"Alan" wrote in message
...
In article "Marty
Albert" writes:
I will see if the University that I am using to develop the model will
allow
that at this point... It is actually their intellectual property.

I doubt, however that you will find any major errors in the algorithms....
There have been many professors, PhDs, and grad students looking at it to
find those errors as well as engineers from Motorola, Maxim, and TI.

Take Care & 73
--
From The Desk Of
Marty Albert, KC6UFM


"Hank Oredson" wrote in message
hlink.net...

The model is wrong.
Post it and I'll be glad to explain why.


A few things come to mind:

1) Multiplexing does not increase the bandwidth capability of a
channel.
You mention various forms of multiplexing, but these will not increase
the channel capacity. They are just different ways of utilizing what
is available.

2) The Hartley-Shannon Law gives the maximum bandwidth of a channel as
C = B log2(1+(s/n)) bits/second; where B is bandwidth (Hz) and s/n is
expressed as a value, not in dB.

Given this, to get 80 megabits of signal in a 100 kilobit channel, you
will need a signal/noise ratio of about 2408 dB. Since you were only
starting with a 10 watt signal, with about 100 dB path loss (after
including
the two j-poles), and a terrrestrial noise floor of about -124 dBm for the
100 kHz wide channel, you get only about 60 - 64 dB s/n in your receiver
(assuming things like lossless coax, etc.).
Thus you are about 2340 dB short on signal to accomplish the task as
described. See http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Shannon_limit for
more
discussion of this.


Your numbers are a bit too far from what can reasonably be believed.


Thanks for doing the math :-)
I thought he claimed a 10 KHz channel ... but might be wrong.

You could cool the receiver and heat the transmitter (1500W,
larger dish) and get perhaps 20 - 40 more db ... that would help :-)

Then you might be only 2300 db short.

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli

I was wondering when someone would stumble across the Hartley-Shannon
"law"...

Like most laws of this nature, they break down at the extremes (i.e.
Relativity fails on the scale of the very small and Quantum Mechanics fails
on the scale of the very large... For my money, I'm betting on M Theory
(formerly String Theory) to be the true GUT).

Plug the numbers in for CAT6 over 100 m running a 10 Gbps data stream. You
will find that the equation fails in that it will tell that you can't do
that and, if set up right, it will send you the fact that it is impossible
OVER the 10 Gbps, 100 m run.

By the same token, if you plug in numbers for, say, 1.2 Kbps over CAT6 of
500 m length, that won't work either. The fact is, we (the telecomm/data
comm industry) do it every day.

Keep in mind that we all tend to "think inside the box" and say that things
(pick one) are impossible because of some theory or "law". As a general
rule, we end up being wrong.

Case in point, everyone knows that the velocity of light (c) is the "Cosmic
Speed Limit". Einstein said so and had the math to prove it. Quantum
Mechanics and M Theory both have solutions that allow for FTL... And some
have some rather unpleasant side effects.

But enough of the arcane math and other arenas...

Try to "think outside of the box"... Think about ways to do:

1) Ultra high speed data over RF media;
2) Make the system so cheap and easy that everyone will want one;
3) Perhaps get the attention of the commercial sector.

Everyone sitting around bemoaning the obstacles that need to be over come
are counter productive.

There is no such thing as "I can't do that."

There is only "I won't do that."

At the risk of sounding Republican (which I am) and of sounding like I agree
with President Bush (which I do not at least 50% of the time) you need to
decide how much, if any, effort, thinking, and support you are willing to
give.

If you are interested in digital modes, you will be willing to put in what
is needed.

If you are not interested in the digital modes, you should at least get out
of the way of those who do.

But, I wax philosophical... And even with 2 doctorate degrees, neither
qualifies me to be a philosopher.

Take Care & 73
--
From The Desk Of
Marty Albert, KC6UFM


"Alan" wrote in message
...
In article "Marty
Albert" writes:
I will see if the University that I am using to develop the model will
allow
that at this point... It is actually their intellectual property.

I doubt, however that you will find any major errors in the
algorithms....
There have been many professors, PhDs, and grad students looking at it to
find those errors as well as engineers from Motorola, Maxim, and TI.

Take Care & 73
--
From The Desk Of
Marty Albert, KC6UFM


"Hank Oredson" wrote in message
link.net...

The model is wrong.
Post it and I'll be glad to explain why.


A few things come to mind:

1) Multiplexing does not increase the bandwidth capability of a
channel.
You mention various forms of multiplexing, but these will not increase
the channel capacity. They are just different ways of utilizing what
is available.

