+waterlubber Radio Waves are at the opposite end of the electromagnetic spectrum and are not considered light. But you are right that the only difference is wavelength.
+waterlubber Well generally when we say light I think we usually refer to "Visible light", others are just radiation from another part of the electromagnetic spectrum
But... there's so many restrictions - you'd need transmitters out in open view of receivers, and if it can't penetrate walls, you need them in each room... etc. And being X amount "faster than Google Fiber" doesn't mean much for average consumers who aren't even generally lucky enough to HAVE Google Fiber, nevertheless faster internet. Could be VERY useful in certain internal networking scenarios, but that's about it. I want them to work to cheapen up 10gb local networking.
+EposVox thank you for having a bit of knowledge of transceivers, i hear a lot of people talk about li-fi and just parroting what all these hype articles are saying without much in the way of legitimate knowledge. you are very right that you would need a receiver pointed at the light you desired to connect to. not only that but you would need a transmitter to send any data over that line. basically making Li-Fi about as good as radio signals. i am a little sad that linus failed to mention this and appears to be hopping aboard the hype train of misinforming the public. the oxford study he mentions while i do not have access to the full study has shown the ability to get as high as he claims but the light MUST be a direct beam of light and they have only been able to achieve speeds of 112 Gb's which is well within the realm of regular fiber-optics. all of that writing to say that fiber-optic cable is still the most reliable, safe and speedy way to transmit data. just add a couple more cores to your standard fiber-optic cable with shielding between the cores and you get exactly what that study claims Li-Fi can do. Source for study: www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/oxford-researchers-use-li-fi-system-deliver-100-gbps/2015-02-16
He pointed out the limitations, just kept the forward-thinking optimism of "they'll improve it and make it practical over the years" - which may be true. But as of right now, it just sounds kind of silly.
EposVox id agree with you but what i also didnt mention in my post was that if you look up the original presentations on things like ted talks. the man uses faked demonstrations and claims that current existing infrastructure would support this tech. anyone who knows a bit about networking and light switches can tell you that is a lie. there will always be a bottleneck, in this case its that whatever you are trying to reach better be directly attached to that light switch with high capacity lines.
Well, to be fair you could bounce photons off walls to have a signal across multiple rooms, a transmitter in one room could be designed to emit a burst in all directions (yes, the video did say LiFi is emitted in a single direction, still, this is a proof-of-concept that I'm describing), have an open door and photons could be reflected off the door into the other room, and granted if you have a device in the perfect location to receive the photons, you could have that device receive a signal from another room using light. Though that raises the question of what's the point of LiFi in this situation if WiFi is better at doing this. Well, in practice you would have to align mirrors (translucent mirrors could allow a T-split) and align the beam of light perfectly with the receiving device. Light isn't just absorbed by a surface, it's reflected too, that's how a down-facing spotlight can illuminate a whole room.
the biggest problem I see with this is how do you upload data. the one demo they showed was a video steam being transmitted to a laptop which only required a downlink. It wouldn't be so practical if you had to go around with a light bulb attached to your phone.
+Hami101 Indeed. But you have an light bulb attached to your phone, it's called a screen. which is already present as well. ;-) Also, like many phones do with the camera, light sensors and speakers the top of the phone could house a row of leds with a diffuser on top of it that could send a Li Fi signal invisible to the eye, though if designing a phone for Li Fi capability it would be much easier to take it into account when choosing the screen technology as that has much more surface. A bigger problem would be on the receiving part of the uplink since the receiver for the uplink cannot simply be embedded into the LED assembly since the lamp or light fixture might obstruct it too much.But Wifi can still be used for a sufficient upload channel. By far, most wireless connections do not need a relatively high speed uplink.
+Little Lion What if I'm using the phone with the screen (bulb) pointing in a different angle than towards the receiver in the main LiFi AP? Anyone got thoughts on that?
***** Yes, generally the LiFi works somewhat less fast when reaching the receiver indirectly, but depending on the location of the light the signal can still be read by reflecting from the walls. Luminance is not a huge factor as a receiving sensor can recognise a signal while the lamp is seemingly in an off state to the visible eye. It seems a bit counter-intuitive, but light from your smartphone screen actually travels all over the room, even when other lights are on. A well placed receiver can detect the photons not visible to the eye reflecting off different surfaces and read out the signal coming from the phone's screen. The degree of reflection, is influential to the speed like I said, but it still should work fine. Even a phone placed with the screen down could theoretically maintain it's connection if the sides allow for some light to bleed through, or of course by using the LED flash on the back at low power to send the signal in multiple directions. The only trouble is that while a downstream signal modulator can easily be embedded in light bulbs, a receiver runs into a lot more problems that prevent such an easy solution. This means that a receiver would have to be placed separately in every room or embedded into the fixture or other part of the lamp. Though there are solutions imaginable, it does become less cost effective. Still though, Li Fi might make us less reliable on WiFi technology as a wireless communication technology. It has some clear advantages, and a hybrid network could take advantage of both technologies to improve connectivity in a home or office network.
Ummmm... Wouldn't the higher data capacity be due to the speed of LED's and the wavelength of light, and not the condensing light thing you mentioned? It may work that way, but I doubt it. Also, how would this be different than just re-transmitting what's on a fiber line? It doesn't seem like it will ever become mainstream in the way that it is currently being described.
+LazerLord10 While I'm not as knowledgeable as Linus or you on the subject of light and the properties of fiber optics one way that Linus talked about on the WAN show of Li-Fi taking off was in public places and schools that require regular bright lighting at close intervals Li-Fi could be very useful and cheaper than thousands of optic lines running through it
Dear LINUS this topic was ages before invented but it was open laser communication and I have also mentioned this in my lecture I gave in 2001 where both the sender and receiver would be placed on the roof tops and clear path communications is a must!
