3 ms·
Three drawbacks i can think of right away: 1. You need to maintain line-of-sight with the receiver on your receiving device, and the transmitter. No, you can't
by Mithaldu 11y ago
Three drawbacks i can think of right away:
1. You need to maintain line-of-sight with the receiver on your receiving device, and the transmitter. No, you can't turn around with your cellphone in your hand.
2. Interference potential is high due to environmental other lights, reflective surfaces, etc.
3. The camera in the receive won't be particularly cheap.
- wyldfire 11y agoAlgorithms and economics can mitigate 2 and 3. Requiring LOS absolutely kills this for replacing WiFi, though. Maybe could find its way into applications where we need high throughput and we can easily get stable LOS.
- msandford 11y agoI don't believe that strict LOS is a requirement. If the room is getting ever so slightly brighter and dimmer, that's enough of a signal. Current wifi works down to -80dBm (or lower) which is a crazy small signal. -100dBm is a tenth of a picowatt of received signal strength. I'm not saying that non-LOS is guaranteed by any means. But LOS isn't strictly required for this scheme to work. If only one light bulb out of 100 in a room is Li-Fi enabled it's going to be tough. If all three light bulbs in a room are Li-Fi enabled there's definitely hope. The proportion of non-Li-Fi lightings to Li-Fi lighting is probably going to determine your SNR and thus your feasibility. Trying to make Li-Fi work with a 100 lumen bulb in direct sunlight is going to be a bad time since the sensor only has so much dynamic range. But if you increase the power of your light to be within an order of magnitude or two of the sunlight, you've got a fighting chance.