Wireless transmitter
 

In article ,
Phil Allison wrote:
which the
ONLY reason FM radio mics employ diversity receiving antennas.


You've obviously never used radio mics.


** You are obviously a ****ing, anencephalic pommy ****.

And you don't understand the meaning of 'only'. So perhaps you'd learn
that before using even more words you don't understand, as above?


Diversity reception can also be
used to vastly increase the coverage range.

** Pure idiocy.



By using directional aerials 'pointing' in different directions.


** Pure ****wit insanity.


Must be lots of insane people I know then who are sound professionals.
It's a standard method outdoors. You could try it before showing you don't
know half as much as you think.

Get cancer and die ASAP - you revolting, autism ****ED steaming pile of
excrement.

Have you ever considered treatment?

--
*If vegetable oil comes from vegetables, where does baby oil come from? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman = Criminal Psychopath
 

Dave Plowman = Criminal Psychopath ****


ONLY reason FM radio mics employ diversity receiving antennas.


You've obviously never used radio mics.


** You are obviously a ****ing, anencephalic pommy ****.

And you don't understand ..


** Why ****wit scumbags like you are allowed to breath.

There needs to be a law that permits vermin like you to be shot on sight.



Diversity reception can also be
used to vastly increase the coverage range.

** Pure idiocy.


By using directional aerials 'pointing' in different directions.


** Pure ****wit insanity.


Must be lots of insane people I know then who are sound professionals.

** Most of them are - but YOU are an extraordinary example.


It's a standard method outdoors.


** So only in a situation where DIVERSITY reception is not needed at all
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU CONTEXT SHIFTING AUTISTIC MORON !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get cancer and ****ing die ASAP - you revolting, autism ****ED steaming
pile of
excrement.

Wireless transmitter
 

In article , Jim Lesurf
scribeth thus
In article om, Rob
wrote:
On 07/05/2012 08:45, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com, Rob
wrote:

FWIW for indoor 'line of sight' you might be better looking to some
kind of near-visible 'optical' system where the transmitter lights up
the room in a modulated way. At least that helps prevent interference
from next door. But of course that won't go though walls, and may be
affected by shadowing. I can't suggest any commercial system, though.
Personally, I'm quite happy in general to use 'wired' systems at home
unless there is a specific need to do otherwise.


OK - thanks for that. By 'technology' I simply meant a wireless method
of relaying sound. After all, radio and TV seem to manage quite well
over many miles.

Only by adopting the agreements/permissions that help them avoid or
minimise interference in a shared channel.

I just wondered if a domestic equivalent had been
invented.

I'm not aware of one. It would require some form of license or permission
from a national (or international) authority and would limit how many
people in a given area could use the system. Cheap domestic systems tend to
rely on a mix of low power, luck, hopping or spreading, and people putting
up with what they get. Some pauses or drops of data rate may be fine for
general computer file transfers. But audio is intolerant of pauses that
cause breaks in the music, and too low a data rate will degrade the result.
So audio is a surprisingly demanding application (in general comms and
computing terms) because of its intolerance to short pauses or breaks.

The alternatives would be ones like the one I mentioned as they would not
cause interference from outside when in a closed room. FWIW I know people
have experimented with 60GHz and 94GHz systems for this precisely to get a
high bandwidth 'indoor' system that would not be affected by neighbours
also using the same system. 60GHz also has the 'advantage' of high air
attenuation so may not make it next door even if it gets out of an open
window! :-)

At present fast modulated IR LEDs are probably a better bet, but I have no
idea if anyone sells these as consumer kit.

Slainte,


You can try 5.8 Ghz but theres an Ofcom report around on their site
thats claiming it doesn't work as well indoors as what 2.4 G does
attenuation due to absorption being higher...

However we've got the band C 5.8G equipment's working fine over quite
some miles..


One link is doing 17.5 miles at a 10 Meg thruput;)...



Jim


--
Tony Sayer

Wireless transmitter
 

On Mon, 07 May 2012 17:03:36 +0100, Jim Lesurf wrote:

The alternatives would be ones like the one I mentioned as they would
not cause interference from outside when in a closed room. FWIW I know
people have experimented with 60GHz and 94GHz systems for this precisely
to get a high bandwidth 'indoor' system that would not be affected by
neighbours also using the same system. 60GHz also has the 'advantage' of
high air attenuation so may not make it next door even if it gets out of
an open window! :-)

Does it also keep you warm in winter? :-)

(I believe that 3mm waves have been used as a non-lethal weapon because
they can cause an intense burning pain.)

Wireless transmitter
 

In article , Chris
Isbell
wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2012 17:03:36 +0100, Jim Lesurf wrote:

The alternatives would be ones like the one I mentioned as they would
not cause interference from outside when in a closed room. FWIW I know
people have experimented with 60GHz and 94GHz systems for this
precisely to get a high bandwidth 'indoor' system that would not be
affected by neighbours also using the same system. 60GHz also has the
'advantage' of high air attenuation so may not make it next door even
if it gets out of an open window! :-)

Does it also keep you warm in winter? :-)

Not at the power levels required for signal transfers across a room. You'd
probably need the order of a milliwatt for 'wi fi' types of applications in
a domestic room. Quite possibly much less.

Hesitate to say this, but I worked for decades with mm-wave beams in the
open lab at such levels - up to around 100 mW. And I don't *think* it has
done me any harm. }8-]

(I believe that 3mm waves have been used as a non-lethal weapon because
they can cause an intense burning pain.)

Yes. They have been experimented with for 'crowd dispersion'. But so far as
I know, the tests were decided to be rather poor in cost/effect terms.
Cheaper and simpler to beam from large 'electric fires' with big
collomating dishes! Powerful 95GHz sources are rather more expensive. And
easily defeated by tinfoil. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Wireless transmitter
 

tony sayer wrote:

One link is doing 17.5 miles at a 10 Meg thruput;)...


The last time I was an employee I worked on 24GHz links working over 20
miles or so. I've forgotten the bit rate but it equated to a bandwidth of
some 6MHz after downconversion. Diversity reception used vertical pairs of
dishes a few meters apart. Main source of deep fades was heavy rain.

Wireless transmitter
 

In article , TonyL
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:

One link is doing 17.5 miles at a 10 Meg thruput;)...


The last time I was an employee I worked on 24GHz links working over 20
miles or so. I've forgotten the bit rate but it equated to a bandwidth of
some 6MHz after downconversion. Diversity reception used vertical pairs of
dishes a few meters apart. Main source of deep fades was heavy rain.



I expect this will work over longer paths but as its a licence exempt ,well
sort of, its not doing that bad for terminals costing less then 100 quid each
end and just needs a CAT 5 cable to connect it with..;))..

--
Tony Sayer

Wireless transmitter
 

In article , TonyL
wrote:
tony sayer wrote:

One link is doing 17.5 miles at a 10 Meg thruput;)...


The last time I was an employee I worked on 24GHz links working over 20
miles or so. I've forgotten the bit rate but it equated to a bandwidth
of some 6MHz after downconversion. Diversity reception used vertical
pairs of dishes a few meters apart. Main source of deep fades was heavy
rain.

FWIW Work I did for the old Radcom agency involved us using a 100 mW
36GHz source (with a horn having a gain of about 26dBi) to run a
measurement link over 26 km. Worked OK even in heavy rain.

Mind you, the 'bandwidth' was tiny as we were doing interferometry with a
time-resolution of about 10 ms.

The main worry we had was when there was a wargame with Apache attack
copters along the coast and up the estuary. We wondered if they would
interpret our signal as an attempt at EW. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html