"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