Print 100 comment(s) - last by William Gaatje.. on Oct 16 at 11:43 AM

An artistic rendering of the new light-driven wireless network in action.  (Source: Boston University)
Could the networks of the future run on light

Solid-state lighting is one of the hottest topics in the tech industry, and with good reason.  The Department of Energy is sponsoring a $20M USD "L Prize" for advances in LED lighting, a type of light which uses solid-state components (diodes).  The research is a big deal as lighting currently consumes 22 percent of the electricity in the U.S.  If the DOE accomplishes its goals of reducing lighting energy use by 50 percent, it would save billions of dollars and reduce environmental impact.

New research from Boston University's College of Engineering, funded by a National Science Foundation grant, indicates that LEDs may be not only the integral lighting component of the future, but may also form the backbone of future wireless networks.

BU Engineering Professor Thomas Little describes the new research, stating, "Imagine if your computer, iPhone, TV, radio and thermostat could all communicate with you when you walked in a room just by flipping the wall light switch and without the usual cluster of wires.  This could be done with an LED-based communications network that also provides light - all over existing power lines with low power consumption, high reliability and no electromagnetic interference. Ultimately, the system is expected to be applicable from existing illumination devices, like swapping light bulbs for LEDs."

The primary goal of the research is to develop LEDs that do exactly that -- transmit information wirelessly via controlled blinking. 

Little continues, "This is a unique opportunity to create a transcendent technology that not only enables energy efficient lighting, but also creates the next generation of secure wireless communications.  As we switch from incandescent and compact florescent lighting to LEDs in the coming years, we can simultaneously build a faster and more secure communications infrastructure at a modest cost along with new and unexpected applications."

Professor Little and his colleagues imagine LED lighting in the room being hooked up to computer circuitry, which uses existing lighting to implement a wireless network which provides data to computers, personal digital assistants, television and radio reception, telephone connections and thermostat temperature control.  Prototypes of the new network design, according to Professor Little, should start at around 1 to 10 Mbps.  Better yet, bandwidth would be greater than in existing radio frequency (RF)-driven networks.

In the new network, each LED light bulb would act as an access point.  Another perk of the new design is beefed up security.  Unlike RF networks, the new signal would not pass through walls or other opaque objects.  This would help prevent snooping and connection theft.  The new system would also use much less power than RF, as solid state lighting is energetically cheaper to the strong radio signals needed for wireless internet. 

The flickering which drove the network would be performed so fast the human eye could not see it.  The network would ideally be able to operate outdoors as well as indoors.  The first test deployment may be outdoors, with a likely candidate being car interiors.  Professor Little continues, "This technology has many implications for automobile safety.  Brake lights already use LEDs, so it's not a stretch to outfit an automobile with a sensor that detects the brake lights of the car in front of it and either alerts an inattentive driver or actively slows the car."

While the technology seems very promising, one quandary is how to make the communication bidirectional.  Professor Little and his team have not elaborate on this tricky point yet in the initial press.  In order to send data requests, you would need a means of receiving light from devices such as cell phones or laptops, however, you ideally would want to avoid having to have a bright blinking transmitter on your device walls covered in sensors. 

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By slash196 on 10/7/2008 2:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
Wi-fi is already light. It uses radio waves, which are electromagnetic waves, just like visible light. Having your networks communicate with visible light just seems like a huge nuisance and totally unnecessary.

RE: Uh
By Treckin on 10/7/2008 3:40:42 PM , Rating: 1
You, sir, are a moron. Please at least fire ONE neuron before posting. Please.

This is not Myspace.

7th grade physics knowledge FTFML

RE: Uh
By PrinceGaz on 10/7/2008 7:02:58 PM , Rating: 3
You, sir, are the moron. All EM waves (from radio to gamma) are similar in many ways to light. Their properties vary gradually by wavelength, but their are many similarities. They can also all be treated as particles (photons) instead of waves if desired.

But knowing that visible-light and radio-waves are just variations on the same thing probably isn't taught at 7th grade Physics so you can be forgiven for your ignorance, Treckin.

RE: Uh
By overzealot on 10/8/2008 1:47:47 AM , Rating: 2
First rule of internet retort: five seconds of research saves you from many hours of embarrassment.

RE: Uh
By omnicronx on 10/8/2008 12:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
Radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, X-ray and gamma radiation are all different forms of light.

Of course the OP is stretching it a bit to say Wireless = light. Usually when someone says light, they are talking about visible light, which does have a different wavelength and frequency than radio, but they are both EM radiation.

To me saying Wireless = Light is just as informative as saying Sound = Light.. (which technically it is, but when we say sound, and light in scientific terms, the meaning is usually interpreted as visible light and sound.) A physics prof would probably shoot you down for saying it, so I will too.. although this poster is the moron, most of this stuff IS 7th grade physics.

RE: Uh
By mindless1 on 10/7/2008 5:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
It does have it's drawbacks, for example today we talk about 2.4GHz being a problem due to phones, microwaves, other wifi signals, etc, so we'll move to a band already used by everything else that creates light? Through careful control of frequency that problem can be minimized, but so it could also be minimized through equivalent control around 2.4GHz.

RE: Uh
By omnicronx on 10/8/2008 12:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
Having your networks communicate with visible light just seems like a huge nuisance and totally unnecessary.
It makes perfect sense, its a well known fact that going high or low on either end of the spectrum can have adverse effects on the human body. i.e Gamma on one side, sub sonic on the other.. There is a reason 5.8GHZ wireless A is not recommended for home use. Also the same reason why basking in the suns gamma rays for a long time is never a good idea.

RE: Uh
By BarkHumbug on 10/9/2008 3:51:07 AM , Rating: 2
its a well known fact that going high or low on either end of the spectrum can have adverse effects on the human body. i.e Gamma on one side, sub sonic on the other..

Yes, don't wanna play around to much with gamma. Unless you wanna be big and green and very, very angry... ;)

“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki