On Jul 1, 7:24 am, wrote in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...0c8ed13?hl=en&
:

how would u like to change the cell phone industry?

Analog cells phones should stop using FM and should start using AM
with SHF frequencies - at least 3 GHz and at most 30 GHz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_high_frequency

I choose SHF frequencies because SHF seems to be the sweet spot
between frequencies that are high-enough to rip through charged
particles & provide large amounts of bandwidth, yet low-enough to be
wireless and long-distance. At EHF and above, it starts to get into
the IR range where long-distance wireless reception is not possible
and atmospheric opacity begins to dominate.

Equally important, SHF frequencies can efficiently transmit signals
using extremely small transmitters. Longer wavelengths require larger
transmitters.

Obviously there are frequencies lower than SHF -- VHF and above --
that can easily penetrate charged particles [e.g. anything resembling
the ionosphere or heliosphere]. However, lower-frequencies tend to
result in less bandwidth, so it is better to use higher-frequencies
when the application requires significant bandwidth.

I choose AM because it requires less bandwidth than FM. In addition,
AM tends to retain reception of rather weak signals, while FM
"considers" such signals to be absent.

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote:
On Jul 1, 7:24 am, wrote in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...0c8ed13?hl=en&
:

how would u like to change the cell phone industry?

Analog cells phones should stop using FM and should start using AM
with SHF frequencies - at least 3 GHz and at most 30 GHz.

Analog cell phones are going away.

Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.

You are an idiot.

snip crap

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...

Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.


Really? Which ones? I'm only aware of cell systems using 800, 900, 1800 and
1900 MHz. There are some (very few) multisystem phones that use all four of
those ranges.

Radium hath wroth:

how would u like to change the cell phone industry?

Analog cells phones should stop using FM and should start using AM
with SHF frequencies - at least 3 GHz and at most 30 GHz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_high_frequency

Maybe if the entire cellular infrastructure would move up to the LMDS
26-30GHz band, I might recover some of the money I sunk into an LMDS
startup. Great idea. I like it.

Of course, there are problems. Nobody makes an economical mm wave
handset. There will probably need to be 8-10 times more cell sites
built than are currently in use on 800/900 and 1800/1900MHz. Of
course mm wave propagation is affected by just about everything, so it
probably won't work indoors. No problem, just add more cell sites and
repeaters. Of course you couldn't get away with the existing
relatively low power output handsets and insipid gain antennas, so
we'll just crank up the power and antenna gain on the handset and fry
a few peoples brains. It's a small sacrifice to make so I watch TV on
my cell phone.

Equally important, SHF frequencies can efficiently transmit signals
using extremely small transmitters. Longer wavelengths require larger
transmitters.

They do? I didn't know that. My 49MHz automobile alarm dongle isn't
much larger than my 2400MHz USB wi-fi dongle. Are you sure the
transmitter has to be bigger or were you thinking of the antenna?

Obviously there are frequencies lower than SHF -- VHF and above --
that can easily penetrate charged particles [e.g. anything resembling
the ionosphere or heliosphere].

I don't know of any wireless service provider that charges for
particles. What are they charging and what's the stock symbol? I've
always suspected that charged particles might be worth selling.

However, lower-frequencies tend to
result in less bandwidth, so it is better to use higher-frequencies
when the application requires significant bandwidth.

Hint: It doesn't matter what you're doing, there's never enough
bandwidth available. If you provide XX MHz of available bandwidth,
someone will immediately supply an application that required 10 times
the available bandwidth. More simply, applications tend to fill up
available bandwidth quite rapidly.

I choose AM because it requires less bandwidth than FM. In addition,
AM tends to retain reception of rather weak signals, while FM
"considers" such signals to be absent.

I'll make it really simple for you. FM is "hi-fi", while AM is noisy
"no-fi". Don't you want to be cool strutting down the street with
your iPhone watching HDTV with 7.1 sound? It wouldn't do to have it
sound like the typical AM broadcast station. For decent quality, you
gotta have FM.

This is fun. Kinda reminds me of some of the business plans I
reviewed during the dot com boom.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 7/15/07 1:24 PM, in article
, "Radium"
wrote:

On Jul 1, 7:24 am, wrote in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...bf90c8ed13?hl=
en&
:

how would u like to change the cell phone industry?

