Lightbulbs Could Replace Wi-Fi Hotpsots

Nice idea. Current 802.11 wireless has limited bandwidth and is tremendously prone to interference. Granted this optical stuff won't have much range but for the kind of situations where Wi Fi is used a lot anyway I don't think that will matter. Next we will see people wardriving with mirrorized parabolic antennas trying to get signals LOL. :)

#1 - John Keels - 10/07/2008 - 00:37

THis surely is an innovation that needs support.

#2 - Henry Mitei - 10/07/2008 - 05:41

Kinda unidirectional, aint it?

#3 - moshe - 10/07/2008 - 11:58

This idea isn't exactly new. MIT's Steven Leeb accomplished this with fluorescent bulbs years ago:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/12464/?a=f
http://www.talking-lights.com/

#4 - Jamie Hope - 10/07/2008 - 12:39

you're thinking of lasers. LEDs are as omnidirectional as ordinary lights. The problem is line of sight, e.g. when you put your hand between the camera and the PC and it stops transferring your photos. Unless the system can make a mesh network all the way round the room.

Isn't there an 802.11 standard using IR through air as the transmission medium?

#5 - John Ferguson - 10/07/2008 - 15:03

..... this is retarded. line of sight, working in the dark, working long distances away, ie a room away or outside....you\'d have to wire one of these led networks everywhere you want to use the internet, whereas with existing rf routers, they\'re already there.

also - how can light not be affected from interference? it itself is also an em wave.

#6 - dietbrisk - 10/07/2008 - 22:56

Yeah BU!!! We change the way the world WORKS! but seriously, this is awesome.

#7 - Sean M - 10/07/2008 - 23:50

This sounds like an exciting idea. I can image the positive changes and the benefits this would provide in making are economy strong and more efficent

#8 - bulbs - 10/08/2008 - 02:46

Lol at the plant that says "water me"

#9 - Jabc - 10/08/2008 - 03:40

@#3, #5

I think what #3 meant is that LEDs can only transmit information; they can't receive it.

#10 - Herb Swearengen - 10/08/2008 - 05:31

Someone is looking to make a fancy sounding project, not anything useful.

1. You need to leave the lights on to use the network, even when you don't need light or when it's daytime.
2. You open the door and security is instantly gone.
3. You take a spin on your office chair and your signal is halved.
4. Room-to-device signal would be easier to mesh together, but device-to-room signal would be extremely susceptible to obstructions.


The brakelight application is totally pointless too. IR hardware costs less than $1 and accomplishes the exact same thing for every intent and purpose.

#11 - rei - 10/08/2008 - 06:11

Definitely not a new idea. Color Kinetics was granted US Patent #6,548,967 for this idea in April 2003, covering local area networking through a lighting system that uses LEDs both to generate light and to wirelessly communicate data to external devices such as pagers, personal digital assistants, or any other device. Since Philips now owns Color Kinetics it seems like a dead end for BU due to the former's jealous guardianship of its IP.

#12 - ernie - 10/08/2008 - 06:50

Hack the sun :-)

#13 - KC - 10/08/2008 - 07:56

moshe - you are right! So my laptop should flash to send back data?

#14 - Gruby - 10/08/2008 - 08:03

Would be nice but light cant go through walls ? so how is the range of the lightbulb wireless ?

#15 - webdesign - 10/08/2008 - 08:19

Unidirectional: I don't think he/she was referring to the focused light of Lasers vs. the defused light of LED's. More in the sense of: I can receive data from an LED.... How do I upload the data? Would light sensors also bee installed all over the place or would data be sent via a traditional medium... like satellite based broudband?

#16 - Gineer - 10/08/2008 - 08:43

Great idea.

But what happens in the day when you want the lights off?

Also, with the strange positions people take up whilst using their laptops during lounging around it might be easy to block the signal, with your foot, or your partner passing you a cuppa.

Definitely worth exploring though!

#17 - steve - 10/08/2008 - 09:06

I think it\'s nice and nerdy, but why combine room lighting and networking? What if someone turns the lights off for a presentation or because he/she has enough daylight?

\"...light does not penetrate opaque surfaces such as walls, there is a higher level of security, as eavesdropping is not possible.\"

Unless there are windows, right? :)

#18 - Richard K - 10/08/2008 - 09:10

Nice plan, but surely impractical. Unless we can make infra-red LEDs we won't be able to work in the dark. Also, won't sunlight drown out the signal, so if you sat working in the sun you won't get a connection.

Still an interesting idea.

