"Radium" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 17, 3:56 pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:

The same as the minimum number of data bits required to represent this
signal. The number of photons/data bits will vary depending on the
complexity, frequency and depth of modulation of the carrier wave.

I am talking about an analog carrier wave. In the analog realm, there
is no such thing as "bits".


Radium

If a single photon can represent a single discrete energy level, then at
some point you will have to translate your analogue signal into discrete
photons. A process similar to digitising an audio signal to produce a CD.
The number of photons will depend on the sampling rate chosen, the bandwidth
and depth of modulation of the original signal and the fidelity with which
you wish to reconstruct a representation of the original signal. 300,000
photons per second should do the trick, as that is the frequency of the
original signal and each photon can represent the amplitude of each half of
a single sine wave.

It is standard practice to sample at least double the frequency of whatever
you are trying to capture.

Mike G0ULI

On Jun 17, 4:38 pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:

300,000
photons per second should do the trick, as that is the frequency of the
original signal and each photon can represent the amplitude of each half of
a single sine wave.

So the amount of photons-per-second should be double the frequency of
the carrier-wave? In my first post of the thread, I stated that the
carrier frequency for the AM signal is 150 KHz. Each photon in that
signal is 150 KHz. It's possible to have one 150 KHz photon, right?

My question was relating the modulator wave. If I have using 150 KHz
photons for my carrier-wave on AM radio, what is the minimum amount of
photons-per-second I would require to transmit, a modulator-signal
[through the 150 KHz carrier-signal] of 20 KHz? I am guessing 40,000
150-KHz-photons-per-seconds. Am I right?

"Radium" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 17, 4:38 pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:

300,000
photons per second should do the trick, as that is the frequency of the
original signal and each photon can represent the amplitude of each half
of
a single sine wave.

So the amount of photons-per-second should be double the frequency of
the carrier-wave? In my first post of the thread, I stated that the
carrier frequency for the AM signal is 150 KHz. Each photon in that
signal is 150 KHz. It's possible to have one 150 KHz photon, right?

My question was relating the modulator wave. If I have using 150 KHz
photons for my carrier-wave on AM radio, what is the minimum amount of
photons-per-second I would require to transmit, a modulator-signal
[through the 150 KHz carrier-signal] of 20 KHz? I am guessing 40,000
150-KHz-photons-per-seconds. Am I right?


Radium

You can have a single photon oscillating at a frequency of 150,000 cycles
per second. Measuring that photon will give you a sample of 1/150,000th of a
second duration. If you want to do anything meaningful, you need to have a
whole lot more photons. If you modulate a 150kHz carrier with a signal of
20kHz then the bandwidth of the signal will extend from 150 kHz -20 kHz to
150 kHz +20 kHz or from 130-170 kHz. Signals centred on 150 kHz represent
just the carrier wave. Signals at 130 kHz and 170 kHz represent 100%
modulation of the carrier wave. Now the modulation of the carrier wave is
symmetrical about the center frequency, so you only need to measure one
half.

One way of recovering the signal is to measure the frequency of each photon
between 130 and 150 kHz at a rate of 300,000 samples per second. The
variation of each photon from the carrier frequency represents the
modulation. A 20 kHz signal can be accurately represented using 40,000
samples, but this is different from detecting modulation on a higher
frequency carrier wave.

Mike G0ULI

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:
On Jun 17, 4:38 pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:

300,000
photons per second should do the trick, as that is the frequency of the
original signal and each photon can represent the amplitude of each half of
a single sine wave.

So the amount of photons-per-second should be double the frequency of
the carrier-wave? In my first post of the thread, I stated that the
carrier frequency for the AM signal is 150 KHz. Each photon in that
signal is 150 KHz. It's possible to have one 150 KHz photon, right?

My question was relating the modulator wave. If I have using 150 KHz
photons for my carrier-wave on AM radio, what is the minimum amount of
photons-per-second I would require to transmit, a modulator-signal
[through the 150 KHz carrier-signal] of 20 KHz? I am guessing 40,000
150-KHz-photons-per-seconds. Am I right?

No.

For AM with a 150 Khz carrier and a steady 20 Khz tone, you have to emit
1 130 Khz photon, 2 150 Khz photons, and 1 170 Khz photon approximately
every 12 microseconds.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
news
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:
On Jun 17, 4:38 pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:

300,000
photons per second should do the trick, as that is the frequency of
the
original signal and each photon can represent the amplitude of each
half of
a single sine wave.

So the amount of photons-per-second should be double the frequency of
the carrier-wave? In my first post of the thread, I stated that the
carrier frequency for the AM signal is 150 KHz. Each photon in that
signal is 150 KHz. It's possible to have one 150 KHz photon, right?

My question was relating the modulator wave. If I have using 150 KHz
photons for my carrier-wave on AM radio, what is the minimum amount of
photons-per-second I would require to transmit, a modulator-signal
[through the 150 KHz carrier-signal] of 20 KHz? I am guessing 40,000
150-KHz-photons-per-seconds. Am I right?

No.

For AM with a 150 Khz carrier and a steady 20 Khz tone, you have to emit
1 130 Khz photon, 2 150 Khz photons, and 1 170 Khz photon approximately
every 12 microseconds.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Nicely put Jim.

Mike G0ULI

In article ,
"Mike Kaliski" wrote:

Snip

Plonk

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
"Mike Kaliski" wrote:

Ohh gawd, bizarre telemundo is back ...

PLONKERS!

JS

John Smith I wrote:

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"Mike Kaliski" wrote:


Ohh gawd, bizarre telemundo is back ...

PLONKERS!

JS


The irony is he's proudly plonking those who are actually more on topic
with this 'photon' thread than he often is in other threads, where the
subject is really OT.