people into the same, other years it means less people with more space). Even if it means putting an antenna on top of the cube walls or overhead shelves it's still easier than running new wire.

Wifi doesn't provide enough non-overlapping channels to provide good service to many users in a small area - especially when they are copying large media files to/from the corporate fileserver. But if 4 of these could each do 3gbit (with clients load balancing across them automatically), that's already more than the 4Gbit of aggregate bandwidth that this office area has now.

Re:Hmmm... (2)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021913)

The article has an even better application of a short-range wireless system that doesn't penetrate walls -- networking for servers in the datacenter. Currently I have a 6 node VMware cluster built from discrete 1U servers with about 60 network interconnects (including intra-cluster communications, but also connections to the core network and SAN network) Ok, so all are 1Gig and it would take a fraction of that in 10Gig connections and a blade center would help too, but the cluster was built before 10Gig was cost effective.

100Gbit wireless sure would make the datacenter neater.

Re:Hmmm... (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#40022151)

Big tower with multiple IR lasers.

Every roof has an IR receiver.

We can already align satellite dishes just fine on our own. Now would my idea be any good for the city? Not really. But how about in a rural area where they have a lot of open space and LoS? Sure, the occasional passing goose might get blinded, but hey, free dinner if he crashes onto land!

Fry Me a Couple (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40020427)

aargh - more high science bandwidth junk energy.. I am concerned for **living things** that may have sensitivities that we dont know about.. including our own cells and energy systems. Fine, use this, with shielding and confined transmission channels..

I swear, we are a Frankenstein of 4 year old -like tech makers plus market rush-to-implementation risk takers..

Re:Fry Me a Couple (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020663)

Because tested once in a lab = on store shelves without further testing next week, right?

Re:Fry Me a Couple (1)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020819)

Because tested once in a lab = on store shelves without further testing next week, right?

No, but tested for five years does not equal 20 years of exposure. Those crazy unknown unknowns...

Re:Fry Me a Couple (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021017)

Sorry, I'm not going to be scared of any new technology without some scientific basis for how the new thing could possibly cause me harm. I'm damn conservative for a /.er, and even I get that right.

If we can't even chase the Luddites off /., what good is this place?

Re:Fry Me a Couple (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021537)

Sorry, I'm not going to be scared of any new technology without some scientific basis for how the new thing could possibly cause me harm. I'm damn conservative for a /.er, and even I get that right.

It uses Tera-hertz radiation. That's what the TSA uses for the nudie scanners they use to grope you!

If we can't even chase the Luddites off /., what good is this place?

It's a safe bet that no one on /. is a luddite. It is a website after all.

Re:Fry Me a Couple (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021741)

It's a safe bet that no one on /. is a luddite. It is a website after all.

Do you actually read the comments much? Never have I seen so much backlash against any new idea or technology - it baffles me, TBH.

Re:Fry Me a Couple (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#40022283)

Do you actually read the comments much?

Haven't you heard? Not RTFC is the latest in geek chic!

Re:Fry Me a Couple (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021407)

Right.
We should test all hair conditioners, life saving drugs, cell phones and computers. Anything that has chemicals or might emit scary radiation for 20 years before even thinking of releasing it.
Can I please go somewhere sane?

Re:Fry Me a Couple (3, Funny)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020833)

Quickly! Shut off your monitor. It is bombarding you with radiation in the hundreds of terahertz!

Re:Fry Me a Couple (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021511)

And for the love of God stay away from the big ball of radiation we call "the sun"!

Re:Fry Me a Couple (3, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40022313)

I am Icarus, and I approve of this message.

Also cuts heating costs (2)

Orga (1720130) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020433)

as the water molecules contained in the upper layers of your skin move in reaction to these waves!

Re:Also cuts heating costs (1)

gewalker (57809) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020519)

It will be worth it if you can reheat your burrito without having to walk all the way to the kitchen.

Re:Also cuts heating costs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40020789)

This is why God gave you armpits. They are not just for making entertaining noises.

Re:Also cuts heating costs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40020963)

You do know that standard wi-fi is the same 2.4 GHz as a microwave oven right?

Re:Also cuts heating costs (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021333)

Yeah. I am very well aware of that. Every time my roommate used to heat up a hot pocket the latency fucking sucked when trying to pwn somebody in Halo :)

Every Microwave Oven Is a Jammer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40021417)

Just short the switch protecting the 600W tube from being operated with the door open. Then point it out of the window towards your finance district. That will basically take out the next few square miles of Wifi.

I have an ignorant question... (4, Interesting)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020447)

I've heard before that the higher the range of frequency, the harder it is for signals to penetrate things like walls. If we keep advancing along these lines, could this potentially ease our troubles with wifi-over-saturation because we won't be picking up our neighbors' signals?

Re:I have an ignorant question... (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020525)

I've heard before that the higher the range of frequency, the harder it is for signals to penetrate things like walls. If we keep advancing along these lines, could this potentially ease our troubles with wifi-over-saturation because we won't be picking up our neighbors' signals?

I already have trouble get wi-fi through the whole house without multiple APs. You must be living in an apartment or something.

Re:I have an ignorant question... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020685)

Yes, you're exactly right. It happens at my office, too. We have so many hotspots nearby that I have gotten a stability boost by telling it not to auto-change channels.

Any suggestions on how I might be doing it wrong would be appreciated. This is not my area of expertise.

Re:I have an ignorant question... (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021631)

Yes, you're exactly right. It happens at my office, too. We have so many hotspots nearby that I have gotten a stability boost by telling it not to auto-change channels.

Same here. At any given moment there are literally 35+ wireless networks within range of my wireless devices, so many that the automatic channel-changing was degrading performance because 2/3 of the routers in the building chase each other across every channel all day long. I've actually fired up my wifi sniffing ap on my phone to show people out of pure amusement; watching it in real time is like watching some sort of competitive sport. It's not even just residential signals, either...there is a strip mall right behind my complex so I pick up half of their networks, as well.

In the end all I could do is hard-line everything in the apartment, despite how much of a pain in the ass it is to do that in an apartment where you can't drill holes in the walls. Everything that can't be hard-lined has to run via 3/4G, otherwise you're surfing at dial-up speeds.

There really needs to be some sort of standard method of channel negotiation the router manufacturers can come up with to prevent that kind of crap. I honestly don't know what else they're going to do, short of moving to entirely new bands constantly, but even doing that is only a temporary solution, as the 5 GHz band is just as cluttered as the 2.4 GHz band in this building. There is 100 units within a few hundred feet of each other here...

Re:I have an ignorant question... (2)

jandrese (485) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021785)

Well, it's not exactly legal, but you could tell all of your wireless gear that you are Japanese and switch over to channel 14. You'll be stepping on radiolocation beacons, but those shouldn't be around in the middle of a city anyway.

Re:I have an ignorant question... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40022027)

Would those radio location beacons be the sort of thing that airports would find useful?

Yes (1)

LanMan04 (790429) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020565)

Yes, you're right. After all, visible-light is pretty damn high-frequency and it sucks at penetrating walls.

Visible light: 400 to 700 nm
Far Infrared: 15,000 nm to 1,000,000 nm
Regular wifi: 125,000,000 nm

I have no idea at what wavelength drywall and other modern building materials start seriously attenuating a signal (as in "only good for line-of-sight" attenuating). Anyone?

Just answered my own question (5, Informative)

LanMan04 (790429) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020625)

"Terahertz radiation is non-ionizing submillimeter microwave radiation and shares with microwaves the capability to penetrate a wide variety of non-conducting materials. Terahertz radiation can pass through clothing, paper, cardboard, wood, masonry, plastic and ceramics. It can also penetrate fog and clouds, but cannot penetrate metal or water."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz [wikipedia.org]

Re:Just answered my own question (1)

cdibbs (1979044) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021655)

So it won't work very well in humid environments. "Sorry, boss, the wife took a long shower."

Re:Just answered my own question (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021893)

It can also penetrate fog and clouds

So it won't work very well in humid environments.

Fog and cloud are humid environments.

Re:Just answered my own question (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40022111)

So it'll be useless in England or the US' Pacific Northwest.

Although it can penetrate a wide range of materials, that doesn't mean there's zero reflection. I'm much less interested in this for Wifi and much MORE interested in it for building a GPR, since it is essentially illegal in the US for garage developers to experiment with GPR technology (you can't even get the license to operate one unless you've a provable corporate need or are military). If these frequencies aren't regulated, FCC rules prohibiting any kind of private GPR research don't apply.

Re:Just answered my own question (1)

Nethead (1563) | more than 2 years ago | (#40022417)

Ground Penetrating Radar [wikipedia.org] research? How much power do you need? There are nice chunks of UHF, SHF and EHF frequencies available to hams. (http://www.arrl.org/frequency-allocations) Are there other US TLAs that keep you from pointing you ham antenna at the ground? (CQ CQ CQ DX!) You would just have to incorporate your call sign in your modulation every 10 minutes.

And regarding PNW rain, Terabeam Free Space Optics [terabeam.com] started in Seattle. I had rackspace in the same colo that they started in (Westin Building.)

Re:Yes (2)

NEDHead (1651195) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020763)

As I recall, drywall never attenuated the noise in the next dormroom very well. This was a pre PC experience however.

Re:Yes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40020817)

Those were low frequency signals. Penetration was the whole point.

Re:I have an ignorant question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40020607)

Terahertz radiation can be stopped quite easily, in a non-ionizing fashion. Hence its proposed use for airport body scanning, as it will only penetrate a few millimeters before being scattered/stopped/absorbed.

I think it will be difficult to commoditize (word?) t-rays as highly as microwaves are for wifi, etc. due to the attenuation characteristics you are identifying.