+iAppleJailbreaker If you live on a campus or work for a tech company (or any good company) you're likely to get 1Gbps here in the UK. Japan offers 2Gbps but South Korea is getting ready to jump ahead again in a year.
+Nashy119 Romania is the best when it comes to speed/price ... You can get TV/unlimited Mobile/Internet 1Gps under 30 euros, from what I remember ... Last time I checked it was 5 euros unlimited mobile internet and minutes (national/international), 10-12 euros 1Gps, 10 euros TV ...
There is a very good reason that we utilize radio frequencies as opposed to the visual spectrum. The wavelengths of radio frequencies allow the passage through materials, whereas visible light is of a higher frequency, and therefore cannot pass through material. Furthermore, radio waves travel at the speed of light, and although data cannot be compressed as effectively due to the long wavelength, radio waves are more useful due to the fact that you do not have to have a direct line of sight. Furthermore, higher frequencies, i.e. infrared and visible light, are only advantageous for long-distance transmissions in which data compression is necessary as well as when there are no obstructions to the light. This is what we use to transmit some satellite data as well as that of future deep-space missions. The notion that visible-spectrum light is practical for widespread networking is absurd. Also, the technology Li-Fi demonstrates already exists in form of fiber optic cables, which have already seen widespread use. Fiber optics allows for data transmission more efficient than radio as well as traditional copper cables due to it's speed and frequency. However, one might consider using a frequency higher than radio to transmit data. Unfortunately we are already utilizing the upper frequencies of radio for WiFi, and the infrared frequency, which we use for remote controls, does not pass through materials. Radio is the only scientifically feasible wireless networking medium, and we have reached its upper limit. Most current generation routers already transmit on the 5GHz band, which increases bit rate, but decreases range and transmission clarity. Get real Linus. On a side note, why stop at visible light? If I want to be able to stream content with a resolution of 64K, I could just invent GW-Fi, otherwise known as Gamma Wave Fidelity. I might have some problems with the FCC, though.
The point is being missed completely why Li-Fi is being developed. Its main goal is for components and motherboards to hopefully offer speeds faster than the current wired and pcb setups
This tecnology is good but probably feasable only in Industrial application, as devices would probably need direct, stable line of sight which could be very difficult to achieve on mobile devices.
Infra red communication was fairly common in small cheap devices 10-20 years ago and I remember it wasn't particularly fast or reliable. The two devices also had to be stationary while transmitting or the connection would fail. Also to use the internet you need to be both sending and receiving data which means your laptop will need its own li-fi transmitter to get the full speed and security benefits. (I don't really want a bright LED next to my laptop screen)
@@pafnutiytheartist let me guess, continued improvements on the Wi-Fi standard by opening up more frequencies, clever timing tricks to reduce interference, the ability for multiple transmitters to transmit at the same time, increased range with the same transmission power with beamforming and the standard just being more mature in general has fixed the problems Li-Fe was supposed to solve by using a far less exotic, incremental approach that ended up being a much better standard in pretty much every way then Li-Fi ever could have been in almost every use case.
He's actually got a good idea because having li-fi coming out of your lights it will solve the problem that the information can not travel through walls, so each of your lights will be and individual data sending point
+Richard's World yep, and IR is not much better for anything else beyond TV remotes, I had a wireless IR Gamepad for my NES as a kid, and the damn thing never would work right even with direct line of sight, that's why some remotes are slowly ditching it for WiFi Direct.
Commodorefan64 Intersting username. When my older brother left to join the Navy I used to take my brother's Commodore 64 apart when I was 12 and I somehow knew enough to go buy the chip that would go bad in it and replace it. Sometimes I think about buying one for the memories.
I watched the presentation from the person who came up with the idea. He himself said Li-Fi isn't going to replace Wi-Fi but it's a possible as an alternative method to connect to the internet. So, I think it can be pretty useful for internal network I think, if businesses want to give it a try and transfer faster than what the ethernet can deliver currently. I still have hopes that one day, we'll come up with something better than Wi-Fi.... I hate unpredictable latency spikes. -_-
What could work is that each area could have a 500 meter pole with a powerfull light to communicate to other poles then use fibre for the area to connect all areas.
224 up and 224 down. Of course there is communication both ways. And they both work exactly the same way. The transmitter on your device would probably be the backlight of the screen. And then the receiver on the bulb reads that. Same 224gbps speed, as its ecatly the same method on how it works.
I think li-fi would be great if it is wired into houses. Then you put a little pad down and there you go. Super low MS since its light and then a wire to the router and fast speeds
How would you get internet in the day time? if you're outside in the daytime? Or if you're going to sleep? This probably will be a thing... But not a really big thing... too limited...
+Plato I was thinking just that as I like to use my phone outside with earbuds when I cutting the grass to stream shoutcast audio, and music stored on my 2 bay NAS.
+ronald mcdonald What does our eyes detecting the light from a LiFi unit have to do with sunlight interfering with the LiFi receiver? Anyways... +Plato The receiver could be tuned to detect, decode and use photons within the IR band of EM frequencies, similar to how TV remotes work. A TV remote works in daylight even though theoretically the signal should be saturated by other photons.
ronald mcdonald There's a technical issue with that. The equipment required to pick up such faint sources of light are sensitive, too big to fit in phones, laptops, or tablets, and expensive.
3:03 He called that one, right! Seen this headline on Tom's Hardware this morning: "100x Faster Than Wi-Fi: Li-Fi, Light-Based Networking Standard Released," right to the very edge of several!
+Dean Goldbaum ya this is my biggest problem i see with it. is my laptop gonna have a bulb on the outside that has to be pointed directly at the receiver in the bulb or something. and what about my phone??? sure the bulb in the ceiling is powerful enough to bounce around and be picked up by a sensor but the receiving device has to be just as "bright". dont really get how it could be implemented.
