>I had come across a Qualcomm engineer's website saying >VMSK technique is flawed. I am that Qualcomm engineer. See http://www.ka9q.net/vmsk >But recent issue of mwrf.com has an article by Walker >himself on VMSK. Seems he has been given a patent also. It should now be apparent that Microwaves and RF has no editorial standards, or anyone on staff who can tell the difference between garbage and real work. It's a very common misconception that the granting of a patent somehow puts the government's stamp of approval on an invention. Nothing could be farther from the truth. A patent simply means that a) the inventor came up with enough money to get a lawyer and pay the fee, and b) in half an hour or so of searching whatever was given to him, an underpaid government clerk didn't see anything that he thought was *exactly* like what was being claimed. There's no guarantee that the invention is really new, and certainly none that the invention actually works as claimed. The US patent office regularly issues patents for perpetual motion machines despite a nominal policy against doing so. Walker's VMSK and related schemes are the exact communications equivalent of perpetual motion. That people still come up with these things (and investors are willing to put money into them) does not prove we're any closer to having either perpetual motion or "ultra narrowband" communications. It simply means there are still a lot of ignorant, stupid and gullible people in the world. Phil
Re: VMSK - are claims genuine ?
Started by ●February 7, 2004
Reply by ●February 7, 20042004-02-07
Phil Karn wrote:> >I had come across a Qualcomm engineer's website saying > >VMSK technique is flawed. > > I am that Qualcomm engineer. See http://www.ka9q.net/vmsk > > >But recent issue of mwrf.com has an article by Walker > >himself on VMSK. Seems he has been given a patent also. > > It should now be apparent that Microwaves and RF has no editorial > standards, or anyone on staff who can tell the difference between > garbage and real work. > > It's a very common misconception that the granting of a patent somehow > puts the government's stamp of approval on an invention. Nothing could > be farther from the truth. A patent simply means that a) the inventor > came up with enough money to get a lawyer and pay the fee, and b) in > half an hour or so of searching whatever was given to him, an underpaid > government clerk didn't see anything that he thought was *exactly* like > what was being claimed. > > There's no guarantee that the invention is really new, and certainly > none that the invention actually works as claimed. The US patent office > regularly issues patents for perpetual motion machines despite a nominal > policy against doing so. Walker's VMSK and related schemes are the exact > communications equivalent of perpetual motion. > > That people still come up with these things (and investors are willing > to put money into them) does not prove we're any closer to having either > perpetual motion or "ultra narrowband" communications. It simply means > there are still a lot of ignorant, stupid and gullible people in the world. > > PhilThere is a reason for the misconception that a patent is proof of government endorsement: misrepresentation, as in http://home.earthlink.net/~debbymayberry/hieronymus/Report1.htm Look up Hieronymus, T.G., patent # 2482773, "Material Emanations", to see what is patentable. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●February 8, 20042004-02-08
> http://home.earthlink.net/~debbymayberry/hieronymus/Report1.htm"Psychotronics"!!!!!!!! :)) I may finally be on my way to figuring out how to top "Minister of Algorithms" as a job title!!! I'll have the coolest business cards around! Rick Armstrong (note: reply address is bogus)
Reply by ●February 8, 20042004-02-08
Rick Armstrong wrote:>>http://home.earthlink.net/~debbymayberry/hieronymus/Report1.htm > > > "Psychotronics"!!!!!!!! > > :)) > > I may finally be on my way to figuring out how to top "Minister of > Algorithms" as a job title!!! I'll have the coolest business cards around! > > > > Rick Armstrong > (note: reply address is bogus)I lump these patents under the rubric "schizoceramic"; gobbledygook jargon for crackpot. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●February 8, 20042004-02-08
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:50:08 GMT, Phil Karn <karn@ka9q.net> wrote:> >I had come across a Qualcomm engineer's website saying > >VMSK technique is flawed. > >I am that Qualcomm engineer. See http://www.ka9q.net/vmsk > > >But recent issue of mwrf.com has an article by Walker > >himself on VMSK. Seems he has been given a patent also. > >It should now be apparent that Microwaves and RF has no editorial >standards, or anyone on staff who can tell the difference between >garbage and real work. > >It's a very common misconception that the granting of a patent somehow >puts the government's stamp of approval on an invention. Nothing could >be farther from the truth. A patent simply means that a) the inventor >came up with enough money to get a lawyer and pay the fee, and b) in >half an hour or so of searching whatever was given to him, an underpaid >government clerk didn't see anything that he thought was *exactly* like >what was being claimed. > >There's no guarantee that the invention is really new, and certainly >none that the