Re:I have an ignorant question... (1)

wfolta (603698) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020665)

The BBC article says, "Terahertz wi-fi would probably only work over ranges of about 10m, but could in theory support data rates up to 100Gb/s - close to 15 times higher than the next-generation 802.11ac wi-fi standard that is under development." So the distance would pretty much limit wi-fi saturation whether its ability to penetrate materials did or not.

Re:I have an ignorant question... (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021763)

I've heard before that the higher the range of frequency, the harder it is for signals to penetrate things like walls. If we keep advancing along these lines, could this potentially ease our troubles with wifi-over-saturation because we won't be picking up our neighbors' signals?

Well, 300GHz+ is considered "light" rather than "radio", so it won't penetrate far through the walls. In fact, it may be a bit inconvenient since the only signal is coming through the open door unless you put in a repeater in the same room.

But yeah, if you switch to 5GHz, it's a lot more open but you'll find range is quite a bit shorter. I'm fairly certain the higher frequencies still are pretty much just-a-bit-more-than-a-room penetration.

How much is that (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020451)

How much is that in median tentacle pr0n movie units per second?

Re:How much is that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40020587)

Depends on the frame rate of course, but I'd calculate it to about 69. Assuming standard frame rates, stereo sound and 20 minute movie durations.

Re:How much is that (1)

NEDHead (1651195) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020781)

Ah, 20 minute duration. Those were the days...

hehehe, tit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40020559)

Tokyo Institute of Technology? hahaha, TIT.

Riddle (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40020619)

Q: What do you call electromagnetic waves at Terahertz frequencies on the other side of a wall?

A: Utterly useless.

The downside is... (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020707)

It requires line of sight and only has a range of 1-3 meters without significant power boosting. In other words.....you are better off just running wires

Re:The downside is... (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40022367)

Since the lower frequencies can pass through rock, it's safe to say line of sight isn't necessary. However, the limited range is a problem and as 100 Gb/s is already achievable by Ethernet (300 Gb/s for Infiniband), it's not clear what the benefit is of adopting a technology that will max out (in the future) at the speeds you can get now, when most of the benefit of wireless really won't apply.

At last! (1)

_0x783czar (2516522) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020723)

*reconfigures pirate radio station to broadcast in FIR frequencies*

Re:At last! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40021047)

*reconfigures pirate radio station to broadcast in FIR frequencies*

Yeah, I could never get those IIR frequencies to remain stable.

Naked scanner from your terahertz wifi card? (2)

madbavarian (1316065) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020753)

If terahertz wifi cards become generally available, how long before we see articles about people repurposing the hardware to do terahertz reflective imagery like the security guys already do for looking through walls to spot people in a room or look through cloths to see "weapons"?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2131932/The-REAL-X-Ray-spex--new-terahertz-scanner-lets-mobile-phones-walls.html [dailymail.co.uk]

Re:Naked scanner from your terahertz wifi card? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40021539)

If terahertz wifi cards become generally available, how long before we see articles about people repurposing the hardware to do terahertz reflective imagery like the security guys already do for looking through walls to spot people in a room or look through cloths to see "weapons"?

Never. People already use microwave frequencies for imaging. It's called radar. Wifi cards use microwaves and are dirt cheap. Yet, there are no wifi card based radars, because what's in wifi cards and what's in a microwave radar is drastically different. Your TV remote control uses light and so does a camera, but would you expect to use a remote control to take a picture in infrared? Transmitting data and imaging are very very different applications.

A function of frequency (1)

Grindalf (1089511) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020891)

Since transmission speed is a function of frequency, then I suspect that a much higher bandwith is possible.

Major advance, stupid article (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#40020921)

The real news here is that terahertz electronics is getting small, and potentially cheap. That has many uses. Most of them, though, do not involve data transmission. Terahertz radar will be useful for medical imaging, security, and driverless cars. There will probably be manufacturing applications, like quick 3D profiles of objects for inspection and measurement.

Point to point terahertz data transmission probably isn't that useful. Point to point laser links have never been very useful. At light and near-light frequencies, rain, snow, and fog will block the beam. If you want one, outdoor laser links are commercially available. [digitalairwireless.com]

WAR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40021551)

They already use 100THz range frequencies for high-resolution seeker radar. I am not sure as to what the benefits are as compared to simply using an IR Laser, but it might have something to to with A) ability to modulate signal and perform ranging B) better penetration of clouds, fog and countermeasures.

http://www.slideshare.net/aticourses/tactical-missile-design

Too fragile to be useful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40021307)

A mosquito fart would interfere with the signal.

Researchers at the TIT develop new WiTS (0)

bura (2605547) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021509)

Whats wrong with the editors, wouldnt this article have better interest if it had a better title? Researchers at the TIT (Tokyo Institute of Technology) have developed a new WiTS (wireless transmission system)

There they go! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40021517)

There go the rest of the bees!

Dinner Anyone? (1)

glorybe (946151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40021917)

You might be able to cook a turkey at those frequencies.

At some point, does any more speed matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40022055)

So you can download the entire internet in a minute. Then what? And where are you going to put it?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?