Jim,

Good points!  Thank you.

John - K8OCL


>From: "jgorman01" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques
>Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:34:20 -0000
>
>Actually, the statement that a solution is possible is unproven.  A
>more accurate one might be that a solution may be possible.  However,
>802.11 is NOT a good example to use in citing how it might be done!
>
>The statement about 802.11 doesn't tell the whole story, not by a long
>shot.  These types of wireless protocols have collision avoidance and
>interference mitigation built into the protocols.  In other words, the
>transmitters and receivers work together.  802.11 collision avoidance
>is implemented by carrier sensing and random timing before starting to
>send and/or requires a sender to forward a 'request to send' packet to
>the receiver and should transmit only after receiving a 'clear to
>send' packet back.  Even then, there are problems with these
>techniques where hidden terminals can wreak havoc, so they are not
>perfect either.  Although the spectrum looks full, it is also very
>well controlled.
>
>BPL has none of this, so it is not even comparable.  You can't ask BPL
>for a request to send or even to stop sending for a period of time. An
>even bigger problem is coordinating sending and receiving when you
>have two terminals that are 1000's if not 10,000's of miles apart
>which can happen on HF.  What BPL is doing at any instant of time at
>your location is absolutely no guarantee that the same thing is
>happening at the receiving end.  You may transmit in a perceived
>"hole" (be it in frequency, time or phase) at your end, but at the
>receiver, chances are that there is no corresponding "hole" when the
>signal arrives.
>
>This isn't to say that some method can't be developed in time after
>careful long term assessment of BPL characteristics.  However, your
>derision of Ed Hare being stuck in an analog world is not justifiable.
>Your statements and examples like:
>
> > Yet, in digital networking we are able to work within and around
> > this sea very effectively to do what we must do to communicate.  If
> > Hams can stop thinking of BPL as simply NOISE and investigate its
> > specific nature, their great history of Ham Radio innovation will
> > eventually prevail.
>
>don't come close to refuting what Ed said about BPL and its noise
>characteristics.  You can "...do what we must do to communicate..."
>only because others have done the groundwork on the protocols to
>insure collision avoidance is part of the basic operation.  I am
>surprised that chose to ignore this in your comparison.  Although your
>spectrum analyzer may show lots of RF, it is all very much in a
>controlled environment and not at all like BPL.
>
>You live in a digital world so I tell you what, here's a little
>problem for you to solve.  Start up a laptop in your wireless network
>that acts just like BPL.  Make sure it has all collision avoidance
>defeated, not just RTS/CTS but all CA, so it begins transmitting as
>soon as data is ready, even if another node is transmitting.  While
>you're at it turn off all power control too, just run at maximum
>output.  Then, like BPL, make it constantly send data.  Let us know
>how quickly the whole network deteriorates.  As an exercise, see how
>quickly you can arrive at a solution that can be applied to the other
>nodes to solve the problem of the uncontrolled transmitter and let us
>know what that solution is.  This problem is much more closely aligned
>to the BPL issue than simply describing normal wireless operation as
>being similar.
>
>Jim
>WA0LYK
>
>--- In [email protected], "John Champa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Ed,
> >
> > Nobody said it is available now, only that a solution is possible.
>Bob even
> > pointed out that any solution may be too expensive anyway.
> >
> > If we can pause for a minute and stop thinking in strictly analog
>terms,
> > then it is clear a solution is possible.  For example, I work in a
>virtual
> > sea of BPL.  It's thick and heavy.  Any spectrum analysis indicates
>such.
> >
> > Of course we don't call it "BPL",  because it is the same stuff but
>it is
> > aimed deliberately at us.  It's called 802.11g, 802.11a, and other
>assorted
> > OFDM products.
> >
> > Yet, in digital networking we are able to work within and around
>this sea
> > very effectively to do what we must do to communicate.  If Hams can
>stop
> > thinking of BPL as simply NOISE and investigate its specific nature,
>their
> > great history of Ham Radio innovation will eventually prevail.
> >
> > Remember, somebody once said with equal certainty that 200 Meters
>and down
> > was absolutely worthless!  (HI)
> >
> > 73,
> > John - K8OCL
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: "Hare, Ed  W1RFI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[email protected]>
> > >Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques
> > >Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:03:15 -0400
> > >
> > >I strongly disagree. If a digital solution exists to dig signals 60 dB
> > >out of poorly correlated noise, where can I download a copy or
> > >information so I can copy signals 60 dB below the present ambient noise
> > >levels?
> > >
> > >Ed Hare, W1RFI
> > >ARRL Laboratory Manager
> > >225 Main St
> > >Newington, CT 06111
> > >Tel: 860-594-0318
> > >Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >Web: http://www.arrl.org/
> > >Member: ASC C63 EMC Committee
> > >    Chairman: Subcommittee 5, Immunity
> > >    Chairman: Ad hoc BPL Working Group
> > >Member: IEEE P1775 BPL EMC Committee
> > >Member: IEEE, Standards Association, Electromagnetic Compatibility
> > >Society
> > >Member: ICES SCC-28 RF Safety
> > >Member/Secretary: IEEE EMC Society Standards Development Committee
> > >    Chairman, BPL Study Project
> > >Member: Society of Automotive Engineers EMC/EMR Committee
> > >Board of Directors: QRP Amateur Radio Club International
> > >
> >
>
>





Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to  Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org

Other areas of interest:

The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol  (band plan policy discussion)

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Reply via email to