Blistering world record WIFI transmission heralds new era in super-fast internet

German scientists have smashed the radio wave data-speed barrier by transmitting information equivalent to the contents of a conventional DVD some 37km in under 10 seconds.

Six gigabits per second were sent the 36.7km distance

To put the speedy record into context, watching an hour-long Netflix episode in HD uses up about 3GB in data. Researchers have now transmitted double that per second

Source

Sweeeet. I remember back in the day when you'd have to sit and wait several minutes just to load a single image on a web page, and now this... Technology is exciting

a reply to: trollz

Wowza.

That is fast. Although the equipment size they have going makes that a bit less useful that you'd think, although it's just in testing. It's safe to say consumer models down the line would be much smaller.

~Tenth

a reply to: trollz



Omg... I did it! Finally able to upload a pic to show my feelings about a subject!!!!!

Thanks ~Tenth for the photo lessons!🙌

That's great.. no more buffering when I'm watching late night.. .er... artistic movies..

Six gigabits per second were sent the 36.7km distance

To put the speedy record into context, watching an hour-long Netflix episode in HD uses up about 3GB in data. Researchers have now transmitted double that per second

Something is wrong... six gigabits is 0.75 gigabytes

a reply to: trollz

I'm all for faster Broadband speeds but more powerful WiFi doesn't fill me with joy , there are still questions about the safety of current WiFi systems.

a reply to: trollz

Sorry to rain on the parade somewhat but the RT article appears to have confused bits and bytes.

6 Gigabits per second of serially transmitted data = 0.6 Gigabytes of data (assuming one start bit, one stop bit and 8 data bits). It also doesn't account for the TCP-IP data block headers and handshakes which further reduce the actual rate of Bytes transferred per second.

Additionally, the millimeter wavelength used would be absorbed and/or diffracted easily.

Still way faster than my WiFi!

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: trollz

there are still questions about the safety of current WiFi systems.

Care to elaborate?

a reply to: trollz

Flawed article.

Transmission speed is 6 Giga-BITS per second. A netflix episode uses 3 Giga-BYTES of data.

8 Bits = 1 Byte

This is common lingo slung around by the telecom corporations. They offer a say, 25 Mbps speed... this is megaBIT and not megaBYTE. That 25 Mbps connection can only download at 3.1 MBps (3,100 Kilo-Bytes)

Don't worry, our lovely internet providers will put a usage cap on it....

a reply to: gortex

Gotta find new "cancers" to keep the medical system churning $'s

www.besthealthmag.ca...

BH: How might EMF produced by Wi-Fi cause health effects? Trottier: There are only three scientifically established mechanisms by which EMF is known to cause a health effect: electrical currents in the body; thermal [heating] effects; and ionizing radiation effects [Wi-Fi is non-ionizing]. The importance of these mechanisms depends on frequency and strength of power. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that supports Wi-Fi causes either of the first two health effects. It does not have enough inherent energy to break molecular bonds [for example, to cause genetic damage that might lead to cancer].
Claims that EMF causes symptoms like headaches, dizziness and racing heart, sometimes called "electrosensitivity," have not been proven in the highest quality studies, although there is evidence that some people believe they are experiencing these symptoms. However, the World Health Organization (WHO) has concluded that the symptoms are psychosomatic [caused by mental or emotional disturbance].

Havas: The concern is that Wi-Fi is at the same frequency as a microwave, 2.4 gigahertz (GHz), and that is the optimum frequency for vibrating molecules [boiling water]. The exposure to EMF is not as intense, but it has the same effect, it just takes longer. If you take kids and put them in a room where they are exposed to Wi-Fi, they may experience negative health effects such as electrosensitivity, and maybe even genetic damage. I read a heck of a lot of research, and it does show that some people have electrosensitivity to this frequency. We are about to publish a study that is not statistically relevant but nevertheless shows that some people are irrefutably affected by this frequency

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: trollz

I'm all for faster Broadband speeds but more powerful WiFi doesn't fill me with joy , there are still questions about the safety of current WiFi systems.

