"John" wrote in message
...

"Helmut Wabnig" [email protected] --- -. DOTat wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 19:15:19 -0800, "NSA TORTURE TECHNOLOGY, NEWS and
RESEARCH" wrote:


Existing directional antennas that transmit high-frequency radio waves
require expensive materials or precise manufacturing

WRONG - cheap lands on PCboard.

This "beam-forming" capability makes the antennas crucial to
ultrafast wireless applications, because they can focus a stream of
high-frequency radio waves that would quickly dissipate using normal
antennas.

WRONG - no way it can track multi-path




"Beam-forming antennas are the key for enabling next-generation,
high-data-rate indoor wireless applications," says Anmol Sheth, at Intel
Labs in Seattle. "Without beam-forming antennas it would be difficult to
scale to the levels of density of wireless devices we expect to have in
future homes."

WRONG - try using another BAND, or encoding.



There are two types of plasma antenna: semiconductor or solid-state
antennas, such as PSiAN, and gas antennas. Both could fit the bill, but
solid-state antennas are favoured as they are more compact and have no
moving parts.

SO WHAT ? All other antennas have NO MOVING PARTS.

Compact = Lossy and ineffecient.


That makes them attractive for use in a new generation of ultrafast
Wi-Fi,
known as Wi-Gig. Existing Wi-Fi tops out at 54 megabits of data per
second,
whereas the Wi-Gig standard is expected to go up to between 1 and 7
gigabits
per second - fast enough to download a television programme in seconds.

WRONG - how far can you transmit ? a few INCHES ???


Wi-Gig requires higher radio wave frequencies, though: 60 gigahertz
rather
than the 2.4 GHz used by Wi-Fi. Signals at these frequencies disperse
rapidly unless they are tightly focused, which is where PSiAN comes in.

Too Lossy. Only reason 60 GHz is FCC has an open band there.



Ian Russell, business development director at Plasma Antennas, says that
PSiAN is small enough to fit inside a cellphone. "Higher frequencies mean
shorter wavelengths and hence smaller antennas," he says. "The antenna
actually becomes cheaper at the smaller scales because you need less
silicon."

SO WHAT ? It cant transmit more than a centimeter, SI TOO LOSSY
-20 db antenna gain



The antennas shouldn't raise any health issues, as they are covered by
existing safety standards.

WRONG - you have that BASS ACKWARDS



The narrow beam means there is less "overspill"
of radiation than with existing omnidirectional antennas.

WRONG ! - How is "overspill" on an omni bad ????



"Semiconductor plasma antennas will work at only high frequencies,
between 1
GHz and 100 GHz," says Anderson. "Theoretically, we see no upper or lower
bound to ionised gas antennas in the radio frequency spectrum."

WRONG - [also 100GHz you says is upper limit]



Russell says that PSiAN could be commercially available within two years.
At
present, getting movies and high-quality images on and off our
smartphones
almost certainly means hooking them into a computer. But as the demand
for
such content increases, the only way to break the wire is going to be an
ultrafast wireless connection. When it comes, it may very well be in the
form of plasma.

WRONG - Plasma takes time to establish, UNLIKE Todays proven cheap
reliable EXISTING antenna technology(s)


Well that just sucks! I was relying on plasma technology to accurately
resolve LBW appeals. What a complete *******!!

--
Lawrence
"You can just hang outside in the sun all day tossing a ball around, or you
can sit at your computer and do something that matters." - Eric Cartman - 4
October 2006