Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Ecclesine who wrote (14744)	4/23/2006 11:28:26 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi Peter - "Radio astronomy equipment extracts signals from what antennas receive, and routinely combine receptions from distributed receivers. Their limits are closer to device physics than economic compromise. Their receivers do not saturate." OK, we're on the same page. My first response was drawn from reading on SETI and CI "listening" done in the presence of jammimg, plus some more recent stuff on signal analysis. Combining inputs from geographically different radio telescopes can be regarded as one "receiver" and is used as such. But it's a bit of a stretch to suggest these solutions are applicable to commercial/retail equipment used at 2.4 GHz, isn't it? "... 'receivers saturate' - the receiver's operation is based on the system's constraints, and the engineer's solution to those constraints. Any solution to the system constraints has limits in time/space/money/power dimensions." The pragmatic constraints applicable to those receivers (size, cost, engineering factors, aesthetics, spectrum allocation, regulations, etc) dictate that they do become saturated by spurious signals and random noise. The more emitters using the designated frequency, the more likely they are to saturate the receiver, and make extraction of information problematical. The "efficiency" metric commonly used to compare, say CDMA and OFDM - bits per HZ - is an inferred recognition of that fact that there are limits on capacity of different transmission/reception systems, right from the get-go. How would Wi-Fi rate, especially in the presence of interferors? Or, from the other end of the problem, Bluetooth? Despite the fact that there are no limits on what the "pipe" can carry? Jim