This is indeed interesting, but I'd say far beyond the needs. 10Gbps wireless transfer already exists (e.g. http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/27/ntt-docomo-confirms-succe... ), and that is beyond what flash based memory can do. In any case, it would mean transferring a BluRay in something like 30 seconds, assuming you had a faster drive.
Graphene Antennas Would Enable Terabit Wireless Downloads
21–30 of 34 posts
Re: Graphene Antennas Would Enable Terabit Wireless Downloads
#22I wonder how much spectrum it would stomp on? Or is it possible to increase bandwidth without using more spectrum? Better time resolution?
Re: Graphene Antennas Would Enable Terabit Wireless Downloads
#23This is indeed interesting, but I'd say far beyond the needs. 10Gbps wireless transfer already exists (e.g. http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/27/ntt-docomo-confirms-succe... ), and that is beyond what flash based memory can do. In any case, it would mean transferring a BluRay in something like 30 seconds, assuming you had a faster drive.
What it would do is end the concept of "local storage". Online is faster.
Re: Graphene Antennas Would Enable Terabit Wireless Downloads
#24This is indeed interesting, but I'd say far beyond the needs. 10Gbps wireless transfer already exists (e.g. http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/27/ntt-docomo-confirms-succe... ), and that is beyond what flash based memory can do. In any case, it would mean transferring a BluRay in something like 30 seconds, assuming you had a faster drive.
Don't be so quick. Don't just consider single link transfers, remember that wireless is always shared bandwidth. If you have a terabit for everyone that means you can have hundreds of megabits for tens of thousands of folks in a small area all connected to one access point / cell tower.
Re: Graphene Antennas Would Enable Terabit Wireless Downloads
#25I find claims of such to be somewhat questionable. Even if we could enable Terabit speeds over wireless it does not good if the hardware receiving it is incapable of handling that much data in that short of time. I mean we get max hard drive write speeds of 3.0 GB/s for the average user. Ram and CPU are still on the order of Ghz. We may be able to cram that much in the air but it does no good if the computers can't h…
I was typing up a serious response about multiple devices and wireless interconnects, instead I'll just go with:
"640k of memory should be enough for anybody"
Re: Graphene Antennas Would Enable Terabit Wireless Downloads
#26I wonder how much spectrum it would stomp on? Or is it possible to increase bandwidth without using more spectrum? Better time resolution?
None. Transmissions in the terahertz range are currently not part of any FCC allocation (which maxes out at 300 GHz).
Re: Graphene Antennas Would Enable Terabit Wireless Downloads
#27This is indeed interesting, but I'd say far beyond the needs. 10Gbps wireless transfer already exists (e.g. http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/27/ntt-docomo-confirms-succe... ), and that is beyond what flash based memory can do. In any case, it would mean transferring a BluRay in something like 30 seconds, assuming you had a faster drive.
Don't be so quick. Don't just consider single link transfers, remember that wireless is always shared bandwidth. If you have a terabit for everyone that means you can have hundreds of megabits for tens of thousands of folks in a small area all connected to one access point / cell tower.
They are talking about terahertz bands that aren't suitable for distance communication, the ranges are practically measured in centimeters.
Re: Graphene Antennas Would Enable Terabit Wireless Downloads
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't be so quick. Don't just consider single link transfers, remember that wireless is always shared bandwidth. If you have a terabit for everyone that means you can have hundreds of megabits for tens of thousands of folks in a small area all connected to one access point / cell tower.
They are talking about terahertz bands that aren't suitable for distance communication, the ranges are practically measured in centimeters.
> They are talking about terahertz bands that aren't suitable for distance communication, the ranges are practically measured in centimeters.
If this argument had merit, light would be unsuitable for long-distance communication.
Re: Graphene Antennas Would Enable Terabit Wireless Downloads
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are talking about terahertz bands that aren't suitable for distance communication, the ranges are practically measured in centimeters.
> They are talking about terahertz bands that aren't suitable for distance communication, the ranges are practically measured in centimeters. If this argument had merit, light would be unsuitable for long-distance communication.
Water vapor in these bands is a strong absorber limiting distance in earth's atmosphere to ~10 meters or less. Subtract a good deal for omnidirectional emissions and decent snr.
Re: Graphene Antennas Would Enable Terabit Wireless Downloads
#30Graphene is quickly acquiring buzz-word status.
As a physics grad student, I wanted to mention that graphene _was_ a buzz-word a few years ago. It's popularity has since died significantly in the community. It's still around, but nowhere near as popular as it used to be. Maybe the same will happen in popular science?