2) The Hartley-Shannon Law gives the maximum bandwidth of a channel as
C = B log2(1+(s/n)) bits/second; where B is bandwidth (Hz) and s/n is
expressed as a value, not in dB.

Given this, to get 80 megabits of signal in a 100 kilobit channel, you
will need a signal/noise ratio of about 2408 dB. Since you were only
starting with a 10 watt signal, with about 100 dB path loss (after
including
the two j-poles), and a terrrestrial noise floor of about -124 dBm for the
100 kHz wide channel, you get only about 60 - 64 dB s/n in your receiver
(assuming things like lossless coax, etc.).
Thus you are about 2340 dB short on signal to accomplish the task as
described. See http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Shannon_limit for
more
discussion of this.


Your numbers are a bit too far from what can reasonably be believed.


Alan
wa6azp

"Marty Albert" writes:
Case in point, everyone knows that the velocity of light (c) is the "Cosmic
Speed Limit". Einstein said so and had the math to prove it. Quantum
Mechanics and M Theory both have solutions that allow for FTL... And some
have some rather unpleasant side effects.

Some wise old philosopher might have said, if someone tries to sell
you an FTL car, don't bet the farm on it.

Your 100 MBPS in 100 khz scheme works out about the same way.

"Marty Albert" wrote in message
om...
I was wondering when someone would stumble across the Hartley-Shannon
"law"...

What do you mean "stumble across it" ???

Like most laws of this nature, they break down at the extremes (i.e.
Relativity fails on the scale of the very small and Quantum Mechanics
fails
on the scale of the very large... For my money, I'm betting on M Theory
(formerly String Theory) to be the true GUT).

Shannon's theorem, Hartley-Shannon, etc. just describe what nature does.

Plug the numbers in for CAT6 over 100 m running a 10 Gbps data stream. You
will find that the equation fails in that it will tell that you can't do
that and, if set up right, it will send you the fact that it is impossible
OVER the 10 Gbps, 100 m run.

Um ... no ...

By the same token, if you plug in numbers for, say, 1.2 Kbps over CAT6 of
500 m length, that won't work either. The fact is, we (the telecomm/data
comm industry) do it every day.

Um ... no ...

Keep in mind that we all tend to "think inside the box" and say that
things
(pick one) are impossible because of some theory or "law". As a general
rule, we end up being wrong.

Um ... no ...

Case in point, everyone knows that the velocity of light (c) is the
"Cosmic
Speed Limit". Einstein said so and had the math to prove it. Quantum
Mechanics and M Theory both have solutions that allow for FTL... And some
have some rather unpleasant side effects.

Um ... no ...

But enough of the arcane math and other arenas...

Try to "think outside of the box"... Think about ways to do:

1) Ultra high speed data over RF media;

What is hard about that?

2) Make the system so cheap and easy that everyone will want one;

If you think you have a way to do so, I will buy a *bunch* of them.
Send me a quote via email. Will submit the order.

3) Perhaps get the attention of the commercial sector.

Odd, I kinda suspect the "commercial sector" is doing some work on this.

Everyone sitting around bemoaning the obstacles that need to be over come
are counter productive.

Oh, good. Send me that quote.

There is no such thing as "I can't do that."

Yes, there is.

There is only "I won't do that."

It is nature that will "not do that".

At the risk of sounding Republican (which I am) and of sounding like I
agree
with President Bush (which I do not at least 50% of the time) you need to
decide how much, if any, effort, thinking, and support you are willing to
give.

You need to take Thermo 101.

If you are interested in digital modes, you will be willing to put in what
is needed.

What is needed?

If you are not interested in the digital modes, you should at least get
out
of the way of those who do.

Send me that quote.

But, I wax philosophical... And even with 2 doctorate degrees, neither
qualifies me to be a philosopher.

That is quite clear.

Take Care & 73
--
From The Desk Of
Marty Albert, KC6UFM


"Alan" wrote in message
...
In article "Marty
Albert" writes:
I will see if the University that I am using to develop the model will
allow
that at this point... It is actually their intellectual property.

I doubt, however that you will find any major errors in the
algorithms....
There have been many professors, PhDs, and grad students looking at it
to
find those errors as well as engineers from Motorola, Maxim, and TI.

Take Care & 73
--
From The Desk Of
Marty Albert, KC6UFM


"Hank Oredson" wrote in message
link.net...

The model is wrong.
Post it and I'll be glad to explain why.


