The more likely problem is the "designer" of the new
modulation has written patents that sew up every way
they can think of to demodulate the signal. If they
did a good job with the patent, you won't be able to
design a receiver that demodulate the signal without
patent infringement.
-Chuck Harris
Peter Monta wrote:
Hi John,
Thank you for clarifying the openness of the transmission format.
Could I ask whether there is any scenario under which aspects of the
signal transmission design might be patented? If companies or
individuals wish to patent aspects of receiver design, that's fine,
but I'd be uncomfortable with a patent-encumbered transmission format.
... It is an unfortunate consequence of improving the reception
capability of our broadcast that this segment of our loyal user base are so
adversely affected. The decision to proceed was not taken lightly, but in
the end it was decided that the improvement in reception capability
(especially along the JJY interference prone East Coast) outweighed the loss
of use of existing PLL devices.
I suppose it's a matter of balancing the value of the PLL receivers
and the loss of BPSK signal power to the residual carrier. If the
power loss is small, though, say 0.5 dB or below, then given the large
process gains of the advanced receivers, it might be worth
considering. I don't imagine that the mere presence of residual
carrier has any effect on the advanced receivers (since it is similar
to interference from MSF and JJY, as you say), but please correct me
if I'm wrong.
Cheers,
Peter
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
