In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:05:01 GMT, wrote in
:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:45:02 GMT, wrote in
Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.

False.

1.9 GHz is in the -region- of 3 GHz.

False.

It certainly is within about 20%.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Radium hath wroth:

how would u like to change the cell phone industry?

Analog cells phones should stop using FM and should start using AM
with SHF frequencies - at least 3 GHz and at most 30 GHz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_high_frequency

Maybe if the entire cellular infrastructure would move up to the LMDS
26-30GHz band, I might recover some of the money I sunk into an LMDS
startup. Great idea. I like it.

Of course, there are problems. Nobody makes an economical mm wave
handset. There will probably need to be 8-10 times more cell sites
built than are currently in use on 800/900 and 1800/1900MHz. Of
course mm wave propagation is affected by just about everything, so it
probably won't work indoors. No problem, just add more cell sites and
repeaters. Of course you couldn't get away with the existing
relatively low power output handsets and insipid gain antennas, so
we'll just crank up the power and antenna gain on the handset and fry
a few peoples brains. It's a small sacrifice to make so I watch TV on
my cell phone.

Equally important, SHF frequencies can efficiently transmit signals
using extremely small transmitters. Longer wavelengths require larger
transmitters.

They do? I didn't know that. My 49MHz automobile alarm dongle isn't
much larger than my 2400MHz USB wi-fi dongle. Are you sure the
transmitter has to be bigger or were you thinking of the antenna?

Obviously there are frequencies lower than SHF -- VHF and above --
that can easily penetrate charged particles [e.g. anything resembling
the ionosphere or heliosphere].

I don't know of any wireless service provider that charges for
particles. What are they charging and what's the stock symbol? I've
always suspected that charged particles might be worth selling.

However, lower-frequencies tend to
result in less bandwidth, so it is better to use higher-frequencies
when the application requires significant bandwidth.

Hint: It doesn't matter what you're doing, there's never enough
bandwidth available. If you provide XX MHz of available bandwidth,
someone will immediately supply an application that required 10 times
the available bandwidth. More simply, applications tend to fill up
available bandwidth quite rapidly.

I choose AM because it requires less bandwidth than FM. In addition,
AM tends to retain reception of rather weak signals, while FM
"considers" such signals to be absent.

I'll make it really simple for you. FM is "hi-fi", while AM is noisy
"no-fi". Don't you want to be cool strutting down the street with
your iPhone watching HDTV with 7.1 sound? It wouldn't do to have it
sound like the typical AM broadcast station. For decent quality, you
gotta have FM.

This is fun. Kinda reminds me of some of the business plans I
reviewed during the dot com boom.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Jul 15, 2:14 pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Radium hath wroth:

how would u like to change the cell phone industry?

Analog cells phones should stop using FM and should start using AM
with SHF frequencies - at least 3 GHz and at most 30 GHz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_high_frequency

Maybe if the entire cellular infrastructure would move up to the LMDS
26-30GHz band, I might recover some of the money I sunk into an LMDS
startup. Great idea. I like it.

Of course, there are problems. Nobody makes an economical mm wave
handset. There will probably need to be 8-10 times more cell sites
built than are currently in use on 800/900 and 1800/1900MHz. Of
course mm wave propagation is affected by just about everything, so it
probably won't work indoors. No problem, just add more cell sites and
repeaters. Of course you couldn't get away with the existing
relatively low power output handsets and insipid gain antennas, so
we'll just crank up the power and antenna gain on the handset and fry
a few peoples brains. It's a small sacrifice to make so I watch TV on
my cell phone.

Equally important, SHF frequencies can efficiently transmit signals
using extremely small transmitters. Longer wavelengths require larger
transmitters.

They do? I didn't know that. My 49MHz automobile alarm dongle isn't
much larger than my 2400MHz USB wi-fi dongle. Are you sure the
transmitter has to be bigger or were you thinking of the antenna?

Obviously there are frequencies lower than SHF -- VHF and above --
that can easily penetrate charged particles [e.g. anything resembling
the ionosphere or heliosphere].

I don't know of any wireless service provider that charges for
particles. What are they charging and what's the stock symbol? I've
always suspected that charged particles might be worth selling.

However, lower-frequencies tend to
result in less bandwidth, so it is better to use higher-frequencies
when the application requires significant bandwidth.

Hint: It doesn't matter what you're doing, there's never enough
bandwidth available. If you provide XX MHz of available bandwidth,
someone will immediately supply an application that required 10 times
the available bandwidth. More simply, applications tend to fill up
available bandwidth quite rapidly.