A few things come to mind:

1) Multiplexing does not increase the bandwidth capability of a
channel.
You mention various forms of multiplexing, but these will not increase
the channel capacity. They are just different ways of utilizing what
is available.

2) The Hartley-Shannon Law gives the maximum bandwidth of a channel
as
C = B log2(1+(s/n)) bits/second; where B is bandwidth (Hz) and s/n is
expressed as a value, not in dB.

Given this, to get 80 megabits of signal in a 100 kilobit channel, you
will need a signal/noise ratio of about 2408 dB. Since you were only
starting with a 10 watt signal, with about 100 dB path loss (after
including
the two j-poles), and a terrrestrial noise floor of about -124 dBm for
the
100 kHz wide channel, you get only about 60 - 64 dB s/n in your receiver
(assuming things like lossless coax, etc.).
Thus you are about 2340 dB short on signal to accomplish the task as
described. See http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Shannon_limit for
more
discussion of this.


Your numbers are a bit too far from what can reasonably be believed.


Alan
wa6azp

"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"Marty Albert" writes:
Case in point, everyone knows that the velocity of light (c) is the
"Cosmic
Speed Limit". Einstein said so and had the math to prove it. Quantum
Mechanics and M Theory both have solutions that allow for FTL... And some
have some rather unpleasant side effects.

Some wise old philosopher might have said, if someone tries to sell
you an FTL car, don't bet the farm on it.

Your 100 MBPS in 100 khz scheme works out about the same way.

It is the exact equivalent of those little pills you drop into
the gas tank of your car, and then get 100 MPG from water.

However, there is one difference. I can purchase those pills,
test them, and destroy my engine while getting 10 MPG :-)

I cannot purchase the magic "Shannon violating channel".

As a side note, strings are not yet a GUT, other than on fiddles.

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli

In article "Marty Albert" writes:

By the same token, if you plug in numbers for, say, 1.2 Kbps over CAT6 of
500 m length, that won't work either. The fact is, we (the telecomm/data
comm industry) do it every day.

Nonsense. The numbers say nothing of the sort.

My conclusion is: "troll", i.e. nonsense postings to stir up traffic
in the group.

I think that conclusion is being charitable.


Alan

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In article "Marty
Albert" writes:

By the same token, if you plug in numbers for, say, 1.2 Kbps over CAT6 of
500 m length, that won't work either. The fact is, we (the telecomm/data
comm industry) do it every day.

Nonsense. The numbers say nothing of the sort.

My conclusion is: "troll", i.e. nonsense postings to stir up traffic
in the group.

Exactly.
Group gets way too little traffic.

I think that conclusion is being charitable.

Naw, just your usual garden variety troll.
Check the bottom, might win something.

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli

Troll? Hardly...

Making a point? Absolutely...

Refer to the very first message in this topic.

Based on the E-Mail I have been getting, it would seem that most of the
lurkers in the group got the point

Take Care & 73
--
From The Desk Of
Marty Albert, KC6UFM

Marty Albert wrote:
TDM = Time Domain Multiplexing

WDM = Wide Dimensional Multiplexing

SDM = Statistical Domain Multiplexing.

TDM and, to a limited degree, WDM have been around and used for several
decades in high performance networking. SDM is relatively new, about 5
years.

There are far more ways to multiplex intelligence on a medium than PSK and
FSK, although both are used in high performance systems.

You are 100% correct... I may very well a few decimal places off... The
mathematical models show that 100 Mbps should be possible in as little as 10
KHz.

The last time someone made such fantastic claims, they weren't
correctly measuring bandwidth.

Perhaps you'd like to share independently-verifiable references
to your "mathematical models"?

Dana

I would love to as soon as the university approves the release...

In the meantime, it is all proprietary and property of the university.

Take Care & 73
--
From The Desk Of
Marty Albert, KC6UFM


"Dana H. Myers" wrote in message
...
Marty Albert wrote:
TDM = Time Domain Multiplexing

WDM = Wide Dimensional Multiplexing

SDM = Statistical Domain Multiplexing.

TDM and, to a limited degree, WDM have been around and used for several
decades in high performance networking. SDM is relatively new, about 5
years.

There are far more ways to multiplex intelligence on a medium than PSK
and
FSK, although both are used in high performance systems.

You are 100% correct... I may very well a few decimal places off... The
mathematical models show that 100 Mbps should be possible in as little
as 10
KHz.

The last time someone made such fantastic claims, they weren't
correctly measuring bandwidth.

Perhaps you'd like to share independently-verifiable references
to your "mathematical models"?