+Neil Etnyre Light bounces around a room no matter how powerful the emitting object is. A TV remote uses similar technology to what a LiFi unit would use (a low-power LED emitting light at a wavelength within the IR band of the EM spectrum), when you point the remote away from your TV, the remote still works doesn't it? Block it with your hand and, depending on the remote and the LED used, the remote stops working. Light is bounced around a room no matter the strength of its source.
@techquickie 2:56 i think you missed the point here. the light can be dimmed(meaning your eyes would see it off, or something), but the photo-sensors would still be able to detect them, hence, no reduced performance. anyway, love your videos. i'm a fan
I think this could be more useful if it would be made into a powerful beam that could connect things on your personal network, but not for regular internet quite yet because no service can even provide that level of speed.
+Yusuke Urameshi Plus you would still need regular WiFi if you say wanted to sit on your front porch in the middle of the afternoon while on your laptop, or phone.
+airbomb34 Except LiFi would likely use photons that are at a wavelength that eyes cannot detect, unless cats eyes can pick up IR, I don't think they will see them. Grab your TV remote and see if your cat reacts to it.
Nothing ever happened because people don't want to route an ethernet cable to every light bulb in their house and because people don't want to block their phone signal by being between their phone and a light.
@@provtjeter8562 your internet's upload speed is probably way slower than your download speed so you could just use regular 5 gigahertz Wi-Fi for upload and download everything from Li-Fi.
Why isn't anybody calling out how stupid this idea is, this is the definition of a dead on arrival idea. Who the hell would want this? It has way more limitations than WiFi does, if you are worried about privacy use a cable, this thing doesn't go through walls, you need to have your house filled LEDs so you can get signal, they never mentioned upload speeds, because it probably cant do uploads, this product doesn't solve anything, it actually makes things harder, WiFi Speeds are pretty good as of now, and the technology will keep improving, why do so many people get impressed by this garbage?
@@Rationalist101 the need for direct line of sight pretty much makes it useless in everything other than very nitche circumstances. Imagine you had a Li-Fi receiver on your laptop, what's going to happen when your arm blocks the signal? There goes your high-speed connection. It's stuck in between Wi-Fi and ethernet, if you want to be able to walk around your house and keep an internet connection then there's Wi-Fi and if you really need high speed and you're willing to sacrifice portability and convenience then there's ethernet. The only way lifi would be useful is if it was connecting something that isn't portable and that would never be blocked like a PC, but since it's not portable you might as well run an ethernet cable to it and get even more speed and reliability. Also, even if you use it to avoid running ethernet cables to desktop PCS you still will have to run an ethernet cable to the light. Any use case it has is extremely narrow.
What's with the bit at the beginning about wireless filling the room? Isn't that the default of any electromagnetic wave? Sure I bet some applications *could* use directional light, but we also have directional radio waves as well...so was that really necessary? I'm pretty sure that aside from the early test cases we saw on ted where they were working with a controlled environment to make the signal processing easier, in theory you shouldn't have to be directly under the lightbulb; just have a clear line of sight.
1:25 wrong although we don't percieve it, our eyes and brain do and this is why living in a place with an old neon is tirering for your eyes because it flicker on and off constanly
i guess it will be the lights in the home and can be infra or violet spectrum so even in the dark is possible .But is better from existing optical fibers for major traffic;
Li-Fi seems limited in the upload bandwidth department. A fairly sized LED could be installed on a device (such as a laptop), but definitely not as big as a roof LED. Dimmer the light emitted, less data transmitted. Also I agree with people saying Wi-Fi is not going to be replaced by Li-Fi. Li-Fi is hindered by walls, but Wi-Fi is not. People could use Li-Fi when in specific rooms, and Wi-Fi anywhere in coverage.
+C0deH0wler LiFi could rely on bouncing light around to propagate between rooms. Turn every light off but one and see how light bounces around and makes it's way into other nooks and crannies where it doesn't have direct access to, that's basically what LiFi could do.
Well, your screen is quite a big of a light source.. The backlight can be used to transmit data. Monitor surfaces are huge, and so are almost all phone and tablet screens, much bigger than light bulbs. And the brigthness doesnt have that big of an effect on the speed.
A lot of non techies I've seen post about this on Facebook and the like go on about the speeds not realising that it doesn't make their speed to the world wide web any faster!
But lights already flicker at 60 hertz (in the US at least). So if you were to use a separate light for Li-Fi, the regular lamp would interfere with the signal. If you made it cancel out the flickering, a genuine signal at 60 hertz would be read as null. However, if you were to use a Li-Fi lamp as your main lamp, you wouldn't be able to watch Linus at 3 in the morning.
The issue with Li-Fi which no one ever talks about is the uploading.... No you CAN'T use standard led bulbs... they are highly specialized(so NOT cheap) bulbs that just happen to be LED as well. Even then how do you get 2 way communication? do you have a annoyingly bright light on the device you have to make sure is pointed at where ever the sensor is? To me this seems like one of those great in theory type things but completely impractical to actually implement.
+Lumilan Turn your bedroom light on and throw a thin sheet over yourself and see how light propagates through it (but loses energy and diffuses in the process). Then do the same but with a thicker blanket. Depending on the thickness of whatever material it is, light may be able to propagate through it.
didn't explain the one thing I wanted to know, sure your download speeds are awesome but what about uploading back into the network? does my phone/laptop/ tablet need an led that's always on and do I need to hold it in a very specific position for another receiver in the room to see it? or do we just accept the nice download speeds but still upload over a WiFi connection?
