AM radio: astronomically-high frequency modulator signal present on an astronomically-low frequency carrier signal
Radium
Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.
Paul Cardinale said that there is no higher limit to the frequency a
carrier wave can transport -- regardless of the carrier wave's
frequency.
Karl Uppiano said 2.89e6-photons-per-second is the minimum wattage
required to carry an audio signal.
After reading the above, I assume it is mathematically-possible to
carry a modulator signal with a frequency of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000 gigacycles every 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond and an amplitude of 1-watt-per-
meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose frequency is 10^-
(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) nanocycle* every
10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaeons and whose
amplitude is a minimum of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaphotons per 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond.
If I assume wrong, please explain how I am wrong as Cardinale already
said that there is no minimum carrier-frequency required on AM radio.
IOW, there is no limit to how high a frequency a modulator signal can
be and still be coherently encoded on an AM carrier wave.
A 20 KHz tone can exist in a 1 Hz AM carrier signal -- or that is what
I am getting from Cardinale's statement.
10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) second is an
extremely short amount of time. 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond is even shorter because a
nanosecond is shorter than a second.
10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 cycles is an extremely
large amount of cycles. 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000
gigacycles is even more because a gigacycle is more than a cycle.
Gigaeon = a billion eons
Eon = a billion years
Gigacycle = a billion cycles.
*nanocycle = billionth of a cycle
Gigaphoton = a billion photons
10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 -- now that is one
large large number.
10^1,000,000,000 = 10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000
So you get:
(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)
10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) = 10^-(10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)-to-the-power-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000)
10^-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000) is an extremely small number at it equals 10-to-
the-power-NEGATIVE-[(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-
to-the-power-1,000,000,000)]
Thanks,
Radium
Sue...
Just add and subtract the frequencies to get the sidebands.
Then evaluate the bandwitdth of the path for the four resultant
frequencies. Leave the photons for the quantum physicists
unless atomic emission or absorption is involved.It usually
isn't up to infrared frequencies.
Sue...
Eric Gisse
Sam Wormley
>
> Paul Cardinale said that there is no higher limit to the frequency a
> carrier wave can transport -- regardless of the carrier wave's
> frequency.
>
There are no upper and lower limits.
John Campbell
"Radium" <gluc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182817318....@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Hi:
>
> Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.
>
> Paul Cardinale said that there is no higher limit to the frequency a
> carrier wave can transport -- regardless of the carrier wave's
> frequency.
>
idiot.
Go open a book
John Campbell
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:I%Zfi.181358$_c5.177602@attbi_s22...
yes there are. One needs to look in the frequency domain.
Radium
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
So it is NOT mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal with
a frequency of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000
gigacycles every 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond and an amplitude of 1-watt-per-
meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose frequency is 10^-
(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) nanocycle* every
10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaeons and whose
amplitude is a minimum of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaphotons per 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000)
nanosecond??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
WHY????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?
Why? Why?
Radium
Wehehell?????? Is anyone gonna answer my ever-so-interesting
question???????????????????????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Plee-hee-heese don't ignore my message. I jaast hate being
neglected!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
contrex
[lot of crap]
You complete wanker. Fuck off and die.
Randy Poe
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
Isn't Ethernet a baseband signal, i.e. carrier frequency = 0?
Hard to get much lower than that.
- Randy
John Campbell
> On Jun 25, 8:24 pm, "John Campbell" <spaml...@spamless.com> wrote:
>> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:I%Zfi.181358$_c5.177602@attbi_s22...
>>
>> > Radium wrote:
>>
>> >> Paul Cardinale said that there is no higher limit to the frequency a
>> >> carrier wave can transport -- regardless of the carrier wave's
>> >> frequency.
>>
>> > There are no upper and lower limits.
>>
>> yes there are. One needs to look in the frequency domain.
>
>
go buy a book.
John Campbell
> On Jun 25, 8:34 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 25, 8:24 pm, "John Campbell" <spaml...@spamless.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:I%Zfi.181358$_c5.177602@attbi_s22...
>>
>> > > Radium wrote:
>>
>> > >> Paul Cardinale said that there is no higher limit to the frequency a
>> > >> carrier wave can transport -- regardless of the carrier wave's
>> > >> frequency.
>>
>> > > There are no upper and lower limits.
>>
>> > yes there are. One needs to look in the frequency domain.
>>
John Campbell
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182879043.9...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
You are saying the DC content is zero ?
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I don't think I meant anything in particular about the DC component,
but whether it's zero or there's a bias, I've always heard the
statement "Ethernet is a baseband network" which means the
carrier frequency is zero.
- Randy
Androcles
"John Campbell" <spam...@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:46814dcf$0$97253$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
:
: "Radium" <gluc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Extremely well put; try as I might, I could not have enunciated your
sentiment with any greater alacrity.
John Campbell
there is no carrier frequency. It is a baseband signal.
You could put it on one, say a 100 mhz using 10 mbit Ethernet, and you
would have to filter it around 100 Mhz.