I choose AM because it requires less bandwidth than FM. In addition,
AM tends to retain reception of rather weak signals, while FM
"considers" such signals to be absent.

I'll make it really simple for you. FM is "hi-fi", while AM is noisy
"no-fi". Don't you want to be cool strutting down the street with
your iPhone watching HDTV with 7.1 sound? It wouldn't do to have it
sound like the typical AM broadcast station. For decent quality, you
gotta have FM.

This is fun. Kinda reminds me of some of the business plans I
reviewed during the dot com boom.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

.. . .

On Jul 15, 2:14 pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Radium hath wroth:

how would u like to change the cell phone industry?

Analog cells phones should stop using FM and should start using AM
with SHF frequencies - at least 3 GHz and at most 30 GHz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_high_frequency

There will probably need to be 8-10 times more cell sites
built than are currently in use on 800/900 and 1800/1900MHz.

Why?

Equally important, SHF frequencies can efficiently transmit signals
using extremely small transmitters. Longer wavelengths require larger
transmitters.

They do? I didn't know that. My 49MHz automobile alarm dongle isn't
much larger than my 2400MHz USB wi-fi dongle. Are you sure the
transmitter has to be bigger or were you thinking of the antenna?

Maybe the antenna.

I choose AM because it requires less bandwidth than FM. In addition,
AM tends to retain reception of rather weak signals, while FM
"considers" such signals to be absent.

I'll make it really simple for you. FM is "hi-fi", while AM is noisy
"no-fi".

FM has too much hiss. FM signals are lost very easily. AM tends to
retain reception of a signals even when this signal is extremely weak.
In FM, once you go below a certain wattage, you completely lose the
signal, and the annoying hiss begins. With AM it is much easier to
receive the low-power signal.

AM maybe more vulnerable to electronic disturbances but so what? The
magnetic RF interferences that are heard on the AM radio are
entertaining compared to the deafening hiss on the FM radio.

For decent quality, you
gotta have FM.

Nope. For decent quality sound you need audio that is uncompressed PCM
[similar to CDs and WAVE files] with a sample rate of at least 44.1
KHz and a bit-resolution of at least 16-bit. Or the analog equivalent.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:45:06 -0700, Radium
wrote:

On Jul 15, 2:14 pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Radium hath wroth:

how would u like to change the cell phone industry?

Analog cells phones should stop using FM and should start using AM
with SHF frequencies - at least 3 GHz and at most 30 GHz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_high_frequency

There will probably need to be 8-10 times more cell sites
built than are currently in use on 800/900 and 1800/1900MHz.

Why?

Equally important, SHF frequencies can efficiently transmit signals
using extremely small transmitters. Longer wavelengths require larger
transmitters.

They do? I didn't know that. My 49MHz automobile alarm dongle isn't
much larger than my 2400MHz USB wi-fi dongle. Are you sure the
transmitter has to be bigger or were you thinking of the antenna?

Maybe the antenna.

I choose AM because it requires less bandwidth than FM. In addition,
AM tends to retain reception of rather weak signals, while FM
"considers" such signals to be absent.

I'll make it really simple for you. FM is "hi-fi", while AM is noisy
"no-fi".

FM has too much hiss. FM signals are lost very easily. AM tends to
retain reception of a signals even when this signal is extremely weak.
In FM, once you go below a certain wattage, you completely lose the
signal, and the annoying hiss begins. With AM it is much easier to
receive the low-power signal.

AM maybe more vulnerable to electronic disturbances but so what? The
magnetic RF interferences that are heard on the AM radio are
entertaining compared to the deafening hiss on the FM radio.

For decent quality, you
gotta have FM.

Nope. For decent quality sound you need audio that is uncompressed PCM
[similar to CDs and WAVE files] with a sample rate of at least 44.1
KHz and a bit-resolution of at least 16-bit. Or the analog equivalent.

---
Wrong.


--
JF

Radium hath wroth:

There will probably need to be 8-10 times more cell sites
built than are currently in use on 800/900 and 1800/1900MHz.

Why?

For a given radio system, higher frequencies don't go as far as lower
frequencies. You can see how it works by just plugging in different
frequencies a "free space loss" calculator such as:
http://www.terabeam.com/support/calculations/free-space-loss.php
For every 6dB of additional path loss, your range is cut in half.
Incidentally, this is not my idea or a conspiracy. Mother nature made
it that way and we have to live with the physics.

I'll make it really simple for you. FM is "hi-fi", while AM is noisy
"no-fi".

