Talk:Free-space optical communication

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

2005–2006[edit]

I think Visible Light Communications should not be merged,it's a new feild.It uses LED as light source instead of LD, which makes its cost lower than those systems using LDs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.31.105 (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that these articles shoule be merged, wihout losing any of the relevant, not repeated, information. Jaraalbe 07:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, this page should be merged into Free-space optical communication. (The merge was proposed in April? Awfully long time ago.) - mako 07:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it seems the hyphenated form Free-space optics is fairly common. It's more grammatically correct, and "free-space optical communication" isn't all that common. - mako 07:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Free-space optical communication is more accurate and specific, though, since "free-space optics" are used for things besides communications.--12.30.114.20 21:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I think Visible Light Communications should not be merged, its useage is growing and the lighting industry is now talking about Visible Light Communications. It is about comms using non-coherent white LEDs and is quite distinct from "invisible" light communications such as infra-red. --Gordonpovey (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree with merge. Somebody be bold and do it, already. There are only a few odd uses in the other article (how about using blinking lights in naval ship-ship semiphore) that need to come from the other, which is barely more than a stub). SBHarris 16:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

i would not merge it. it's a new field of research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domenico.giustiniano (talkcontribs) 12:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

Until someone can find a non-commercial website talking about free space optics, I've removed two commercial external links.--Dali-Llama 15:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the links on the page are still to commercial sites or commercial sponsored sites. Maybe saying the sites are commercial would be best. And create a separate section that has links for the FSO vendors Garowetz 16:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I've edited the External Links section to better explain what the links are. I've added more vendor links so that there is a complete view of the market. In the second section on informational links I've noted which links are vendor sponsored. Garowetz 16:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Speed[edit]

On a fiber optics discussion page someone said that this technology can be 50% faster than technology including an optic fiber. Are there sources on theoretical (and practical of course) speeds? --87.194.72.129 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SBM.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:SBM.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

low attenuation?[edit]

I don't believe that the material listed with 'low attenuation' are correct and will remove them.

Would media that absorb light have higher attenuation? Also, something with high reflectance (snow) produce backscatter. Something like rain would absorb and also fraction and additional bean dispersion. If I'm plain wrong or am misinterpreting how attenuation is used, revert.Drstrangeluv25 (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

prices[edit]

Be intrested to inform of price range of this materials ans humans costs.

I think FSO greet technologie but what about it cost for FSO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.89.202 (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)