#19 - Steve - 10/08/2008 - 09:27

This is all well and good, and the idea is a good one. But what about people who suffer from disorders which flashing lights set those disorders off? (such as epilepsy) I'm sure there is a solution to that. But we need to think how this will impact people's heatlh as well. Could the modulation of the light signal send people insane? Just a thought.

#20 - Richard - 10/08/2008 - 09:28

The claim that this technology is secure because light does not pass through walls is misleading at best. Most rooms have windows, and even with curtains drawn a low level of light still escapes. The modulation will trivially be visible from outside, and from quite a long distance where you have line of sight.

#21 - Gavan Fantom - 10/08/2008 - 09:40

this is interesting approach as using linght for communication is nothing new. Actually, before wireless was developet in a manner that it can widely used there were some alternatives which were relaying on using light, based on laser diodes.

However, light has one important disadvantage, there is too much of it. All sources of light starting with Sun, represent large sources of interferences.

That is why light looses battle in all spheres of wireless information transfer, even if it is as simple as detectors.

#22 - Pedja - 10/08/2008 - 10:40

Ditto the line of sight comment John. Wireless for me has always been a bit too prone to interference. For me I will always choose to use cables where I can.

Will be interesting to see if they can get round the line of sight problem.

#23 - Ross - 10/08/2008 - 10:41

[quote]\"This technology has many implications for automobile safety,\" Little said. \"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.\"[/quote]
Great... hackers on the road wreaking havok.

@5 I think he meant the communication is only from the LED to the computer, and not the other way around.

#24 - Zecc - 10/08/2008 - 10:42

I'm sure I read somewhere - several years ago now, that it was possible to listen in on a modem conversation by observing the front panel lights. This relied on the transmit and receive lights being activated directly by the data on the line - which was certainly the case with all my old modems. As many have pointed out this idea does not sound secure - the slight flicker behind your curtain could potentially be observed from a great distance.

#25 - Mark - 10/08/2008 - 13:05

You will always have to have direct visibility, otherwise won't work... :)

#26 - LiquidBrain - 10/08/2008 - 13:47

It is a nice idea but not sure of its practicality in everyday use in a normal working environment. Don't see it as feasibly replacing Wi-Fi hotspots, particularly with the rising popularity there are some excellent mobile broadband deals around and the new initiative of integrated broadband PC's giving users freedom from hotspots, it seems unlikely that this concept of lightbulbs will truly take off.

#27 - Catesy - 10/08/2008 - 14:05

Sunlight covers the full spectrum of light including infrared and ultraviolet. This is why light can interfere with low power IR transmissions over longer distances due to the drop in IR transmission levels; however, your television remote still works when your curtains are open. So will the LEDs over short distances at lower power levels.

LEDs are also directional. As a result, the idea that opening the curtains will easily subject your data to the world is not as realistic as you might think. The visible light you would see from outside would be a combination of reflected light from all of the surfaces in the room... a jumble of data. You would have to zero in on such a small power level range on a perfectly reflective surface to try to achieve a consistent data stream that it would be unrealistic.

Epilepsy sensitivity to flashing lights is usually in the 18 to 25 HZ range or 3 Hz to 60 Hz range max. There should be no data transmissions at that rate.

I think the idea is not to replace current transmission mediums but to offer new ideas which might be useful in certain situations. I\'m all for the research..

#28 - INNMorris - 10/08/2008 - 14:36

I assume the net will be distributed via the power 120V in the house as that has already been done.
Why not use Ifrared LEDs instead of white ones, that way you can work in the dark OR leave the \"net\" always on even when you dont need light. The \"bulb\" could contain both white and ifrared. Excellent Idea!

#29 - Henry - 10/08/2008 - 14:58

[quote]\"This technology has many implications for automobile safety,\" Little said. \"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.\"[/quote]

In the car applying the brakes, the brake lights could flicker information regarding how quickly the car is braking. Very useful when on the highway and the person ahead of you slams on the brakes. The brake lights could also send more information like the plate and/or VIN number so that police wouldn't have to eyeball the plate.

I think sunlight would be the big interferer though. Incandescent or florescent light isn't full spectrum so the LEDs could be tuned to emit at wavelengths that are not normally present or amplify light (strobing) at certain frequencies. The detectors would pick up the increased intensity as flickering over the background light of the same wavelength.

[quote] - akin to the television remote control device -[/quote]

Of course they did sort of elude to the specific spectrum they would use in this article (6th paragraph).

#30 - Dave - 10/08/2008 - 15:14

Remember the old black and white cowboy films where the cavalry would flash messages to each other using hand mirrors ?

I also hereby patent the window blind as a form of data security equipment :-)

#31 - Dave - 10/08/2008 - 15:25

In answer to #13

look at
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14687-et-could-tickle-stars-to-create-galactic-internet.html

#32 - Dave - 10/08/2008 - 15:40

Security will be easier, or at least more obvious, with a visible spectrum data technology like this. Your eyes become the leak detector, and nearly everyone has eyes -- if you can see the light, then others can eavesdrop your data.

#33 - A - 10/08/2008 - 16:02

Well, despite line of sight there\'s the issue of whose backing it. When USB was competing with Firewire it was never an issue of which was better, it was an issue of who had more pull in the market and Intel definitely did. Point - it\'s cool and all but we\'ve matured with RF.
Does anyone here watch pr0n w/ the lights on? I think not - case closed.

#34 - the-h - 10/08/2008 - 16:05

The LED bulb is the access point and the existing power lines transmit the data from one bulb to another. So if I want to hack into this more secure network all I need is a light bulb and access to a power line.
The X-10 lighting control system does the same thing. You needed to change the house code on your system so that you didn't interfer with your neighbor. Or make yours that same as his drive him crazy turning his lights on and off.
All that to say, its not more secure, just a new set of security issues to deal with.

#35 - Rick - 10/08/2008 - 16:21

Sorry, this had it comming...
[quote]
\"...light does not penetrate opaque surfaces such as walls, there is a higher level of security, as eavesdropping is not possible.\"

Unless there are windows, right? :)

#18 - Richard K - 10/08/2008 - 09:10
[/quote]

Like always, (MS)Windows trashing security of every communication system that is conceived. hahaha!

#36 - Christian M - 10/08/2008 - 16:45

Generating documents of articles with grey text is a pain in the a... at least give an option to switch to black text!

#37 - xaml - 10/08/2008 - 18:36

| Hack the sun :-)

... maybe it's already been done, and that's what sunspots do ;)

#38 - B B - 10/08/2008 - 22:49

researches > researchers

#39 - Boof - 10/09/2008 - 18:43

How about building on the ethernet over power idea and creating a bulb with a rf aerial/extender pack, and thereby you can simply turn every room with a standard light socket in to an access point.??? Ethernet over power is relatively out with little or no problems, reinvent and create whatever type of lightbuld you may, but with a compact aerial similar to bluetooth proportions surely it is feasible, i would put up with a slightly bulkier lightbulb fer sure to extend access to every room, then you can cover outdoor range easy. Doesnt solve the lights out issue precisely, but neither does this... Thinking desklamp with rf access.. :) Copyright. Hehe.

#40 - Gus - 10/10/2008 - 09:19

Maybe not with computers but with peripherals like fridges, air conditioners, ect.

The problem: needs to have LED light fixtures replace incandescent and other types of light.

Bidirectionality is achievable by adding a light sensor.

#41 - biotele - 10/11/2008 - 10:51

You should be able to increase the effective range by fitting your computer with binoculars.

#42 - whats_up - 10/12/2008 - 12:42

we're already inundated with assorted emissions from the electromagnic spectrum,cell-phones,microwave oven,cathode ray,ect,thanks for making sure we all die from radiation.

#43 - Scottie - 10/12/2008 - 12:52

I'd love to be able to get rid of the tangle of cords and cables on my desk.

#44 - Promo - 10/13/2008 - 08:00

Perhaps other sources of em-radiation, such as non-data lamps, sunlight and open flames like candles will cause interference, but this could still be used in places that are lit with 100% artificial light. Places that come to mind are: underground spaces, ships and submarines.

Also, there is no sunlight interference during night when most of geeks are alive :-)

#45 - Alari - 10/15/2008 - 08:12

what sensor would be able to distinguish between "carrier" light and regular light. Even if you were in a completely artificially lighted room with no outside source your monitor would emit enough light to cause interference. Would have to focus on specific wave lengths. They already do this technology with IR spectrum to a certain degree, it's just not fast enough to actually transfer large amounts of data.

#46 - Ben - 10/17/2008 - 17:21

What about putting the laptop to download sumthin and keeping it under the side-table or in a bag

how about closing the lid while the attachment is being uploaded, will the opti-sensor still catch light at all angles ?

and what about working at night-time with lights-off while ur wife is sleeping. if u answer IR, then thats not new, its obsolete.

also example about PDA will only realise if u always carry it in ur hand with light-sensor facing up (or whichever direction the leds are) else it will not communicate with you :)

#47 - Johl - 10/17/2008 - 22:32

i would much rather have something with light do this than potentially dangerous radio waves. i would buy this if it ever came to market.

#48 - light bulbs - 10/24/2008 - 18:25