Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Networking Japan Wireless Networking IT

Japanese Researchers Achieve Record 56Gbps Wireless Transmission 33

Posted by timothy from the check-your-data-plan-first dept.
Mickeycaskill writes: Fujitsu and the Tokyo Institute of Technology have achieved a wireless transmission of 56Gbps over a 10cm distance using millimeter-wave (mmWave) frequencies located between 30-300GHz. While cellular capacity is improved in some areas through the addition of new mobile masts and small cells, the fibre networks used to link these sites to the wider network is either absent or not feasible to deploy in urban locations or on difficult terrain. This makes the wireless capacity of mobile masts even more important. To achieve the speed, researchers developed custom chips and interface technology to boost capacity of wireless signals without significant data loss.

It is claimed that by pairing the technology developed with a high-output amplifier, the same effect can be achieved outdoors and could be commercialised for mobile operators by 2020.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Japanese Researchers Achieve Record 56Gbps Wireless Transmission More

Japanese Researchers Achieve Record 56Gbps Wireless Transmission

Comments Filter:

  • IMHO, why are people so obsessed with speed over short distances? I'd rather see long range and reliability in less-than-ideal environments using simple antennas.

    • Big telecom is going to monetize the improved (long distance) version and sell it to you at exorbitant rates by 2020.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by gstoddart ( 321705 )

        No, they'll deliver something they claim delivers those speeds, but which really only works under a few cases, but which they'll claim they can't really afford to sustain ... and then you'll just end up paying 30% more for the same shitty network.

        You know, what they've done with the last several iterations of this stuff. ZOMG, look at teh super fast network, followed by no, you can't really have those speeds.

        I've pretty much come to the conclusion this stuff really only exists for marketing purposes, and t

        • No way, they'll absolutely deliver you these speeds. That way you can eat up your allotted 5GB in even less time, and start racking up data overage charges in less than one tenth of a second.

    • Re:Range/Signal quality speed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Rob Lister ( 4174831 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @11:35AM (#51421227)
      Discovering the limits is important. I have no problem with the research. Have we even discovered the limits of a simple two-wire twisted pair? Probably, at least to practicality, not improbably perfectly. It's just basic research. Which is good. Probably a whole lot more useful than finding the Higgs. And a lot cheaper. :?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      IMHO

      I don't think you quite understand what that means.

      why are people so obsessed with speed over short distances?

      They aren't. When you're developing a new tech, you first get it working at short distances to prove the concept. Then you start trying to do it over longer distances. Then you start trying to do it in real-world conditions.

  • I keep hearing about how researchers are making faster and faster short-range wireless connections, but I can't remember any time they were able to put their research into practice. It would be neat if they were to incorporate it into the Bluetooth spec. As it is now, I either have to deal with a hit-or-miss wired connection with MTP, or an agonizingly slow Bluetooth FTP session.

  • 10cm (Score:5, Funny)

    by Thanshin ( 1188877 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @11:20AM (#51421111)

    "Fujitsu and the Tokyo Institute of Technology have achieved a wireless transmission of 56Gbps over a 10cm distance [...] cellular capacity is improved in some areas through the addition of new mobile masts and small cells, the fibre networks used to link these sites to the wider network is either absent or not feasible to deploy in urban locations or on difficult terrain"

    I'm no rocket scientist, but are we sure that the best solution is having satellites fly 10cm over our heads?

  • not special (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by X10 ( 186866 )

    I had 56kbps ages ago, how is that special?

  • At a whopping 10cm, couldn't one devise a way to send the data over a tesla-coil arc? Tremendous energy available, unclear about bandwidth available in a "controlled" arc of electricity.

  • Physics puts enormous limits on using 30-300GHz (Score:5, Informative)

    by Muad'Dave ( 255648 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @11:51AM (#51421343) Homepage

    The FCC has a publication [fcc.gov] on the behavior of RF in the 30-300GHZ range, and the outlook is not rosy. Atmospheric gases, water vapor, rain drops, foliage, and other attenuation and noise sources make these frequencies problematic for medium- to long-range, high speed comms.

    Using 60 GHz is interesting because it's attenuation is so high it can be reused every 4 km.

    • Re:Physics puts enormous limits on using 30-300GHz (Score:5, Interesting)

      by NixieBunny ( 859050 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @12:01PM (#51421427) Homepage
      I work in millimeter- and submillimeter-wave radio astronomy, where we receive signals in the 60 to 800 GHz range. There is a lot of water absorption of the signal, leaving only certain frequency bands usable. The semiconductors used at these frequencies are rather exotic - we use superconducting materials in our receivers for lower noise, and we cool them to 4 Kelvin. Making a power amplifier to produce even one Watt of signal at 75 GHz is a million-dollar project. In short, it's not likely to be mainstream for at least ten years.

      • Too cool! I visited the VLBA radio telescope on St. Croix [nrao.edu] when I was there and had a long, interesting chat with the tech on duty. I love how all the LNAs are liquid helium cooled in the broiling heat of the tropics. He did mention that they didn't bother with 96 GHz (I think it was) due to the extreme absorption there.

      • Making a power amplifier to produce even one Watt of signal at 75 GHz is a million-dollar project. In short, it's not likely to be mainstream for at least ten years.

        I work in mm-wave semiconductors and you might be pleased to find out that you're high by a factor of over 100 on price :)

        Power amplifier chips have no need to be cryogenically cooled like the ultra-low noise temperature amplifiers used in radioastronomy receivers. A few years ago you could pay about $10k per watt of packaged, power combined Ga

    • It's worth pointing out that the frequencies with problematic RF transmission (high attenuation) are precisely the ones the FCC likes to open up for unregulated use. Nobody wants to use those frequencies commercially or for safety because of their unreliability. And the high attenuation means any broadcasts which exceed the unregulated power cap (typically 1 Watt) only affect a small area. 2.4 GHz was opened up because of its high absorption by water molecules, which is why microwave ovens (2.45 GHz) com

      • Indeed. In that paper I linked to they specifically mention 60 GHz as a great re-use candidate exactly because the attenuation due to atmospheric gases/water is so horrendous.

        I don't think your assertion that "2.4 GHz was opened up because of its high absorption by water molecules" is entirely true. It's a fact that water does absorb some power from 2.4GHz RF, but the reason microwave ovens are there is because it's dead center in an ISM band [wikipedia.org] where things like that are allowed. There is no absorption peak [wikipedia.org] f

  • Light on details (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The article was light on details. How wide was the spectrum used? It says 30-300 Ghz - does that mean the entire 270 Ghz of spectrum was used?

    Also, spectrum in the 24 Ghz band is already used for outdoor data links. It's fragile, requires perfect line of sight, and suffers from significant rain fade. Higher frequency bands starting at 30 Ghz are not going to work very well outdoors over any significant distance until/unless our fundamental understanding of radio frequencies experiences a major shift.

  • Not for phones (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 02, 2016 @11:59AM (#51421407)

    30GHz wireless is never going to be in a cell phone, it's really only suitable for stationary point-to-point connections (the only way to get decent range). So I'm going to assume that by "commercialised for mobile operators" they mean replacing the fiber link to the tower.

    The other issue with 30GHz is rain fade, exactly as the name implies the signal is very susceptible to weather and so these systems usually have a lower-frequency (2.4 or 5GHz) backup link to use during rain/snow/etc.

  • Leading the world in high speed porn distribution technology!

  • fibre (Score:2)

    by SETY ( 46845 )

    I don't think the submitter has any clue how much bandwidth an aerial fiber has. Hard to deploy? String the fiber up.

  • https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-wideband

    Was designed for short range high bandwidth apps.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Close