Analog cells phones should stop using FM and should start using AM
with SHF frequencies - at least 3 GHz and at most 30 GHz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_high_frequency

I choose SHF frequencies because SHF seems to be the sweet spot
between frequencies that are high-enough to rip through charged
particles & provide large amounts of bandwidth, yet low-enough to be
wireless and long-distance. At EHF and above, it starts to get into
the IR range where long-distance wireless reception is not possible
and atmospheric opacity begins to dominate.

Equally important, SHF frequencies can efficiently transmit signals
using extremely small transmitters. Longer wavelengths require larger
transmitters.

Obviously there are frequencies lower than SHF -- VHF and above --
that can easily penetrate charged particles [e.g. anything resembling
the ionosphere or heliosphere]. However, lower-frequencies tend to
result in less bandwidth, so it is better to use higher-frequencies
when the application requires significant bandwidth.

I choose AM because it requires less bandwidth than FM. In addition,
AM tends to retain reception of rather weak signals, while FM
"considers" such signals to be absent.


Too much time on your hands again?

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Brenda Ann wrote:

wrote in message
...

Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region.


Really? Which ones? I'm only aware of cell systems using 800, 900, 1800 and
1900 MHz. There are some (very few) multisystem phones that use all four of
those ranges.

Notice the word "region"?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jul 15, 2:14 pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Radium hath wroth:

how would u like to change the cell phone industry?

Analog cells phones should stop using FM and should start using AM
with SHF frequencies - at least 3 GHz and at most 30 GHz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_high_frequency

There will probably need to be 8-10 times more cell sites
built than are currently in use on 800/900 and 1800/1900MHz.

Why?

Equally important, SHF frequencies can efficiently transmit signals
using extremely small transmitters. Longer wavelengths require larger
transmitters.

They do? I didn't know that. My 49MHz automobile alarm dongle isn't
much larger than my 2400MHz USB wi-fi dongle. Are you sure the
transmitter has to be bigger or were you thinking of the antenna?

Maybe the antenna.

I choose AM because it requires less bandwidth than FM. In addition,
AM tends to retain reception of rather weak signals, while FM
"considers" such signals to be absent.

I'll make it really simple for you. FM is "hi-fi", while AM is noisy
"no-fi".

FM has too much hiss. FM signals are lost very easily. AM tends to
retain reception of a signals even when this signal is extremely weak.
In FM, once you go below a certain wattage, you completely lose the
signal, and the annoying hiss begins. With AM it is much easier to
receive the low-power signal.

AM maybe more vulnerable to electronic disturbances but so what? The
magnetic RF interferences that are heard on the AM radio are
entertaining compared to the deafening hiss on the FM radio.

For decent quality, you
gotta have FM.

Nope. For decent quality sound you need audio that is uncompressed PCM
[similar to CDs and WAVE files] with a sample rate of at least 44.1
KHz and a bit-resolution of at least 16-bit. Or the analog equivalent.

"Radium" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 1, 7:24 am, wrote in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...0c8ed13?hl=en&
:

how would u like to change the cell phone industry?

Analog cells phones should stop using FM and should start using AM
with SHF frequencies - at least 3 GHz and at most 30 GHz.

Before making such a recommendation, I suggest you read up on a couple of
topics.

I'd suggest at least topics including:

Near and far antenna performance.
Path loss calculations
Signal penetration
Fading types
Interleaving
SAR
Eb/No
C/I
Frequency stability and accuracy
Component and radio design
Modem methods
Modulation methods.
Vocoders
Digital modulation
General history of modulation techniques, AM, FM and digital
Maybe others as they come up in your reading.

and then study.
Manufacturers and manufacturing history
Company pioneering status
IPR
Regulatory compliance
Government rule making processes (Nat'l and Intl)
Spectrum use (bits / Hz)
Standards setting
Getting vendors to make components for you.
Lead times
Protecting customer's investment
Security
testing methods

Engineering solutions requires you to keep you arms around all of this.

If you are serious about your request and do not at least have a casual
working knowledge of all these, you are wasting everyone's time. If your
goal is to created fruitless discussion, you are right on track.

No insult intended...just trying to tell it like it is.

Bob F.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:45:06 -0700, Radium
wrote:

On Jul 15, 2:14 pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Radium hath wroth:

how would u like to change the cell phone industry?

Analog cells phones should stop using FM and should start using AM
with SHF frequencies - at least 3 GHz and at most 30 GHz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_high_frequency

There will probably need to be 8-10 times more cell sites
built than are currently in use on 800/900 and 1800/1900MHz.

Why?