Dana

Which program is doing this research?
I don't find anything on the ACT web site that is even close.

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli
"Marty Albert" wrote in message
om...
I would love to as soon as the university approves the release...

In the meantime, it is all proprietary and property of the university.

Take Care & 73
--
From The Desk Of
Marty Albert, KC6UFM


"Dana H. Myers" wrote in message
...
Marty Albert wrote:
TDM = Time Domain Multiplexing

WDM = Wide Dimensional Multiplexing

SDM = Statistical Domain Multiplexing.

TDM and, to a limited degree, WDM have been around and used for several
decades in high performance networking. SDM is relatively new, about 5
years.

There are far more ways to multiplex intelligence on a medium than PSK
and
FSK, although both are used in high performance systems.

You are 100% correct... I may very well a few decimal places off... The
mathematical models show that 100 Mbps should be possible in as little
as 10
KHz.

The last time someone made such fantastic claims, they weren't
correctly measuring bandwidth.

Perhaps you'd like to share independently-verifiable references
to your "mathematical models"?

Dana

It is joint project between ACT, NPCEO, and NU.

When have you seen a private university system publish their research
projects on a web site?

Take Care & 73

--
From The Desk Of
Marty Albert, KC6UFM




"Hank Oredson" wrote in message
nk.net...
Which program is doing this research?
I don't find anything on the ACT web site that is even close.

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli
"Marty Albert" wrote in message
om...
I would love to as soon as the university approves the release...

In the meantime, it is all proprietary and property of the university.

Take Care & 73
--
From The Desk Of
Marty Albert, KC6UFM


"Dana H. Myers" wrote in message
...
Marty Albert wrote:
TDM = Time Domain Multiplexing

WDM = Wide Dimensional Multiplexing

SDM = Statistical Domain Multiplexing.

TDM and, to a limited degree, WDM have been around and used for
several
decades in high performance networking. SDM is relatively new, about
5
years.

There are far more ways to multiplex intelligence on a medium than
PSK
and
FSK, although both are used in high performance systems.

You are 100% correct... I may very well a few decimal places off...
The
mathematical models show that 100 Mbps should be possible in as
little
as 10
KHz.

The last time someone made such fantastic claims, they weren't
correctly measuring bandwidth.

Perhaps you'd like to share independently-verifiable references
to your "mathematical models"?

Dana

Most of them at least put the projects and p. investigators, etc.
It's called "advertising" ;-)

But what the heck, maybe something totally amazing that will
blow away all current theories of the transfer of information
across a channel will come from ACT.

Won't hold my breath.

"Exceptional claims require exceptional proof."
So far this is an unfounded rumor.

Gotta run, 6M is open again.

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli
"Marty Albert" wrote in message
.. .
It is joint project between ACT, NPCEO, and NU.

When have you seen a private university system publish their research
projects on a web site?

Take Care & 73

--
From The Desk Of
Marty Albert, KC6UFM




"Hank Oredson" wrote in message
nk.net...
Which program is doing this research?
I don't find anything on the ACT web site that is even close.

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli
"Marty Albert" wrote in message
om...
I would love to as soon as the university approves the release...

In the meantime, it is all proprietary and property of the university.

Take Care & 73
--
From The Desk Of
Marty Albert, KC6UFM


"Dana H. Myers" wrote in message
...
Marty Albert wrote:
TDM = Time Domain Multiplexing

WDM = Wide Dimensional Multiplexing

SDM = Statistical Domain Multiplexing.

TDM and, to a limited degree, WDM have been around and used for
several
decades in high performance networking. SDM is relatively new, about
5
years.

There are far more ways to multiplex intelligence on a medium than
PSK
and
FSK, although both are used in high performance systems.

You are 100% correct... I may very well a few decimal places off...
The
mathematical models show that 100 Mbps should be possible in as
little
as 10
KHz.

The last time someone made such fantastic claims, they weren't
correctly measuring bandwidth.

Perhaps you'd like to share independently-verifiable references
to your "mathematical models"?

Dana

You are right that "Exceptional claims require exceptional proof."

You are also right that at this time, due to contracts with the private side
investors, the project details can not be made public. After all, when a
group of companies take a look at a research project grant proposal and
decide to give a consortium of schools several million $ to do the research,
they are not doing that because they are the proverbial "Good Corporate
Citizens"... They want to make money on the deal. More precisely, they
EXPECT to make money on the deal.

