Well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_efficiency
802.11n has a spectral efficiency of around 1.2.LTE advanced has a spectral efficiency of _30_.
If we couldget some fairly cheap radio chipsets with even a 10-15 in spectral efficiency at this point, we would probably all be incredibly happy.
Doing that would likely cause us to (A) Not be compatible with 802.11 (fine by me), and (B) would require mass market adoption.
Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com <http://www.spitwspots.com> On 10/26/2014 02:40 PM, Mike Hammett via Af wrote:
That's what I was hoping for but I was told to sit down. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Prince via Af" <af@afmug.com> To: af@afmug.com Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 12:36:58 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Perhaps some innovation in improving efficiency? Maybe takes someone thinking outside of the current box(es). bp On 10/26/2014 9:55 AM, Chuck McCown via Af wrote: I was just going to mention that. Make a clean signal and you don’t have to filter so much. Anyone remember what a Class A amplifier is? (45% efficient at best) Cavity filters? I would think that in this day and age, you ought to be able to go DSP direct to antenna up to a 5 volt p-p signal. Or if you had to use a PA, inject a pre-distortion component. The cable TV guys have been dealing with these issues for decades. And then there is the issue with physical size of filters. A nice filter, with decent response and low insertion loss is large. SAW filters are about as small as you can get but they are higher loss than, for example, a waveguide filter however they are maybe 1% of the volume. You want a small radio that consumes very little power, then ... it will be more noisy than a large radio that consumes more power. That said, modern tech is unbelievable in performance and it just keeps getting better. Perhaps Chuck will get to come to AnimalFarm this year and show us something fun. From: Chuck Macenski via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:24 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] questions about filters Hi again, Another factor that causes expense is the linearity of the final stage output amplifiers...these puppies are linear for most modern radios and more linearity = more cost and higher power consumption. I will stop now... Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Chuck Macenski < ch...@macenski.com > wrote: Hi, There are many questions (explicit and implicit) in your question. Focusing on the tx side only (since we are talking about band edge), the filters you are talking about are electromechanical. Do a wikipedia search on SAW filters and you will get a sense for what you are dealing with. There are many other factors involved in meeting band edge requirements and other filtering that is or can be performed, but, the expense is often in the electromechanical components. Chuck On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 1:45 AM, That One Guy via Af < af@afmug.com > wrote: with the changes in the 5ghz rules, it may force innovation in filtering technology to bring cost down, assuming the innovators arent stuck in a mindset of the only thing that would work is what there is. How do filters works? Are there electronically adjustable filters? Where does the cost come from on filters? It is not new technology, so recovery of R&D on a new tech has long since past, what is it that drives the cost up? Is it primarily a matter of it being something needed, so its more valuable, or is it something in the physical properties of the filters that drives up the cost? Can you filter electronically a transmitter using something along the same lines of noise cancelling headphones
