Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Free quick easy money Amazing !!!!!!!!!!!!! | Boatanchors | |||
Free quick easy money Amazing !!!!!!!!!!!!! | Boatanchors | |||
Free quick easy money Amazing !!!!!!!!!!!!! | Homebrew | |||
Free quick easy money Amazing !!!!!!!!!!!!! | Scanner |