+SavageSmithy I'd imagine it'd work the same but in reverse. Your laptop has a little LED up the top that emits light (likely outside of the visible light band of the EM spectrum, similar to how a TV remote emits light that you cannot see with your eyes) and there's a receiver on the unit that receives the light from this LED. How does it? Simple. Light bounces around a room. Or, to be more physically accurate, the band of the EM spectrum that we call visible light (ie the light we can see) bounces around a room, and LiFi would likely use IR, which is just outside that band we can see. Your TV remote has an LED at the end that emits photons at a wavelength that is within the IR band, you can't see it but it's there. If you have a laptop, try pointing a TV remote at it and pressing some buttons, some webcams can detect IR, some can't, hopefully your's can. A TV remote works if you don't point it directly at the TV, right? Same principle, only a TV remote is one-way, LiFi works in two directions.
You would still need a router to control the flashing of the light right? Also, this would significantly lower the lifetime of an LED. In addition, there would be no way to send or request data.
Not happening. There is lots of interference like blocking the sensor, natural light from the sun, etc. Unless you are in a lab condition, its has too much data to lose. Also as speeds go up you got to watch the inductance variable in the wire between the sensor and the Wifi-Decoder module inside a smartphone for example.
Linus-Fi
+wayge Linus's wifi = Li-fi :v
+wayge
Linus' Fidelity
+Little Lion Almost non existent. He spends too much time with Luke
dagambler999 ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Linus fidelity
what if we want to use Internet in the dark??
+smith tag Like said, the LED's can be dimmed beyond human sight, but will still transmit more than enough data for tasks like that.
+smith tag actually, the light can be dim enough to be barely detectable by the human eye (especially when you're pointing your eye on the screen).
Did you miss the part where he said it can go so fast that the human eye can't detect it?
+Fred He meant you wouldn't be able to see the light flicker.
get a lifi lamp problem solved
Sandals as fast as possible
+Superdoge reiches
+Aj Koorstra - HOLY BALLZZZZ...
+Aj Koorstra He would trip!
SLi sandals with socks
Best footwear ever invented.
Less susceptible to interference, *puts hand over phone* Right...
😂
Wi-Fi is just light.
With a long wavelength.
+waterlubber I would hope that everyone would understand this lol..
*explosion*
Mind = Blown.
+waterlubber Radio Waves are at the opposite end of the electromagnetic spectrum and are not considered light. But you are right that the only difference is wavelength.
+waterlubber Well generally when we say light I think we usually refer to "Visible light", others are just radiation from another part of the electromagnetic spectrum
no, you are wrong.
Great cutoff into the advertisement
+Subspacer15 He gave up on the puns! XD
+Subspacer15 ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+Subspacer15 - HOLY BALLZZZ EH!!!
+Subspacer15 He obviously messed up. And in the editing said "CUT THAT OUT! CUT THAT OUT!".
+HyphenSam Smooth like a baseball bat to the face.
But... there's so many restrictions - you'd need transmitters out in open view of receivers, and if it can't penetrate walls, you need them in each room... etc.
And being X amount "faster than Google Fiber" doesn't mean much for average consumers who aren't even generally lucky enough to HAVE Google Fiber, nevertheless faster internet.
Could be VERY useful in certain internal networking scenarios, but that's about it.
I want them to work to cheapen up 10gb local networking.
a quick Google search of Li-Fi will likely change your opinion. it's more practical than you think
+EposVox thank you for having a bit of knowledge of transceivers, i hear a lot of people talk about li-fi and just parroting what all these hype articles are saying without much in the way of legitimate knowledge. you are very right that you would need a receiver pointed at the light you desired to connect to. not only that but you would need a transmitter to send any data over that line. basically making Li-Fi about as good as radio signals. i am a little sad that linus failed to mention this and appears to be hopping aboard the hype train of misinforming the public. the oxford study he mentions while i do not have access to the full study has shown the ability to get as high as he claims but the light MUST be a direct beam of light and they have only been able to achieve speeds of 112 Gb's which is well within the realm of regular fiber-optics. all of that writing to say that fiber-optic cable is still the most reliable, safe and speedy way to transmit data. just add a couple more cores to your standard fiber-optic cable with shielding between the cores and you get exactly what that study claims Li-Fi can do. Source for study: www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/oxford-researchers-use-li-fi-system-deliver-100-gbps/2015-02-16
He pointed out the limitations, just kept the forward-thinking optimism of "they'll improve it and make it practical over the years" - which may be true.
But as of right now, it just sounds kind of silly.
EposVox
id agree with you but what i also didnt mention in my post was that if you look up the original presentations on things like ted talks. the man uses faked demonstrations and claims that current existing infrastructure would support this tech. anyone who knows a bit about networking and light switches can tell you that is a lie. there will always be a bottleneck, in this case its that whatever you are trying to reach better be directly attached to that light switch with high capacity lines.
Well, to be fair you could bounce photons off walls to have a signal across multiple rooms, a transmitter in one room could be designed to emit a burst in all directions (yes, the video did say LiFi is emitted in a single direction, still, this is a proof-of-concept that I'm describing), have an open door and photons could be reflected off the door into the other room, and granted if you have a device in the perfect location to receive the photons, you could have that device receive a signal from another room using light. Though that raises the question of what's the point of LiFi in this situation if WiFi is better at doing this. Well, in practice you would have to align mirrors (translucent mirrors could allow a T-split) and align the beam of light perfectly with the receiving device.
Light isn't just absorbed by a surface, it's reflected too, that's how a down-facing spotlight can illuminate a whole room.
In the category of “technologies that didn’t come to fruition”, we present: LiFi.
the biggest problem I see with this is how do you upload data. the one demo they showed was a video steam being transmitted to a laptop which only required a downlink. It wouldn't be so practical if you had to go around with a light bulb attached to your phone.
same thing im thinking
+Hami101 Indeed. But you have an light bulb attached to your phone, it's called a screen. which is already present as well. ;-) Also, like many phones do with the camera, light sensors and speakers the top of the phone could house a row of leds with a diffuser on top of it that could send a Li Fi signal invisible to the eye, though if designing a phone for Li Fi capability it would be much easier to take it into account when choosing the screen technology as that has much more surface.
