No Sidebands?
No Sidebands?
(OP)
Was Shannon and the other guys wrong?
gunnar@gke.org" target="_blank">http:/ /mwrf.com/ Articles/I ndex.cfm?A d=1&Ar ticleID=23 644&ci d=ed_newsl etter& NL=1&Y M_RID=gunn ar@gke.org
I am not in communications, so I do not understand much of what is said.
Anyone that can comment on this?
gunnar@gke.org" target="_blank">http:/
I am not in communications, so I do not understand much of what is said.
Anyone that can comment on this?
Gunnar Englund
www.gke.org
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.





RE: No Sidebands?
I have asked an RF guru friend to join and comment.
Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
RE: No Sidebands?
This isn't earth shattering or new, just applied in a new way.
RE: No Sidebands?
So he should take the output *after* the receive filters, put it in a coax cable, and mark the middle of the cable with the word "HERE!". Then he can discuss his purported violation of Shannon's Law with respect to the signal at that exact point.
The article triggers off other alarm bells. I'll need to have a drink and try again.
RE: No Sidebands?
Shannon's Law is derived from pure math. It doesn't depend upon a particular type of filter. A channel cannot carry any more information than the limit, no matter what filters are used. One can do worse, but not better.
RE: No Sidebands?
Also, the statement: This present article shows near-perfect reception without usable sidebands for AM pulses, although the method does not work for ordinary AM audio, where the sideband energy is essential to the operation of the system. Translated, I think it means: 'This doesn't work if there is any information in the signal'.
Also, the statement: The approach can also be used to extend the range of UWB signals when applied to UNB communications systems. is self contradictory!
I thought April 1st was still a few months off!
RE: No Sidebands?
Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com
RE: No Sidebands?
It's not clear that the author understands that the Fourier equivalence isn't something you have to do; it just is. In other words, he should (not really) have been able to do this experiment in pure math (or math sim) and derive the exact same result. Using a practical hardware-based experiment to try to amend Information Theory is just plain weird.
Also, his so-called "transmitter" is a bit of a strawman. It's junk and the emitted spectrum is a violation of All That Is Holy in the radio world.
The Nobel prize committee should probably hold-off for a while, until this finding is deciphered and aligned with theory. If the theory requires an amendment, then crack open the champange.
RE: No Sidebands?
Gunnar Englund
www.gke.org
--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.
RE: No Sidebands?
"This article demonstrates that no ultra narrow band modulation (UNBM) method, which includes very minimum shift keying (VMSK) and VPSK, can have substantially greater efficiency than conventional methods, such as quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM), in transmission in the same frequency band."
ht
RE: No Sidebands?
Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter