> On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:58:51 -0700 (PDT), makolber@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wouldn't it be better to get ahead of the game and start designing demodu-
>>>>>>> sooners?
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>> a demoduearlier sounds better and can receive the signal before it is sent
>>
>> Mark
>>
>
> demodunows are perhaps more attainable.
>
There will always be some jitter, so that would just end up as a
demodu-sooner-or-later
Steve
Reply by Randy Yates●April 17, 20152015-04-17
makolber@yahoo.com writes:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Wouldn't it be better to get ahead of the game and start designing demodu-
>> >>>> sooners?
>> >>>>
>>
>
> a demoduearlier sounds better and can receive the signal before it is
> sent
Reply by robert bristow-johnson●April 16, 20152015-04-16
On 4/16/15 5:24 PM, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:58:51 -0700 (PDT), makolber@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wouldn't it be better to get ahead of the game and start designing demodu-
>>>>>>> sooners?
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>> a demoduearlier sounds better and can receive the signal before it is sent
>>
>>
>
> demodunows are perhaps more attainable.
>
with a demodunever you can forget it.
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Reply by Eric Jacobsen●April 16, 20152015-04-16
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:58:51 -0700 (PDT), makolber@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Wouldn't it be better to get ahead of the game and start designing demodu-
>> >>>> sooners?
>> >>>>
>>
>
>a demoduearlier sounds better and can receive the signal before it is sent
>
>Mark
>
demodunows are perhaps more attainable.
Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
http://www.anchorhill.com
Reply by ●April 16, 20152015-04-16
> >>>>
> >>>> Wouldn't it be better to get ahead of the game and start designing demodu-
> >>>> sooners?
> >>>>
>
a demoduearlier sounds better and can receive the signal before it is sent
Mark
Reply by Evgeny Filatov●April 15, 20152015-04-15
On 15.04.2015 21:16, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:21:48 +0300, Evgeny Filatov
> <e.v.filatov@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>> On 14.04.2015 22:39, dvsarwate wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>> Why are comms professionals concentrating their efforts on demodulators?
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't it be better to get ahead of the game and start designing demodu-
>>>> sooners?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Tim Wescott
>>>> Wescott Design Services
>>>> http://www.wescottdesign.com
>>>
>>> I dunno, but to me, a non-native speaker of English (and
>>> Martian too!), "Iludium Q-36 explosive space modusooner"
>>> doesn't sound as good as "Ilidium Q-36 explosive space
>>> modulator."
>>>
>>
>> And what about "explosive space demodulator"? I know it's offtopic for
>> this group, but there are some crazy theorists claiming that it's
>> feasible to create portable emitters / detectors of high-frequency
>> gravitational waves. But who said DSP is to be confined to the effects
>> of the electromagnetic interaction, anyway?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Evgeny.
>>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuUJfYcn3V4
>
>
> Eric Jacobsen
> Anchor Hill Communications
> http://www.anchorhill.com
>
It's surely a cool link / reference. Just wondering what might an actual
space modulator look like...
Regards,
Evgeny.
>On 14.04.2015 22:39, dvsarwate wrote:
>> On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>> Why are comms professionals concentrating their efforts on demodulators?
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it be better to get ahead of the game and start designing demodu-
>>> sooners?
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Tim Wescott
>>> Wescott Design Services
>>> http://www.wescottdesign.com
>>
>> I dunno, but to me, a non-native speaker of English (and
>> Martian too!), "Iludium Q-36 explosive space modusooner"
>> doesn't sound as good as "Ilidium Q-36 explosive space
>> modulator."
>>
>
>And what about "explosive space demodulator"? I know it's offtopic for
>this group, but there are some crazy theorists claiming that it's
>feasible to create portable emitters / detectors of high-frequency
>gravitational waves. But who said DSP is to be confined to the effects
>of the electromagnetic interaction, anyway?
>
>Regards,
>Evgeny.
>
> On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:
>> Why are comms professionals concentrating their efforts on demodulators?
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better to get ahead of the game and start designing demodu-
>> sooners?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Tim Wescott
>> Wescott Design Services
>> http://www.wescottdesign.com
>
> I dunno, but to me, a non-native speaker of English (and
> Martian too!), "Iludium Q-36 explosive space modusooner"
> doesn't sound as good as "Ilidium Q-36 explosive space
> modulator."
>
And what about "explosive space demodulator"? I know it's offtopic for
this group, but there are some crazy theorists claiming that it's
feasible to create portable emitters / detectors of high-frequency
gravitational waves. But who said DSP is to be confined to the effects
of the electromagnetic interaction, anyway?
Regards,
Evgeny.
Reply by dvsarwate●April 14, 20152015-04-14
On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:
> Why are comms professionals concentrating their efforts on demodulators?
>
> Wouldn't it be better to get ahead of the game and start designing demodu-
> sooners?
>
> --
>
> Tim Wescott
> Wescott Design Services
> http://www.wescottdesign.com
I dunno, but to me, a non-native speaker of English (and
Martian too!), "Iludium Q-36 explosive space modusooner"
doesn't sound as good as "Ilidium Q-36 explosive space
modulator."
Reply by Les Cargill●April 14, 20152015-04-14
Tim Wescott wrote:
> Why are comms professionals concentrating their efforts on demodulators?
>
> Wouldn't it be better to get ahead of the game and start designing demodu-
> sooners?
>