If the carrier is too low, then it aliases across 0 frequency and you get
distortion. Like if you put a 100 mbit Ethernet on a 10 mhz carrier.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Does a digital signal, i.e. one where all the information is in
discreate voltage levels, really meet the definition of "modulation"?
I guess one could make the case that, using 5V logic for example, the
information varies a DC voltage of about 2.5V at the information
rate and thus "modulates" a 2.5V DC signal.
It certainly isn't AM as AM contains the multiplicative term sin(Fc)
which is zero for a DC carrier.
It isn't FM as the carrier frequency deviation is zero, thus the
modulation index is zero.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
boson boss
"The speed of light can also be of concern on very short distances. In
supercomputers, the speed of light imposes a limit on how quickly data
can be sent between processors. If a processor operates at 1 GHz, a
signal can only travel a maximum of 300 mm in a single cycle.
Processors must therefore be placed close to each other to minimise
communication latencies. If clock frequencies continue to increase,
the speed of light will eventually become a limiting factor for the
internal design of single chips."
marika
Radium wrote in message
<1182831154....@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>...>
>
>Wehehell?????? Is anyone gonna answer my ever-so-interesting
>question???????????????????????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
>
>Plee-hee-heese don't ignore my message. I jaast hate being
>neglected!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
>
Hey just to provide you with an update - your issues may be related to
you accidentally adding everyone to your blocking filter software thingeee.
Everyone's answering, but you can no longer see them. You need to remove
them from the filter.
Anyhoo (I HATE that word)
Just thought I would drop you an update!
mk5000
"Heavy rings hold cigarettes
Up to lips that time forgets
While the Hollywood sun sets behind your back
And can't the band play on?"--the memroy remains, metallica
marika
John Campbell wrote in message
<46814da3$0$97270$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>...
>
>go buy a book.
>
>
i bet that when
it is 8 am the next morning.
The book will not have not appeared.
mk5000
"On his crash-course we are the main tide
Can admire to the distant thunder?
Duty fills his head with wonder
Can it feel as bright this time"==no leaf clover, second night, metallica
marika
boson boss wrote in message
<1182894233.8...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>...
>
>
>"The speed of light can also be of concern on very short distances. In
>supercomputers, the speed of light imposes a limit on how quickly data
>can be sent between processors. If a processor operates at 1 GHz, a
>signal can only travel a maximum of 300 mm in a single cycle.
>Processors must therefore be placed close to each other to minimise
>communication latencies. If clock frequencies continue to increase,
>the speed of light will eventually become a limiting factor for the
>internal design of single chips."
>
seriously, I have been trying to figure out a separate problem now since
about 04, and that explains it as well as anything. the contractor who
checked on it was on a completely different tangent. interesting
mk5000
"These things return to me that still seem real
Now deservingly this easy chair
But the rocking stopped by wheels of despair"--metallica, hero of the day
mk5000
Paul Cardinale
j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics.electromag Randy Poe <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 26, 1:35 pm, "John Campbell" <spaml...@spamless.com> wrote:
> > > "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > news:1182879043.9...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jun 25, 11:24 pm, "John Campbell" <spaml...@spamless.com> wrote:
> > > >> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > >>news:I%Zfi.181358$_c5.177602@attbi_s22...
> > >
> > > >> > Radium wrote:
> > >
> > > >> >> Paul Cardinale said that there is no higher limit to the frequency a
> > > >> >> carrier wave can transport -- regardless of the carrier wave's
> > > >> >> frequency.
> > >
> > > >> > There are no upper and lower limits.
> > >
> > > >> yes there are. One needs to look in the frequency domain.
> > >
> > > > Isn't Ethernet a baseband signal, i.e. carrier frequency = 0?
> > >
> > > > Hard to get much lower than that.
> > >
> > > You are saying the DC content is zero ?
>
> > I don't think I meant anything in particular about the DC component,
> > but whether it's zero or there's a bias, I've always heard the
> > statement "Ethernet is a baseband network" which means the
> > carrier frequency is zero.
>
> Does a digital signal, i.e. one where all the information is in
> discreate voltage levels, really meet the definition of "modulation"?
>
Yes, it does. In that case, the bits are modulating a DC voltage.
But ethernet (and many other digital signals) is not voltage encoded.
In ethernet, a 1 is represented by a transition, and a 0 by the
absence of a transition. Each cycle carries a minimum of 4 bits.
Interestingly, not all digital transmission is binary: long distance
telephone communications uses hexadecimal; encoded using a combination
of frequency and phase modulation.
> I guess one could make the case that, using 5V logic for example, the
> information varies a DC voltage of about 2.5V at the information
> rate and thus "modulates" a 2.5V DC signal.
>
> It certainly isn't AM as AM contains the multiplicative term sin(Fc)
> which is zero for a DC carrier.
>
There are many kinds of modulation. Amplitude modulation of a sin
wave is just one.
> It isn't FM as the carrier frequency deviation is zero, thus the
> modulation index is zero.
>
It's true that TTL isn't FM, but the frequency is not constant.
Paul Cardinale
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> Paul Cardinale
I'm well aware of the myriad of techniques to encode and decode
digital information.