I don't think (I hope) that the investors will boil me in oil for saying
that Sunday, some of the grad students were working in the Faraday lab and
reached a 5 second burst of 125 Mbps over a 30 meter run in the 10 GHz band
with a 3 db bandwidth of 145 KHz. This has not been verified or replicated
as of yet by another team. Also note that the signal is very, well, messy,
with an unfiltered 65 db bandwidth closer to 145 MHz. However, they used a
fairly sharp band-pass filter when they measured their throughput... At
least according to the report that was sent to me last night.

Again, referring back to the original post in this thread, the thing that I
find amazing and, based on private E-Mail I have received from a number of
lurkers, is the continuing lack of interest in digital modes that is being
perpetuated by narrow lines of thought and an unwillingness to "contribute
to the state of the radio art" in communications systems.

There is an old saying among physicists that "If a distinguished but elderly
physicist tells you that something is possible, you can safely bet that it
is possible... If that same physicist tells you that something in not
possible, you can safely bet that it is possible." I am as guilty of that as
anyone else... When I first read of string theory, I dismissed the concept
less than 100 pages into the thesis. After beating myself up a bit, I went
back, read the entire book plus some additional articles and came to the
conclusion that it is at least as correct as relativity and quantum
mechanics and, actually, fits most observations better than it's older
cousins.

In closing, one final quote for you...

"Man often becomes what he believes himself to be. If I keep on saying to
myself that I cannot do a certain thing, it is possible that I may end by
really becoming incapable of doing it. On the contrary, if I have the belief
that I can do it, I shall surely acquire the capacity to do it even if I may
not have it at the beginning."

I shall leave it to the intrepid to interpret and/or find the author of the
quote.

Take Care & 73
--
From The Desk Of
Marty Albert, KC6UFM



"Hank Oredson" wrote in message
ink.net...
Most of them at least put the projects and p. investigators, etc.
It's called "advertising" ;-)

But what the heck, maybe something totally amazing that will
blow away all current theories of the transfer of information
across a channel will come from ACT.

Won't hold my breath.

"Exceptional claims require exceptional proof."
So far this is an unfounded rumor.

Gotta run, 6M is open again.

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli
"Marty Albert" wrote in message
.. .
It is joint project between ACT, NPCEO, and NU.

When have you seen a private university system publish their research
projects on a web site?

Take Care & 73

--
From The Desk Of
Marty Albert, KC6UFM




"Hank Oredson" wrote in message
nk.net...
Which program is doing this research?
I don't find anything on the ACT web site that is even close.

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli
"Marty Albert" wrote in message
om...
I would love to as soon as the university approves the release...

In the meantime, it is all proprietary and property of the
university.

Take Care & 73
--
From The Desk Of
Marty Albert, KC6UFM


"Dana H. Myers" wrote in message
...
Marty Albert wrote:
TDM = Time Domain Multiplexing

WDM = Wide Dimensional Multiplexing

SDM = Statistical Domain Multiplexing.

TDM and, to a limited degree, WDM have been around and used for
several
decades in high performance networking. SDM is relatively new,
about
5
years.

There are far more ways to multiplex intelligence on a medium than
PSK
and
FSK, although both are used in high performance systems.

You are 100% correct... I may very well a few decimal places
off...
The
mathematical models show that 100 Mbps should be possible in as
little
as 10
KHz.

The last time someone made such fantastic claims, they weren't
correctly measuring bandwidth.

Perhaps you'd like to share independently-verifiable references
to your "mathematical models"?

Dana

"Marty Albert" wrote in message
. ..
You are right that "Exceptional claims require exceptional proof."

You are also right that at this time, due to contracts with the private
side
investors, the project details can not be made public. After all, when a
group of companies take a look at a research project grant proposal and
decide to give a consortium of schools several million $ to do the
research,
they are not doing that because they are the proverbial "Good Corporate
Citizens"... They want to make money on the deal. More precisely, they
EXPECT to make money on the deal.

Yeah, right.

I don't think (I hope) that the investors will boil me in oil for saying
that Sunday, some of the grad students were working in the Faraday lab and
reached a 5 second burst of 125 Mbps over a 30 meter run in the 10 GHz
band
with a 3 db bandwidth of 145 KHz. This has not been verified or replicated
as of yet by another team. Also note that the signal is very, well, messy,
with an unfiltered 65 db bandwidth closer to 145 MHz. However, they used a
fairly sharp band-pass filter when they measured their throughput... At
least according to the report that was sent to me last night.

Imagine my surprise at the 145 MHz bandwidth ...
Is someone confusing bits, bauds and symbols?
You "forgot" to mention the S/N ratio, that is ... um ... "important".