Your body is being bombarded right now with something more deadly than any man made radio wave, cosmic rays.

Wifi wavelengths and power levels are safe and will not cause cancer. Billions of people on the planet are being washed daily in this man made electromagnetic radiation (which is literally light) and not one person has cancer caused by it.

Think about what we are talking about here, its just light. We just can't see it with our eyes.

a reply to: chr0naut

Yup, but the one thing that is actually pretty interesting here is the fact that the distances involved are 37 km which is definitely not line of sight, unless the transceivers are on towers.

The immediate application is microwave backhaul, not one's last mile porn download FYI.

originally posted by: SevenThunders
a reply to: chr0naut

Yup, but the one thing that is actually pretty interesting here is the fact that the distances involved are 37 km which is definitely not line of sight, unless the transceivers are on towers.

The immediate application is microwave backhaul, not one's last mile porn download FYI.

They are - one's from a high rise, the other's a radome on a tower.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: gortex

Gotta find new "cancers" to keep the medical system churning $'s

Not only is 2.4GHz NOT a resonant frequency for water, you're confusing the application with the transmission mechanism.

First, they're not on US licensed wi-fi bands - they're using 71GHz. So any objections to 2.4GHz you might have are sort of out the window.

2.4 GHz was an open band. And you can build a cheap magnetron for it. While liquid water doesn't really have a sharp resonant frequency for qm transitions, the peak for water rotation is something like 92GHz. 2.4GHz works, but it's not optimal.

The problem with the system in the OP IS that it's a lot closer to that frequency. Millimetric waves are pretty easily absorbed by water vapor. So when the humidity goes up, or there's fog or rain, this won't be nearly as desirable.

originally posted by: SevenThunders
a reply to: chr0naut

Yup, but the one thing that is actually pretty interesting here is the fact that the distances involved are 37 km which is definitely not line of sight, unless the transceivers are on towers.

The immediate application is microwave backhaul, not one's last mile porn download FYI.

The receiving antenna (TIRA) is 34 meters in diameter and the movable parts of it weigh 240 tons. It was built for space tracking and communications purposes, so a 37km signal path is not particularly relevant.

a reply to: trollz

Like shooting heroine in your veins. Just gotta have it come faster. Ummm ..tasty programming.

originally posted by: chr0naut

The receiving antenna (TIRA) is 34 meters in diameter and the movable parts of it weigh 240 tons. It was built for space tracking and communications purposes, so a 37km signal path is not particularly relevant.

Well except that the receive antenna is below the horizon. The distance to the horizon at a 100 m tower is around 35 km. I suppose both transceivers could be on towers, but those are tall structures and impractical for last mile comm.s. I don't care what your aperture size is if you don't have line of sight at those frequencies.

originally posted by: SevenThunders

originally posted by: chr0naut

The receiving antenna (TIRA) is 34 meters in diameter and the movable parts of it weigh 240 tons. It was built for space tracking and communications purposes, so a 37km signal path is not particularly relevant.

Well except that the receive antenna is below the horizon. The distance to the horizon at a 100 m tower is around 35 km. I suppose both transceivers could be on towers, but those are tall structures and impractical for last mile comm.s. I don't care what your aperture size is if you don't have line of sight at those frequencies.

This is a picture taken through the transmitting antenna's targeting 'scope. In it you can make out the white dome of the receiving antenna (the whitish bit just under the intersection of the cross hairs).

Plainly it IS line of sight.

a reply to: chr0naut

OK so both transceivers are at considerable height. The white dome looks like its on a mountain top or something close to it. This would reduce the "amazing" factor considerably IMHO. In fact they are consuming 5 GHz of bandwidth so their spectral efficiency sucks, not even reaching 2 bits per sec per Hz. I've been involved with systems that exceed 10 bps/Hz or 10 times as efficient.