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.
Demodu-sooners
Started by ●April 13, 2015
Reply by ●April 15, 20152015-04-15
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 ●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
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 ●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 > sentDoes that mean it has negative group delay? -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Reply by ●April 17, 20152015-04-17
On 04/17/2015 05:24 AM, 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 >> >> 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