The question remains; does this meet the classical definition of
"modulation"?
If so, what kind of "modulation" is it?
My gut feel is that calling digital information on a DC "carrier"
some kind of "modulation" is just semantic tom foolery.
I would be convinced if someone could come up with a defining
equation, e.g. AM is x(t) = xc * [1 + m * sin (wm t)] * sin (wc t)
Problem is, for DC, wc = 0.
What to do with the annoying carrier term that is required for a
classical definition of "modulation"?
Paul Cardinale
> In sci.physics.electromag Paul Cardinale <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
I answered it. Reread.
> If so, what kind of "modulation" is it?
>
Voltage.
> My gut feel is that calling digital information on a DC "carrier"
> some kind of "modulation" is just semantic tom foolery.
>
If changes in parameter X of thing A cause analogous changes to
parameter Y of thing B,
then the X of A is modulating the Y of B. In the case of TTL, binary
data modulates DC voltage.
> I would be convinced if someone could come up with a defining
> equation, e.g. AM is x(t) = xc * [1 + m * sin (wm t)] * sin (wc t)
>
> Problem is, for DC, wc = 0.
>
> What to do with the annoying carrier term that is required for a
> classical definition of "modulation"?
>
You seem to think that all modulation must be based upon amplitude
modulation of a sine wave. It isn't (see above). As for an equation
for TTL, it's trivial: Voltage = (high_level) * (binary data).
Paul Cardinale
Floyd L. Davidson
>> I'm well aware of the myriad of techniques to encode and decode
>> digital information.
>>
>> The question remains; does this meet the classical definition of
>> "modulation"?
>>
>
>I answered it. Reread.
Wrong answer though. You need to research the standard
definitions of terms when there is such a question, not
just continue on assuming that your perception of what
the word means is necessarily correct.
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of
English v.0.48[gcide]:
4. (Electronics) The alteration of hte amplitude,
intensity, frequency, or phase (of the carrier
wave of a radio signal) at intervals, so as to
represent information to be transmitted.
From WordNet (r) 2.0[wn]:
2: (electronics) the transmission of a signal
by using it to vary a carrier wave; changing the
carrier's amplitude or frequency or phase
However, the most authoratative and definitive cite
perhaps comes from the Federal Standard 1037C,
"Telecommunications: Glossary of Telecommunication
Terms" at http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/
modulation:
The process, or result of the process, of varying
a characteristic of a carrier, in accordance with
an information-bearing signal.
carrier (cxr):
1. A wave suitable for modulation by an
information-bearing signal.
2. An unmodulated emission.
Note:
The carrier is usually a sinusoidal wave
or a uniform or predictable series of
pulses. Synonym carrier wave.
Obviously a DC voltage is not defined as a "carrier" and "modulation"
cannot be applied to it.
>> If so, what kind of "modulation" is it?
>>
>
>Voltage.
That is encoding, not modulation.
>> My gut feel is that calling digital information on a DC "carrier"
>> some kind of "modulation" is just semantic tom foolery.
>>
>
>If changes in parameter X of thing A cause analogous changes to
>parameter Y of thing B,
>then the X of A is modulating the Y of B. In the case of TTL, binary
>data modulates DC voltage.
The binary data might well change the DC voltage, but it
cannot modulate a voltage, only change it. If the
changes carry information, we say it is encoded, and can
be decoded.
If an AC signal is varied, *that* is modulation.
>> I would be convinced if someone could come up with a defining
>> equation, e.g. AM is x(t) = xc * [1 + m * sin (wm t)] * sin (wc t)
>>
>> Problem is, for DC, wc = 0.
>>
>> What to do with the annoying carrier term that is required for a
>> classical definition of "modulation"?
>>
>
>You seem to think that all modulation must be based upon amplitude
>modulation of a sine wave. It isn't (see above).
True, but he didn't say that is was. He merely said
"e.g.", which is not the same as "i.e." (one is "for
example", meaning there could be many other different
examples, the other is "in essense", meaning all
examples are essentially the same).
>As for an equation
>for TTL, it's trivial: Voltage = (high_level) * (binary data).
That does not define a modulated signal though. *By*
*definition* it defines information encoded using
voltage.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> I answered it. Reread.
> Voltage.
Umm, no.
You might want to look up what "e.g." means.
Would you have been happier if I had said "e.g. FM is
x(t) = xc * cos [wc * t + {b * sin (wm * t)}]"?
So is your trivial equation in the time domain or the frequency
domain as I see neither a time nor a frequency component in it?
Or should I perhaps just look under "voltage modulation" in the
IEEE Dictionary?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> modulation:
> carrier (cxr):
> 2. An unmodulated emission.
What you said.
My take is "modulation" is only defined for a carrier of 0 < Fc < infinity.
Though I'm wavering about whether or not there should be absolute value
bars around Fc.
Floyd L. Davidson
>
>My take is "modulation" is only defined for a carrier of 0 < Fc < infinity.
>
>Though I'm wavering about whether or not there should be absolute value
>bars around Fc.
;-)