FM has too much hiss.

FM has a limiter that eliminates all AM noise components. That's
exactly the way the soon to be obsolete analog cell phones operate. If
you're hearing hiss, then there's something broken in your FM stereo.

FM signals are lost very easily.

I have a lost and found for missing signals. It's called a spectrum
analyzer. If the signal wanders, I can usually find it. Not a
problem.

AM tends to
retain reception of a signals even when this signal is extremely weak.

Not really. If you really want weak signal reception, I suggest you
look into SSB (scientific set back) modulation. Half the bandwidth
gives you twice the sensitivity.

In FM, once you go below a certain wattage, you completely lose the
signal, and the annoying hiss begins. With AM it is much easier to
receive the low-power signal.

Nope. All FM receivers have a squelch to mute the receiver when
there's not enough signal to make it worth listening. The squelch is
much more efficient with FM than an AGC operated squelch for AM.
Anyway, if someone calls with me on my cell phone with a crummy
signal, I don't want to talk to them and I usually ask them to call me
back when in a better area.

The problem with AM audio is that the ultimate signal to noise ratio
isn't very good. AM is noisy at any signal strength. The noise never
really goes away. On the other foot, FM is noisy with very weak
signals, but becomes very quiet once the limiter starts to work.
That's why FM is preferred for music and why analog AM broadcasting
sounds marginal at any signal level.

AM maybe more vulnerable to electronic disturbances but so what? The
magnetic RF interferences that are heard on the AM radio are
entertaining compared to the deafening hiss on the FM radio.

If your FM radio has a deafening hiss, you're probably not tuned to
any station. Try listening to a station instead of between stations.
If it has an AFC, turn it on. There may also be some kind of
malfunction in your hi-fi as you should not be hearing any hiss when
tuned to a station.

For decent quality, you
gotta have FM.

Nope. For decent quality sound you need audio that is uncompressed PCM
[similar to CDs and WAVE files] with a sample rate of at least 44.1
KHz and a bit-resolution of at least 16-bit. Or the analog equivalent.

I thought you didn't like digital? You only gave me a choice of AM or
FM. Now, you want digital. Well, digital is what today's cell phones
use mostly to maximize spectrum efficiency. With compression and
proper coding, you can pickup quite a bit of efficiency, at the
expense of sounding like you're gargling ball bearings. Not too bad a
tradeoff for voice. Really awful for music. Fortunately, none of the
broadcasters or cellular carriers use raw CD data, mostly because it's
not compressed.

So, are you ready to go public with your idea? When's the IPO?

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Jul 15, 4:30 pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Radium hath wroth:

The problem with AM audio is that the ultimate signal to noise ratio
isn't very good. AM is noisy at any signal strength. The noise never
really goes away. On the other foot, FM is noisy with very weak
signals, but becomes very quiet once the limiter starts to work.
That's why FM is preferred for music and why analog AM broadcasting
sounds marginal at any signal level.

AFAIK, the main issue with AM is that it is much more vulnerable to
magnetic disruptions than FM. That is why when you are listening to
the AM radio at home and someone turns on the microwave-oven, you here
those odd sounds on the receiver.

Also, if there is a solar prominence you can hear the resulting
magnetic disruptions on an AM radio receiver. They sound scary and
enjoyable at the same time.

Nope. For decent quality sound you need audio that is uncompressed PCM
[similar to CDs and WAVE files] with a sample rate of at least 44.1
KHz and a bit-resolution of at least 16-bit. Or the analog equivalent.

I thought you didn't like digital? You only gave me a choice of AM or
FM. Now, you want digital.

It depends, if I can find the analog-equivalent of 44.1 KHz-sample-
rate, 16-bit-resolution digital audio, that just as good.

If I a limited to only AM or FM for analog audio, I choose AM because
I like the sounds generated by solar prominences and other RF magnetic
disruptions.

Ironically, for video, I prefer FM. Yup, video signals on FM carriers
instead of AM carrier. The Y-luminance signal should be broadcasted on
an FM carrier. That's the analog video I like.

With compression and
proper coding, you can pickup quite a bit of efficiency, at the
expense of sounding like you're gargling ball bearings.

Disgusting! I hate most forms of digital audio compression. For me,
either keep it uncompressed or use WMA compression. All non-WMA
digital audio compressions below 320 kbps sound like stinky human
fart. Or an angry infant foaming at the mouth.

Not too bad a
tradeoff for voice. Really awful for music.