A bigger problem would be on the receiving part of the uplink since the receiver for the uplink cannot simply be embedded into the LED assembly since the lamp or light fixture might obstruct it too much.But Wifi can still be used for a sufficient upload channel. By far, most wireless connections do not need a relatively high speed uplink.
+Little Lion What if I'm using the phone with the screen (bulb) pointing in a different angle than towards the receiver in the main LiFi AP? Anyone got thoughts on that?
***** Yes, generally the LiFi works somewhat less fast when reaching the receiver indirectly, but depending on the location of the light the signal can still be read by reflecting from the walls. Luminance is not a huge factor as a receiving sensor can recognise a signal while the lamp is seemingly in an off state to the visible eye. It seems a bit counter-intuitive, but light from your smartphone screen actually travels all over the room, even when other lights are on.
A well placed receiver can detect the photons not visible to the eye reflecting off different surfaces and read out the signal coming from the phone's screen. The degree of reflection, is influential to the speed like I said, but it still should work fine.
Even a phone placed with the screen down could theoretically maintain it's connection if the sides allow for some light to bleed through, or of course by using the LED flash on the back at low power to send the signal in multiple directions.
The only trouble is that while a downstream
signal modulator can easily be embedded in light bulbs, a receiver runs into a lot more problems that prevent such an easy solution. This means that a receiver would have to be placed separately in every room or embedded into the fixture or other part of the lamp.
Though there are solutions imaginable, it does become less cost effective.
Still though, Li Fi might make us less reliable on WiFi technology as a wireless communication technology. It has some clear advantages, and a hybrid network could take advantage of both technologies to improve connectivity in a home or office network.
Nah.. It'd be more like a hat or full body suit that acts as a receiver
For a moment I thought it stood for Linus fidelity
Linus your jokes needed to be deployed against Isis because they kill
we now need to deploy them against iran
Ummmm... Wouldn't the higher data capacity be due to the speed of LED's and the wavelength of light, and not the condensing light thing you mentioned? It may work that way, but I doubt it.
Also, how would this be different than just re-transmitting what's on a fiber line? It doesn't seem like it will ever become mainstream in the way that it is currently being described.
+LazerLord10 you're on every tech quickie video
Mr.FuzzyCow
Is that good or bad?
+LazerLord10 ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+LazerLord10 While I'm not as knowledgeable as Linus or you on the subject of light and the properties of fiber optics one way that Linus talked about on the WAN show of Li-Fi taking off was in public places and schools that require regular bright lighting at close intervals Li-Fi could be very useful and cheaper than thousands of optic lines running through it
Ryan Fleming
Very true. Forgot about that.
Linus-Fi: Linus just runs from google’s servers to you computer with flash drives.
Dear LINUS this topic was ages before invented but it was open laser communication and I have also mentioned this in my lecture I gave in 2001 where both the sender and receiver would be placed on the roof tops and clear path communications is a must!
It is fast. So is Google fiber. But who's ready to pay too much for 1gb/sec
+iAppleJailbreaker Big companies that actually need the bandwidth over wireless connections.
Google fiber isn't that much believe it or not. They even have a one payment fee of $300 for one of their plans. $125 for the 1Gb speeds.
+iAppleJailbreaker If you live on a campus or work for a tech company (or any good company) you're likely to get 1Gbps here in the UK. Japan offers 2Gbps but South Korea is getting ready to jump ahead again in a year.
+Nashy119
Romania is the best when it comes to speed/price ...
You can get TV/unlimited Mobile/Internet 1Gps under 30 euros, from what I remember ...
Last time I checked it was 5 euros unlimited mobile internet and minutes (national/international), 10-12 euros 1Gps, 10 euros TV ...
five years later 1gb/sec is 10-20€ the world is moving fast
There is a very good reason that we utilize radio frequencies as opposed to the visual spectrum. The wavelengths of radio frequencies allow the passage through materials, whereas visible light is of a higher frequency, and therefore cannot pass through material. Furthermore, radio waves travel at the speed of light, and although data cannot be compressed as effectively due to the long wavelength, radio waves are more useful due to the fact that you do not have to have a direct line of sight. Furthermore, higher frequencies, i.e. infrared and visible light, are only advantageous for long-distance transmissions in which data compression is necessary as well as when there are no obstructions to the light. This is what we use to transmit some satellite data as well as that of future deep-space missions. The notion that visible-spectrum light is practical for widespread networking is absurd. Also, the technology Li-Fi demonstrates already exists in form of fiber optic cables, which have already seen widespread use. Fiber optics allows for data transmission more efficient than radio as well as traditional copper cables due to it's speed and frequency. However, one might consider using a frequency higher than radio to transmit data. Unfortunately we are already utilizing the upper frequencies of radio for WiFi, and the infrared frequency, which we use for remote controls, does not pass through materials. Radio is the only scientifically feasible wireless networking medium, and we have reached its upper limit. Most current generation routers already transmit on the 5GHz band, which increases bit rate, but decreases range and transmission clarity. Get real Linus.
On a side note, why stop at visible light? If I want to be able to stream content with a resolution of 64K, I could just invent GW-Fi, otherwise known as Gamma Wave Fidelity. I might have some problems with the FCC, though.
Sonic as fast as possible.
sonic is red. he is very slow, and he is an villain. he will kill the good guys. he is fat.
