Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
How I would like to change the cell phone industry [was AM electromagnetic waves: 20 KHz modulation frequency on an astronomically-low carrier frequency]
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Jeff Liebermann wrote:
hath wroth: John Navas wrote: No radio engineer would agree. I are an radio/RF/wireless/communications/whatever engineer and I agree with John Navas that cellular is nowhere near 3GHz. That should have been about 30%, but in any case, I am an engineer and there isn't a whole hell of a lot of anything different between 1.9 GHz and 3 GHz. Baloney. See: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/oet/spectrum/table/fcctable.pdf Zoom in to the area between 1.9GHz and 3.0GHz. There's a huge amount of point to point, wi-fi, WiMax, satellite, XM/Serius, radar, military, etc, stuff in that area. That's also where Sprint and others have recently purchased bandwidth for advanced data services. What? Some trivial differences in path losses? Antennas a bit different in size by what, 4 mm unless I slipped a decimal point in my head? There's no disgrace in admiting that you've made a misake. There's plenty in trying to bluster your way out of admitting it followed by trying to trivialize your mistake. I agree there is a lot of stuff allocated between 1.9 GHz and 3 GHz, but FCC regulations wasn't the point. Lemme try again. Put up two transmitters with everything identical in terms of lambda, one on 1.9 GHz, one on 3 GHz. Run around all you want with a field strength meter. There isn't going to be spit worth of difference. Antenna sizes? A matter of millimeters. Equipment construction techniques, part availability, etc? Negligable differences. There isn't much difference between 2 GHz radio and 3 GHz radio. Do the above with 800 MHz and 3 GHz. Now you start seeing some differences. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|