Awful for both. The only digital audio compression I like is WMA.
The sounds resulting from WMA compression sort of make me think of
those RF electronic telecommunication devices used in The Bourne
Identity. That movie features some really awesome devices that make
those interesting sounds - for example, when the main character is
getting his hand screened. I also associated these sounds with the
electronic telecommunication devices used by the Soviet Union. Soviet
Union has got some really psychedelic sounds in their electronics. You
know, those fancy dial-up modems tones?

Fortunately, none of the
broadcasters or cellular carriers use raw CD data, mostly because it's
not compressed.

All digital audio compression formats other than WMA, stink badly!!

Here are my rules for digital audio:

A. Whether compressed or not, the audio must be monaural and with a
sample-rate of at least 44.1 kHz.

B. The only compression allowed is WMA. No other compression format is
permitted.

C. In its uncompressed form, the audio must have a bit-resolution of
at least 16-bit

D. If compression is used, then the sample-rate of the compressed and
the uncompressed version of the audio must be the same.

E. If compression is used, the only thing that should be decreased is
the bit-resolution. The sample-rate must remain unchanged

Let's say a song that was originally recorded in stereo is given to
me. The song must to be converted to mono* via the following steps:

1. Record audio from CD [or other stereo audio source] into Wavelab,
Adobe Audition [or other audio software] into a file. For simplicity
let's call this file "Track1.wav"

2. Make a copy of Track1.wav and save the copy as "Track1B.wav"

3. Open Track1.wav and reduce the gain of its audio by 77.5%

4. Convert Track1.wav to monaural audio

5. Save Track.1

6. Open Track1B.wav and reduce its audio gain by 50%

7. Invert the phase of the left channel of Track1B.wav

8. Convert Track1B.wav to mono

9. Save Track1B.wav

10. Create a new stereo wave file whose bit-resolution is 16-bit and
sample rate is 44.1 kHz. For simplicity let's call this file
"untitled.wav"

11. Copy and paste the audio of Track1.wav into the left channel of
untitled.wav

12. Copy and paste the audio of Track1B.wave into the right channel of
untitled.wav

13. Convert untitled.wav to mono

14. Save untitled.wav

*Songs that were originally-recorded in stereo need to be converted to
mono via the above 14 steps because different sounds are recorded
differently in the L and R channels. The audio that is originally
panned to the center is significantly louder than the audio whose
phase is different in the left & right channels. This is why I reduce
the loudness of non-inverted stereo audio file by 77.5% [before
converting it to mono].

In the stereo file whose left channel has its phase inverted, I
decrease the loudness only by 50% and then convert it to mono. Usually
-- the lead vocals, bass, and percussion are recorded identically in
both the left and right channels. The piano, chorus, guitar, and synth
pads are usually recorded differently in the left and right channel.

Radium hath wroth:

AFAIK, the main issue with AM is that it is much more vulnerable to
magnetic disruptions than FM.

Wrong. Take a magnet, any magnet. Wave it around your AM or FM
radio. Hear anything different? You won't. Therefore, forget about
magnetic disturbances. The main issue with AM is susceptibility to
pulsed noise, as found in motors, fans, auto engines, and computahs.
FM doesn't have as bad a problem because the limiter in the receiver
clips everything to the same level, thus reducing the effect.

That is why when you are listening to
the AM radio at home and someone turns on the microwave-oven, you here
those odd sounds on the receiver.

No. Microwave ovens operate at 2400Mhz. AM broadcast operates at
1MHz. No way there's going to be any interference there. However,
the microwave oven may have a fan or CPU that runs the display, that
belches garbage at 1MHz. I just tried mine and there's a tiny bit of
buzz coming from the display section when I shove an AM radio right up
to the display. If that's what you're hearing, I would test it with a
different microwave oven. If only yours has the problem, I suggest
you consider a replacement.

Also, if there is a solar prominence you can hear the resulting
magnetic disruptions on an AM radio receiver. They sound scary and
enjoyable at the same time.

You can also hear lightning storms. In the US, most of those are in
the south east of the country. Nothing like interference from 3000
miles away. Lightning detectors operate in the 25-50KHz region.
Incidentally, there are about 8 million lightning hits per day, which
is why the noise sounds almost continuous.

(chomp...)

Sorry, my time is up. Please insert $0.25 for the next 3 minutes.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:30:13 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:


Not really. If you really want weak signal reception, I suggest you
look into SSB (scientific set back) modulation.

what??!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


John

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:30:13 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:


Not really. If you really want weak signal reception, I suggest you
look into SSB (scientific set back) modulation.

what??!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Too subtle for you?

It's called humor.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.