Again, referring back to the original post in this thread, the thing that
I
find amazing and, based on private E-Mail I have received from a number of
lurkers, is the continuing lack of interest in digital modes that is being
perpetuated by narrow lines of thought and an unwillingness to "contribute
to the state of the radio art" in communications systems.

Yeah, right ... "Proof by private communication."

There is an old saying among physicists that "If a distinguished but
elderly
physicist tells you that something is possible, you can safely bet that it
is possible... If that same physicist tells you that something in not
possible, you can safely bet that it is possible." I am as guilty of that
as

Let me see, have I said it is "not possible"?

anyone else... When I first read of string theory, I dismissed the concept
less than 100 pages into the thesis. After beating myself up a bit, I went
back, read the entire book plus some additional articles and came to the
conclusion that it is at least as correct as relativity and quantum
mechanics and, actually, fits most observations better than it's older
cousins.

Again, imagine my surprise. Does this communication mechanism
use strings perhaps? Entanglement? FTL propagation?

In closing, one final quote for you...

"Man often becomes what he believes himself to be. If I keep on saying to
myself that I cannot do a certain thing, it is possible that I may end by
really becoming incapable of doing it. On the contrary, if I have the
belief
that I can do it, I shall surely acquire the capacity to do it even if I
may
not have it at the beginning."

Another saying that does not apply.

I shall leave it to the intrepid to interpret and/or find the author of
the
quote.

I wish to purchase some of these devices that beat Shannon.

The fact that the "research" is all secret, with no hint given about
how Shannon and Thermodymics are being bypassed, smells of
either "scam" or "incompetence". The "messy signal" comment
sounds more like a combination of both. "Once we clean up the
signal, then we will get the full data rate in only 145 Khz."

There is a long history of such claims, and, like perpetual motion,
eventually the error in the experiment (or the scam) is discovered.

Instead of talking about the science, you attack the person questioning
your outlandish claims, and continue to babble about how much
money will be made once the secret experiments are finished.
It's a classic ...

Why not discuss the science instead?

Perhaps along the lines of "We have discovered a new coding scheme
that provides a high bit rate with a low symbol rate through a narrow
and noisy channel." Then we could discuss how this new and unique
use of Hadamard transforms will revolutionize cell phones. Or not.

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli

In article "Marty Albert" writes:

You are right that "Exceptional claims require exceptional proof."

You are also right that at this time, due to contracts with the private side
investors, the project details can not be made public. After all, when a
group of companies take a look at a research project grant proposal and
decide to give a consortium of schools several million $ to do the research,
they are not doing that because they are the proverbial "Good Corporate
Citizens"... They want to make money on the deal. More precisely, they
EXPECT to make money on the deal.

I don't think (I hope) that the investors will boil me in oil for saying
that Sunday, some of the grad students were working in the Faraday lab and
reached a 5 second burst of 125 Mbps over a 30 meter run in the 10 GHz band
with a 3 db bandwidth of 145 KHz. This has not been verified or replicated
as of yet by another team. Also note that the signal is very, well, messy,
with an unfiltered 65 db bandwidth closer to 145 MHz. However, they used a
fairly sharp band-pass filter when they measured their throughput... At
least according to the report that was sent to me last night.


Note that when this started out, you said:

In about 1989 there was a local ham (now SK named Frank whose last name and
call I can not remember now) who came to me with a design for a device that
would plug into a 100BaseT NIC and generate low power (about 50 mW as I
recall) at either 70 cm or 23 cm. He wanted my input on the protocol stack
(networking is my thing). Effectively, the device simply sent and received
TCP/IP over an RF Ethernet link. He had built a pair of prototypes that
worked very well. He then built a simple amplifier to get the RF up to about
10 watts and it worked very well between his house and mine, about 8 miles
apart, on J-Poles. We were able to get about 80 Mbps at 23 cm.
...
I wish that I still had the schematic for the prototype that he gave me, but
over the course 15+ years and 3 cross-country moves, I have misplaced them.
It would need significant updating... The prototypes were xtal controlled
and did not use SS. I would think (I am a network engineer, not RF or
electronics!) that the system could benefit from DDS, DSP, and SS
procedures.


This seems somewhat different than the "university research project".

Why the change in story?


Alan

Marty Albert wrote:

I am curious as to what people attribute the (apparent) death of
digital systems overall.


_________________________________________________

The "new" has worn off. When a new mode or technique appears, traffic
will pick up again.

--
Bill, W6WRT