@@vuraniute9571 bro i don't have a clue what the fuck i meant there, it was 3 years ago
Fat*
Lil Ernecgs Dang we back here 3 years later haha
@@lilernecgs7946 you were joking I think
The point is being missed completely why Li-Fi is being developed. Its main goal is for components and motherboards to hopefully offer speeds faster than the current wired and pcb setups
This tecnology is good but probably feasable only in Industrial application, as devices would probably need direct, stable line of sight which could be very difficult to achieve on mobile devices.
Infra red communication was fairly common in small cheap devices 10-20 years ago and I remember it wasn't particularly fast or reliable. The two devices also had to be stationary while transmitting or the connection would fail.
Also to use the internet you need to be both sending and receiving data which means your laptop will need its own li-fi transmitter to get the full speed and security benefits. (I don't really want a bright LED next to my laptop screen)
+David Liddelow IR LED or incredibly dim light. TV remotes use virtually the same concept.
Where is Li-Fi 6 years later? I've never heard anything else about it since.
Nope still at proposal stage
@@pafnutiytheartist let me guess, continued improvements on the Wi-Fi standard by opening up more frequencies, clever timing tricks to reduce interference, the ability for multiple transmitters to transmit at the same time, increased range with the same transmission power with beamforming and the standard just being more mature in general has fixed the problems Li-Fe was supposed to solve by using a far less exotic, incremental approach that ended up being a much better standard in pretty much every way then Li-Fi ever could have been in almost every use case.
WiFi isn't going anywhere.
Maybe not yet, the same policy applied to phone line internet(before wifi and 3g/4g era).
+Dario Santiago If you watch the TED show about LiFi, the creator said LiFi is supposed to work alongside WiFi, not replace it.
You're not going anywhere buddy
+Dario Santiago Read my comment I just posted so it should be somewhere above.
+Kia Afzali His talk was alright.
0:08 my mixtape
He's actually got a good idea because having li-fi coming out of your lights it will solve the problem that the information can not travel through walls, so each of your lights will be and individual data sending point
Seems so much different from infrared that has been used in remote controls for decades.
+Richard's World yep, and IR is not much better for anything else beyond TV remotes, I had a wireless IR Gamepad for my NES as a kid, and the damn thing never would work right even with direct line of sight, that's why some remotes are slowly ditching it for WiFi Direct.
Commodorefan64 Intersting username. When my older brother left to join the Navy I used to take my brother's Commodore 64 apart when I was 12 and I somehow knew enough to go buy the chip that would go bad in it and replace it. Sometimes I think about buying one for the memories.
I watched the presentation from the person who came up with the idea. He himself said Li-Fi isn't going to replace Wi-Fi but it's a possible as an alternative method to connect to the internet. So, I think it can be pretty useful for internal network I think, if businesses want to give it a try and transfer faster than what the ethernet can deliver currently.
I still have hopes that one day, we'll come up with something better than Wi-Fi.... I hate unpredictable latency spikes. -_-
ITS JUST A PRANK BRO
CAMERA OVER THERE
+Kearesu BOMBING LOCAL ORPHANAGE PRANK (GONE SEXUAL)
+Pokabyss In the hood *
WHAT IS THIS
I've been sitting in the basement for hours watching these. Man I need a lifi.
linustechtips as fast as possible
What could work is that each area could have a 500 meter pole with a powerfull light to communicate to other poles then use fibre for the area to connect all areas.
But then your poles would run into the problems Linus already stated in this video, light pollution.
@@ITX-EcoClass why not increase the intensity
of the light?
Um, data transmission is a two way street. 224 GBIT/Second downstream, 0 bits/sec upstream.
How come this was not mentioned as a disadvantage?
224 up and 224 down. Of course there is communication both ways. And they both work exactly the same way. The transmitter on your device would probably be the backlight of the screen. And then the receiver on the bulb reads that. Same 224gbps speed, as its ecatly the same method on how it works.
+iPelaaja1 When people ask questions is not nice to invent your own answers, if you don't know just keep quite.
+iPelaaja1 That's not how it works.
Li-Fi using visible light? Sounds like epilepsy waiting to happen.
OblivionShadow There is a type of light you cant see but still have a connection
soooo, where is Li-Fi?
I think li-fi would be great if it is wired into houses. Then you put a little pad down and there you go. Super low MS since its light and then a wire to the router and fast speeds
How would you get internet in the day time? if you're outside in the daytime? Or if you're going to sleep? This probably will be a thing... But not a really big thing... too limited...
+Plato I was thinking just that as I like to use my phone outside with earbuds when I cutting the grass to stream shoutcast audio, and music stored on my 2 bay NAS.
The lights can be dimmer out beyond human sight and still transmit data
+ronald mcdonald What does our eyes detecting the light from a LiFi unit have to do with sunlight interfering with the LiFi receiver? Anyways...
+Plato The receiver could be tuned to detect, decode and use photons within the IR band of EM frequencies, similar to how TV remotes work. A TV remote works in daylight even though theoretically the signal should be saturated by other photons.
+ronald mcdonald That's not the problem.
ronald mcdonald There's a technical issue with that. The equipment required to pick up such faint sources of light are sensitive, too big to fit in phones, laptops, or tablets, and expensive.
3:03 He called that one, right! Seen this headline on Tom's Hardware this morning: "100x Faster Than Wi-Fi: Li-Fi, Light-Based Networking Standard Released," right to the very edge of several!
I made Li-Fi in my middle school tech class.
my suggestion for the next fast as possible is "Linuses love of socks and sandals as fast as possible"
Why does no one mention the biggest problem with li-fi. How is the upload going to work??
+Dean Goldbaum ya this is my biggest problem i see with it. is my laptop gonna have a bulb on the outside that has to be pointed directly at the receiver in the bulb or something. and what about my phone??? sure the bulb in the ceiling is powerful enough to bounce around and be picked up by a sensor but the receiving device has to be just as "bright". dont really get how it could be implemented.