Equally important, SHF frequencies can efficiently transmit signals
using extremely small transmitters. Longer wavelengths require larger
transmitters.

They do? I didn't know that. My 49MHz automobile alarm dongle isn't
much larger than my 2400MHz USB wi-fi dongle. Are you sure the
transmitter has to be bigger or were you thinking of the antenna?

Maybe the antenna.

I choose AM because it requires less bandwidth than FM. In addition,
AM tends to retain reception of rather weak signals, while FM
"considers" such signals to be absent.

I'll make it really simple for you. FM is "hi-fi", while AM is noisy
"no-fi".

FM has too much hiss. FM signals are lost very easily. AM tends to
retain reception of a signals even when this signal is extremely weak.
In FM, once you go below a certain wattage, you completely lose the
signal, and the annoying hiss begins. With AM it is much easier to
receive the low-power signal.

AM maybe more vulnerable to electronic disturbances but so what? The
magnetic RF interferences that are heard on the AM radio are
entertaining compared to the deafening hiss on the FM radio.

For decent quality, you
gotta have FM.

Nope. For decent quality sound you need audio that is uncompressed PCM
[similar to CDs and WAVE files] with a sample rate of at least 44.1
KHz and a bit-resolution of at least 16-bit. Or the analog equivalent.

---
Wrong.


--
JF

Radium hath wroth:

There will probably need to be 8-10 times more cell sites
built than are currently in use on 800/900 and 1800/1900MHz.

Why?

For a given radio system, higher frequencies don't go as far as lower
frequencies. You can see how it works by just plugging in different
frequencies a "free space loss" calculator such as:
http://www.terabeam.com/support/calculations/free-space-loss.php
For every 6dB of additional path loss, your range is cut in half.
Incidentally, this is not my idea or a conspiracy. Mother nature made
it that way and we have to live with the physics.

I'll make it really simple for you. FM is "hi-fi", while AM is noisy
"no-fi".

FM has too much hiss.

FM has a limiter that eliminates all AM noise components. That's
exactly the way the soon to be obsolete analog cell phones operate. If
you're hearing hiss, then there's something broken in your FM stereo.

FM signals are lost very easily.

I have a lost and found for missing signals. It's called a spectrum
analyzer. If the signal wanders, I can usually find it. Not a
problem.

AM tends to
retain reception of a signals even when this signal is extremely weak.

Not really. If you really want weak signal reception, I suggest you
look into SSB (scientific set back) modulation. Half the bandwidth
gives you twice the sensitivity.

In FM, once you go below a certain wattage, you completely lose the
signal, and the annoying hiss begins. With AM it is much easier to
receive the low-power signal.

Nope. All FM receivers have a squelch to mute the receiver when
there's not enough signal to make it worth listening. The squelch is
much more efficient with FM than an AGC operated squelch for AM.
Anyway, if someone calls with me on my cell phone with a crummy
signal, I don't want to talk to them and I usually ask them to call me
back when in a better area.

The problem with AM audio is that the ultimate signal to noise ratio
isn't very good. AM is noisy at any signal strength. The noise never
really goes away. On the other foot, FM is noisy with very weak
signals, but becomes very quiet once the limiter starts to work.
That's why FM is preferred for music and why analog AM broadcasting
sounds marginal at any signal level.

AM maybe more vulnerable to electronic disturbances but so what? The
magnetic RF interferences that are heard on the AM radio are
entertaining compared to the deafening hiss on the FM radio.

If your FM radio has a deafening hiss, you're probably not tuned to
any station. Try listening to a station instead of between stations.
If it has an AFC, turn it on. There may also be some kind of
malfunction in your hi-fi as you should not be hearing any hiss when
tuned to a station.

For decent quality, you
gotta have FM.

Nope. For decent quality sound you need audio that is uncompressed PCM
[similar to CDs and WAVE files] with a sample rate of at least 44.1
KHz and a bit-resolution of at least 16-bit. Or the analog equivalent.

I thought you didn't like digital? You only gave me a choice of AM or
FM. Now, you want digital. Well, digital is what today's cell phones
use mostly to maximize spectrum efficiency. With compression and
proper coding, you can pickup quite a bit of efficiency, at the
expense of sounding like you're gargling ball bearings. Not too bad a
tradeoff for voice. Really awful for music. Fortunately, none of the
broadcasters or cellular carriers use raw CD data, mostly because it's
not compressed.

So, are you ready to go public with your idea? When's the IPO?

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558