this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2026
24 points (85.3% liked)
Hardware
5647 readers
23 users here now
All things related to technology hardware, with a focus on computing hardware.
Some other hardware communities across Lemmy:
- Augmented Reality - !augmented_reality@lemmy.world
- Gaming Laptops - !gaminglaptops@piefed.social
- Laptops - !laptops@piefed.social
- Linux Hardware - !linuxhardware@programming.dev
- Mechanical Keyboards - !mechanical_keyboards@programming.dev
- Monitors - !monitors@piefed.social
- Raspberry Pi - !raspberry_pi@programming.dev
- Retro Computing - !retrocomputing@lemmy.sdf.org
- Virtual Reality - !virtualreality@lemmy.world
Rules (Click to Expand):
-
Follow the Lemmy.world Rules - https://mastodon.world/about
-
Be kind. No bullying, harassment, racism, sexism etc. against other users.
-
No Spam, illegal content, or NSFW content.
-
Please stay on topic, adjacent topics (e.g. software) are fine if they are strongly relevant to technology hardware. Another example would be business news for hardware-focused companies.
-
Please try and post original sources when possible (as opposed to summaries).
-
If posting an archived version of the article, please include a URL link to the original article in the body of the post.
Icon by "icon lauk" under CC BY 3.0
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Right..... So 140ghz isn't for mobile access. its too high of a frequency, needing line of sight as the wave is too small to bounce or reflect off things.
I don't see it being feasible for mobile back haul because of range limitations. At 80Ghz you need a 60Cm antenna to get 1Gb at 2ish KM using 64QAM. So getting 64QAM on a 140Ghz carrier would need a larger antenna or a shorter distance. At which point you can throw a fibre cable at the problem and have a better solution.
Still a good achievement.
There's often niche cases where the obviously better solution (cable) isn't practical. Let's take 2 mountain tops with a massive valley between that can't realistically have fiber due terrain / environmental reasons but are only 0.5km apart.
A related scenario is where environmental or other factors make the fiber at high risk of damage (mud slides, earth quakes, etc), while wireless has its own reliability issues, they don't have 100% overlap in their likely failure scenarios, so can be a good combination.
Another scenario is multipoint. It seems that most people think of point to point use cases and a wire is point to point, but what about point to multipoint / broadcast data? You could have hundreds of wireless receivers vs hundreds of cables. In some multipoint scenarios, the data throughput is higher and cheaper than fiber. Obvious example would be satellite TV 30 years ago when very few had access to internet that could handle the data rate of even a single TV channel.
This particular wavelength won't work for multiaccess as it is literally too small, the radio waves are millimetres wide.
The others are interesting but any environmental problem that stops wired will effect this medium because of the wavelength size. Even a light shower will stop this frequency in its tracks.
Yea, when I see stuff like this I always think about special use-cases.
Like rough conditions in an undeveloped space, whether that's a developing country or just an undeveloped area starting development.