+Neil Etnyre Light bounces around a room no matter how powerful the emitting object is. A TV remote uses similar technology to what a LiFi unit would use (a low-power LED emitting light at a wavelength within the IR band of the EM spectrum), when you point the remote away from your TV, the remote still works doesn't it? Block it with your hand and, depending on the remote and the LED used, the remote stops working. Light is bounced around a room no matter the strength of its source.
Saw the title, and for a spit second thought it said "Life explained." Now THAT would be a video.
video starts at 0:00 thank me later
+chase hiatt WOW! THANK YOU SO MUCH
thx bro i couldnt find it
+chase hiatt Recap Ends @ 0:00 Title Card 0:00
Ad starts at 3:40. Don't thank me. I don't need thanks >:-(
Saved me quite some time thanks
@techquickie 2:56 i think you missed the point here. the light can be dimmed(meaning your eyes would see it off, or something), but the photo-sensors would still be able to detect them, hence, no reduced performance. anyway, love your videos. i'm a fan
Do a Linus as fast as possible
I think this could be more useful if it would be made into a powerful beam that could connect things on your personal network, but not for regular internet quite yet because no service can even provide that level of speed.
+Yusuke Urameshi Plus you would still need regular WiFi if you say wanted to sit on your front porch in the middle of the afternoon while on your laptop, or phone.
If you can connect two devices with a laser you can more easily, securely, and cheaply connect them with a cable.
Ryan Gunn Yeah but then you can't take advantage of this awesomely fast data transfer rate.
Yusuke Urameshi Unless the tech is built in to both devices, the data rate will be limited by the speed of the port you plug the LiFi device into.
Ryan Gunn of course
As far as Physical Layer applications go, this is one of the more underwhelming ones. Minus the inpressive speed, it's going to be impractical af
li-FI SOUNDS GOOD UNTIL YOUR CAT ATTACKS IT.
+airbomb34 Except LiFi would likely use photons that are at a wavelength that eyes cannot detect, unless cats eyes can pick up IR, I don't think they will see them. Grab your TV remote and see if your cat reacts to it.
D- for Ad cut today. No bad puns or transitions = not worth it ;)
Can we have an update on this?
Nothing ever happened because people don't want to route an ethernet cable to every light bulb in their house and because people don't want to block their phone signal by being between their phone and a light.
LI-FI? why not Gamma-FI
because x rays and gamma rays can cause cell & DNA damage that can cause cancer
I got a terabyte per second connection!!!!
But you also have 12 cancers and you're close to turn into hulk
Pros: petabits per second. Cons: You die of radiation poisoning within a few days
You can imagine it - nobody would stand near each other. Get outta my Li-Fi!
Well... this comment didn’t age well. Welcome to 2020, we don’t stand next to each other and don’t even need Li-Fi to make us!
What about uploading? 😅
If only your phone had a way to communicate to other network devices!
@@drabberfrog if my phone release light , thats not gona work for now trust me .
@@provtjeter8562 your internet's upload speed is probably way slower than your download speed so you could just use regular 5 gigahertz Wi-Fi for upload and download everything from Li-Fi.
Glad to finally have a good explanation of this.
does Linus have a uni brow???
Li-Fi: Explained is LIVE! Finally...
Why isn't anybody calling out how stupid this idea is, this is the definition of a dead on arrival idea.
Who the hell would want this? It has way more limitations than WiFi does, if you are worried about privacy use a cable, this thing doesn't go through walls, you need to have your house filled LEDs so you can get signal, they never mentioned upload speeds, because it probably cant do uploads, this product doesn't solve anything, it actually makes things harder, WiFi Speeds are pretty good as of now, and the technology will keep improving, why do so many people get impressed by this garbage?
My modem is downstairs, Li-Fi would be an inconvenience.
can you do a UA-cam video without sponsors
Linus needs to eat, pay mortgage, car payments, and other stuff. How is supposed to do that without sponsorship?
The sponsor parts REALLY are not an issue, it's just like 30 seconds.
would you remove ads if you had to pay for 3 kids to go to college all within 5 years?
Li-Fi + Philips HUE = epic lightshow for every type of download!
I would really love a Linus revisit on this topic in 2021.
Nothing has changed because the idea is impractical
@@drabberfrog How?
@@Rationalist101 the need for direct line of sight pretty much makes it useless in everything other than very nitche circumstances. Imagine you had a Li-Fi receiver on your laptop, what's going to happen when your arm blocks the signal? There goes your high-speed connection. It's stuck in between Wi-Fi and ethernet, if you want to be able to walk around your house and keep an internet connection then there's Wi-Fi and if you really need high speed and you're willing to sacrifice portability and convenience then there's ethernet. The only way lifi would be useful is if it was connecting something that isn't portable and that would never be blocked like a PC, but since it's not portable you might as well run an ethernet cable to it and get even more speed and reliability. Also, even if you use it to avoid running ethernet cables to desktop PCS you still will have to run an ethernet cable to the light. Any use case it has is extremely narrow.
*flickers flashlight*
"The fuck Carl? Why did you turn off my pc?"
"idk"
What's with the bit at the beginning about wireless filling the room? Isn't that the default of any electromagnetic wave? Sure I bet some applications *could* use directional light, but we also have directional radio waves as well...so was that really necessary? I'm pretty sure that aside from the early test cases we saw on ted where they were working with a controlled environment to make the signal processing easier, in theory you shouldn't have to be directly under the lightbulb; just have a clear line of sight.
I will save my excitement for a technology that can't be blocked by a cat.
Hey do an Update on Li-Fi
1:25 wrong although we don't percieve it, our eyes and brain do and this is why living in a place with an old neon is tirering for your eyes because it flicker on and off constanly
"Honey, please turn on the LI-FI because it's too dark in here"
great so now my neighbor can steal my WiFi if i leave my blinds open at night X^D
i guess it will be the lights in the home and can be infra or violet spectrum so even in the dark is possible .But is better from existing optical fibers for major traffic;
That was by far the most abrupt sponsor shift ever.
MOM BARGES INTO YOUR ROOM AND SHOUTS GO TO SLEEP! and TURNS OFF THE LIGHT ....YOU: awwweee I was watching something
thanks for doing this one
We are gonna have internet connection with Li-Fi on mars with these shit we invent here!
1:44 but what if there is a wall between the emitter and the receiver of the light?
Yes you can use it when your lights are off. Because we can not see it but the sensor can pick it up if you dim the led lights.
* downloads Steam game * My Li-Fi is too slow!! :(
* flings window open * "Your steam game is ready to play!" :) If only!!
Techquikie has improved over the years!
I sense some hacking potential here like requesting a bunch of zeros to turn your lights off or making your lights flicker
Li-Fi seems limited in the upload bandwidth department. A fairly sized LED could be installed on a device (such as a laptop), but definitely not as big as a roof LED. Dimmer the light emitted, less data transmitted.
Also I agree with people saying Wi-Fi is not going to be replaced by Li-Fi. Li-Fi is hindered by walls, but Wi-Fi is not. People could use Li-Fi when in specific rooms, and Wi-Fi anywhere in coverage.
+C0deH0wler LiFi could rely on bouncing light around to propagate between rooms. Turn every light off but one and see how light bounces around and makes it's way into other nooks and crannies where it doesn't have direct access to, that's basically what LiFi could do.
+C0deH0wler if it dimmer until you can't see it, it's still fast enough.
Relatively not so.
Well, your screen is quite a big of a light source.. The backlight can be used to transmit data. Monitor surfaces are huge, and so are almost all phone and tablet screens, much bigger than light bulbs. And the brigthness doesnt have that big of an effect on the speed.
Is there an update to this technology since this is 6 years old?
My eyes detect led flicker, will this beam ads straight into my brain?
A lot of non techies I've seen post about this on Facebook and the like go on about the speeds not realising that it doesn't make their speed to the world wide web any faster!
So this is basically turning your room into a fiber optic cable.
li-fi almost sounds like something that bitwit's brother would say
But lights already flicker at 60 hertz (in the US at least). So if you were to use a separate light for Li-Fi, the regular lamp would interfere with the signal. If you made it cancel out the flickering, a genuine signal at 60 hertz would be read as null. However, if you were to use a Li-Fi lamp as your main lamp, you wouldn't be able to watch Linus at 3 in the morning.
The issue with Li-Fi which no one ever talks about is the uploading.... No you CAN'T use standard led bulbs... they are highly specialized(so NOT cheap) bulbs that just happen to be LED as well. Even then how do you get 2 way communication? do you have a annoyingly bright light on the device you have to make sure is pointed at where ever the sensor is? To me this seems like one of those great in theory type things but completely impractical to actually implement.
"Visible light is much less susceptible to interference"
*Covers LED with Hand*
Scenario, I want to watch a movie underneath my covers, thus breaking line of sight.
+Lumilan Turn your bedroom light on and throw a thin sheet over yourself and see how light propagates through it (but loses energy and diffuses in the process). Then do the same but with a thicker blanket. Depending on the thickness of whatever material it is, light may be able to propagate through it.
+jakemichie97 well then that fucking sucks, li-fi wont be that great
The NSA is gonna love this.
Also light is RF, at frequency of THz and PHz, but is RF
Li-Fi looks like another lithium battery chemistry... Maybe I have too many rechargable batteries.
didn't explain the one thing I wanted to know, sure your download speeds are awesome but what about uploading back into the network? does my phone/laptop/ tablet need an led that's always on and do I need to hold it in a very specific position for another receiver in the room to see it? or do we just accept the nice download speeds but still upload over a WiFi connection?
+SavageSmithy I had the same thought but maybe they have a workaround.
+SavageSmithy I'd imagine it'd work the same but in reverse. Your laptop has a little LED up the top that emits light (likely outside of the visible light band of the EM spectrum, similar to how a TV remote emits light that you cannot see with your eyes) and there's a receiver on the unit that receives the light from this LED. How does it? Simple.
Light bounces around a room. Or, to be more physically accurate, the band of the EM spectrum that we call visible light (ie the light we can see) bounces around a room, and LiFi would likely use IR, which is just outside that band we can see. Your TV remote has an LED at the end that emits photons at a wavelength that is within the IR band, you can't see it but it's there. If you have a laptop, try pointing a TV remote at it and pressing some buttons, some webcams can detect IR, some can't, hopefully your's can. A TV remote works if you don't point it directly at the TV, right? Same principle, only a TV remote is one-way, LiFi works in two directions.
Wow this video looks good! I imagine it's that new key light you got?
Techquickie as fast as possible.
You'll find Li-Fi in aisle nine and three quarters.
You would still need a router to control the flashing of the light right? Also, this would significantly lower the lifetime of an LED. In addition, there would be no way to send or request data.
The amount of seizures coming... Oh god
Not happening. There is lots of interference like blocking the sensor, natural light from the sun, etc. Unless you are in a lab condition, its has too much data to lose. Also as speeds go up you got to watch the inductance variable in the wire between the sensor and the Wifi-Decoder module inside a smartphone for example.
thanks. finally i understand
can you yet by the fixtures for li-fi
+san man You must kill some people in a lab... and make new phones and new wifi cards.....
+san man no he said so in the video
Neil Etnyre
no you cant....not right now at least
im for it .... please put that on market as soon as possible
Here's a question asked straight from Patrick for Spongebob: What if you stand in front of it?
"As fast as possible" as fast as possible.