How I would like to change the cell phone industry [was Re: AM electromagnetic waves: 20 KHz modulation frequency on an astronomically-low carrier frequency]

On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com 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 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com 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.

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:vhdqm4-(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> 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 <(E-Mail Removed)> 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 (E-Mail Removed)
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
(E-Mail Removed). com, "Radium"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com 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?

On Jul 15, 1:24 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote inhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.basics/msg/696d6abf90c...
> :
>
> > 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.

.. . .

On Jul 15, 1:45 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...sg/696d6abf90c...
> > :
> > > 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.

.. . .

On Jul 15, 2:14 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> 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 je...@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

.. . .

On Jul 15, 2:24 pm, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 7/15/07 1:24 PM, in article
> 1184531086.421930.215...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups. com, "Radium"
>
>
>
>
>
> <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 7:24 am, shawn.cormi...@gmail.com wrote in
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...sg/696d6abf90c...
> > 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?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

.. . .

On Jul 15, 1:56 pm, "Brenda Ann" <bren...@shinbiro.com> wrote:
> <j...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>
> news:vhdqm4-(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
>
> > 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.

.. . .