Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Update: DTV antenna on VHF
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 10:17:20 -0500, Rich Griffiths
wrote: Shannon's equations provide most of the answers: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...rt8/page1.html Shannon's equations don't actually tell you much that's useful, as a Ham. This would presume that the Ham is rather indifferent or incapable. Shannon's work is exceedingly useful, and at the core, quite simple to perceive which further illuminates those mediocre qualities of your Ham. It is unfortunate that the link above offers no graphs by which Shannon's points would become startling apparent. For instance: http://www.aero.org/publications/cro...ages/04_04.gif shows how signal to noise ratio has a vast effect over bit error in digital transmission. In the face of equal powers (noise and bit level), you would run the odds of 1 bit in 10 being mistaken (pretty good odds, actually). If you were to raise the power in the bit by 10dB, that would fall to 1 bit in a million being mistaken. In the same graph, Shannon reveals how, if you code your bits (I will leave it to the student to discover the meaning of that), you could achieve the same 1:1000000 advantage with the addition of less than 1 dB of power boost. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Update: DTV antenna on VHF
On Jun 14, 10:03*am, Richard Clark wrote:
In the same graph, Shannon reveals how, if you code your bits (I will leave it to the student to discover the meaning of that), you could achieve the same 1:1000000 advantage with the addition of less than 1 dB of power boost. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Until fairly recently, hams didn't do much coding, for a variety of reasons. Computational horsepower is probably a big reason. Coding's easy, decoding not so easy, at least in a "parts readily available from Radio Shack" sort of sense. Obviously, today, one could do all sorts of coding on a laptop PC, particularly at low bit rates, but you'd still need to have an unusual convergence of someone who knows how to implement the coding algorithms who's also interested in amateur microwave operating. It's not anything like a turnkey thing, or even a "go get gnuradio" thing. Where you see coding in common ham use, it's buried in an application (PSK31, JT65, and the like) The other problem is the frequency control issue. If you want low rates and ragged edge of Shannon, you need good frequency stability and control (and to a lesser extent, good phase noise). Until recently (with GPS disciplined oscillators and surplus Rb sources) this was a real challenge. As Rich commented with respect to antenna pointing, you also have to be right on for frequency, and that's hard, especially in a field situation. Tuning to 10Hz accuracy at 10GHz implies 1E-9 frequency accuracy, which is challenging. To a certain extent, processing power in a PC helps (get close, do parallel demodulation, find the signal), but just like for coding, it requires finding a person (or small group) who can deal with building low phase noise stable oscillators AND with developing software that is somewhat complex, compared to the usual "whack it out in a weekend of coding" stuff. I suspect there ARE hams experimenting with this, but it's a long way from critical mass wide acceptance. You need something that you can write an article in QST, and offer $100 widgets to make that happen. There's not much cheap surplus gear either, since commercial equipment these days tends to be more specialized and isn't as amenable to hackery. There are also proprietary rights issues with some coding techniques (e.g. Turbo) but I suspect that legal issues aren't what's holding hams back. For things like LDPC, there are published software implementations that are free to use. I haven't looked but I imagine that various convolutional codes and decoders are also publicly available, along with Viterbi soft-decision decoders. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Update: DTV antenna on VHF
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 11:08:36 -0700 (PDT), Jim Lux
wrote: Until fairly recently, hams didn't do much coding, for a variety of reasons. This neither negates the specific issues of signal to noise in their relationship, a matter that is quite in the power of the Ham to control to some extent; nor does it invalidate the simplicity of that relationship revealed through one graphic that serves to reduce the obscurity of a lot of math. As for the variety of reasons, computation power would seem to be in abundance (the first mythical Cray is a door stop today). That as an excuse is a croak. It's not anything like a turnkey thing, Like I said, an indifferent or incapable individual in the guise of "Ham." I am amazed how that Lid is raised on a pedestal. or even a "go get gnuradio" thing. Where you see coding in common ham use, it's buried in an application (PSK31, JT65, and the like) So, let me get this straight, because it is available (a seeming contradiction from the tenor of your response), it is not accessible? Or it is not useful? Or it is not understood? Or Shannon has been rendered obsolete? Your objections are answered with your own solutions and yet the sense of what you say is shove Shannon out the window and whine about the noise. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Update: DTV antenna on VHF
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 10:03:29 -0700, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 10:03:29 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 10:17:20 -0500, Rich Griffiths wrote: Shannon's equations don't actually tell you much that's useful, as a Ham. This would presume that the Ham is rather indifferent or incapable. Shannon's work is exceedingly useful snip Well, I do admit that I went overboard there! Probably shouldn't speak too quickly about moonbounce, meteor scatter, etc. I do think, however, that for many Hams (me, at least :-) ) the applicable word is "indifferent" rather than "incapable". If you can genuinely find useful application to what microwave rovers do -- or most microwave operators, for that matter -- that would be a special contribution. I expect that would be even less likely for most HF and VHF operations. I'd characterize Shannon's work as more of academic interest (for most Ham radio) than practical interest. In most of what most Hams do, there are just too many other issues to deal with. Please note the use of the word "most". I'm sure there are exceptions, but I expect they're a small part of hamdom (as is microwaving, sigh). -- Rich W2RG |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Update: DTV antenna on VHF
I'd characterize Shannon's work as more of academic interest (for most Ham radio) than practical interest. *In most of what most Hams do, there are just too many other issues to deal with. Please note the use of the word "most". *I'm sure there are exceptions, but I expect they're a small part of hamdom (as is microwaving, sigh). -- Rich * W2RG I think you've hit the nail on the head.. If you're communicating with deep space probes, you've probably already eked out the last tenth of dB everywhere else in the system, so you can worry about coding and how close you are to the Shannon limit. If you're a ham, especially microwave rovering, then getting the last couple dB is the least of your problems. It's easier for the ham to get 3dB by some other means than, say, implementing coding. Where some kind soul has made using coding easy, it's used (e.g. JT65). |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Inverted VEE Yagi antenna update | Antenna | |||
Update "Extension" antenna ?in?sanity check, please? | Antenna | |||
H.F Dish Antenna update | Antenna | |||
UPDATE: Mobile antenna | Shortwave | |||
Update on antenna situation | Antenna |