And enough impacts.. lol. -Ty
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Chuck McCown via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > We are all “rough stones rolling” we knock the sharp edges off each > other given enough time. > > *From:* Josh Reynolds via Af <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, October 26, 2014 11:09 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters > > Sidenote: I lack something called "soft skills". > > It may come from having a father with a light case of Aspergers, a southern > upbringing, and almost a decade of service in the Army. > > Probably a shitty trifecta towards developing interpersonal skills. It's > not intentional. > > Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer > SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com > On 10/26/2014 08:46 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote: > > Josh, you have strong opinions and there's nothing wrong with that, but at > times you come off very confrontational, IMO. > > Ken is one of the smartest people I know and I have great respect for him. > I think most others here would agree. > > On 10/26/2014 11:28 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af wrote: > > If you're not fixing to the problem, you're contributing to it. > > You have some valid points about weaknesses in the formulas used in that > chart. > > Do you talk to everyone this way? > > Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer > SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com > On 10/26/2014 07:16 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: > > Are you trying to be annoying, or just succeeding? > > *From:* Josh Reynolds via Af <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:14 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters > > Then post the correct formula, IYHO, so it can be fixed. > > Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer > SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com > On 10/26/2014 06:20 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: > > That doesn’t address my complaints about the USE of those formulas. Do > you agree that WiFi bits/sec/Hz should be divided by 3 but LTE should not, > because of assumptions about frequency reuse? In the context of a WISP > application which may use GPS sync? How about assuming one spatial stream > for WiFi but 8 for LTE? And what about treating LTE Advanced like a > current technology but 802.11ac as a future technology? > > And 802.11n is capable of more than 1.2 bits/sec/Hz. If the formula > disagrees with reality, it’s the formula (or the numbers plugged into the > formula) that must change, not reality. It’s not like a Looney Toons > cartoon where the character falls to the ground once you point out they > can’t walk on air. > > > *From:* Josh Reynolds via Af <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, October 26, 2014 8:59 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters > > The formulas are at the top of the chart. > > Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer > SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com > On 10/26/2014 05:31 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af wrote: > > I think those numbers are flawed. Especially dividing the 802.11n > numbers by 3 due to “frequency reuse” factor. And using SISO for 802.11n > but 8x8 MIMO for LTE. Not to mention using 802.11n and not 802.11ac. > > Saying 802.11n is only good for 1.2 bits/sec/Hz is saying it can only do > 24 Mbps in a 20 MHz channel. Hogwash. > > > *From:* Josh Reynolds via Af <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, October 26, 2014 5:49 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters > > Well... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_efficiency > > 802.11n has a spectral efficiency of around 1.2. LTE advanced has a > spectral efficiency of _30_. > > If we could get some fairly cheap radio chipsets with even a 10-15 in > spectral efficiency at this point, we would probably all be incredibly > happy. > > Doing that would likely cause us to (A) Not be compatible with 802.11 > (fine by me), and (B) would require mass market adoption. > > Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer > SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com > On 10/26/2014 02:40 PM, Mike Hammett via Af wrote: > > That's what I was hoping for but I was told to sit down. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill Prince via Af" mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 12:36:58 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters > > > Perhaps some innovation in improving efficiency? Maybe takes someone thinking > outside of the current box(es). > > bp On 10/26/2014 9:55 AM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: > > > > > > I was just going to mention that. Make a clean signal and you don’t have to > filter so much. Anyone remember what a Class A amplifier is? (45% efficient > at best) Cavity filters? > > I would think that in this day and age, you ought to be able to go DSP direct > to antenna up to a 5 volt p-p signal. Or if you had to use a PA, inject a > pre-distortion component. The cable TV guys have been dealing with these > issues for decades. > > And then there is the issue with physical size of filters. A nice filter, > with decent response and low insertion loss is large. SAW filters are about > as small as you can get but they are higher loss than, for example, a > waveguide filter however they are maybe 1% of the volume. > > You want a small radio that consumes very little power, then ... it will be > more noisy than a large radio that consumes more power. That said, modern > tech is unbelievable in performance and it just keeps getting better. Perhaps > Chuck will get to come to AnimalFarm this year and show us something fun. > > > > > From: Chuck Macenski via Af > Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:24 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters > > > > Hi again, > > > Another factor that causes expense is the linearity of the final stage output > amplifiers...these puppies are linear for most modern radios and more > linearity = more cost and higher power consumption. I will stop now... > > Chuck > > > > On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Chuck Macenski < [email protected] > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > There are many questions (explicit and implicit) in your question. Focusing > on the tx side only (since we are talking about band edge), the filters you > are talking about are electromechanical. Do a wikipedia search on SAW filters > and you will get a sense for what you are dealing with. There are many other > factors involved in meeting band edge requirements and other filtering that > is or can be performed, but, the expense is often in the electromechanical > components. > > > Chuck > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 1:45 AM, That One Guy via Af < [email protected] > wrote: > > > > with the changes in the 5ghz rules, it may force innovation in filtering > technology to bring cost down, assuming the innovators arent stuck in a > mindset of the only thing that would work is what there is. > > How do filters works? > > Are there electronically adjustable filters? > > Where does the cost come from on filters? It is not new technology, so > recovery of R&D on a new tech has long since past, what is it that drives the > cost up? Is it primarily a matter of it being something needed, so its more > valuable, or is it something in the physical properties of the filters that > drives up the cost? > > Can you filter electronically a transmitter using something along the same > lines of noise cancelling headphones > > > > > > > > >