invention actually works as claimed. The US patent office >regularly issues patents for perpetual motion machines despite a nominal >policy against doing so. Walker's VMSK and related schemes are the exact >communications equivalent of perpetual motion. > >That people still come up with these things (and investors are willing >to put money into them) does not prove we're any closer to having either >perpetual motion or "ultra narrowband" communications. It simply means >there are still a lot of ignorant, stupid and gullible people in the world. > >PhilHello Phil, I'm happy to meet your acquaintance. I've read most of your writing (on the Internet) regarding Mr. Walker's VMSK. Some years ago Walker contacted me to see if I knew of a way to design a "special" digital filter. Mr. Walker wasn't able to describe the characteristics of the desired filter to the degree that I could understand its nature, but he did say the desired filter had to have zero time delay!! We exchanged many E-mails in which I did my best to explain to Mr. Walker (and a colleague of his) that we can't build digital filters that have zero time (group) delay. I was unsuccessful (I think) in convincing Mr. Walker of my claim. So I said, I was sorry but I'm not capable designing such a filter and I bid the two fellows, "Good Luck". Then a year later I saw a number of your written pieces about VMSK. Anyway, I sure was surprised when I saw the "Understanding Ultra Narrowband Modulation" article by Mr. Walker in the December Microwaves & RF magazine. Whew, did I feel sorry for the Technical Editor of that magazine. Poor guy, ... editors are just "dying" for technical articles and unfortunately they don't have the "signal processing" skills to recognize a bad article from a good article. An editor sees an manuscript with some waveform drawings, some impressive-looking equations, and lots of fancy technical words, ... and the manuscript looks good as far as the editor is concerned. However, the Microwaves & RF editors should, at least, have noticed that Walker's Figure 1 had three parts, and the 1st and 2nd parts were identical!! That should have made them a little suspicious. The Embedded Systems Programming magazine has had a couple of poorly written signal processing articles in recent issues. So I certainly agree that the typical freebie-magazine editorial staff does not do a good job in reviewing signal processing manuscripts for technical quality. Take Care, [-Rick-]
Reply by ●February 9, 20042004-02-09
> Some years ago Walker contacted me to see if I knew > of a way to design a "special" digital filter. > Mr. Walker wasn't able to describe the characteristics of the > desired filter to the degree that I could understand its nature, > but he did say the desired filter had to have zero time > delay!! We exchanged many E-mails in which I did my > best to explain to Mr. Walker (and a colleague of his) that > we can't build digital filters that have zero time (group) > delay. I was unsuccessful (I think) in convincing > Mr. Walker of my claim. So I said, I was sorry but I'm > not capable designing such a filter and I bid the two > fellows, "Good Luck". Then a year later I saw a number of your > written pieces about VMSK.Are the backward difference approximations used for numerical differentiation not the zero delay FIR filters? Ishtiaq.
Reply by ●February 9, 20042004-02-09
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:23:10 +0900, "I. R. Khan" <ir_khan@hotmail.com> wrote:>> Some years ago Walker contacted me to see if I knew >> of a way to design a "special" digital filter. >> Mr. Walker wasn't able to describe the characteristics of the >> desired filter to the degree that I could understand its nature, >> but he did say the desired filter had to have zero time >> delay!! We exchanged many E-mails in which I did my >> best to explain to Mr. Walker (and a colleague of his) that >> we can't build digital filters that have zero time (group) >> delay. I was unsuccessful (I think) in convincing >> Mr. Walker of my claim. So I said, I was sorry but I'm >> not capable designing such a filter and I bid the two >> fellows, "Good Luck". Then a year later I saw a number of your >> written pieces about VMSK. > >Are the backward difference approximations used for numerical >differentiation not the zero delay FIR filters? > >Ishtiaq.Hi, I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind Ishtiaq, but the differentiators I'm familiar with (linear phase with a freq magnitude response that's linearly proportional to frequency, like the one in Fig. 7.29, on page 484 of the 2nd edition of Oppeneim & Schafer) have a non-zero delay through the differentiating filter. I'll bet you're thinking of a differentiator that has only two coefficients (taps) in which case there would be no delay. Yes, yes. Good point Ishtiaq. The problem with a two-tap differentiator is that its freq mag response is only approximately linear at very low frequencies (near zero Hz). So they're only useful when the input signal's bandwidth is centered at zero Hz, and is relatively narrow in frequency relative to the sample rate. The problem I had with Mr. Walker's request was that he didn't know the passband width, the stopband width, or the sample rate of his desired filter. All he was sure of, at the time, was that the desired digital filter must have 40 dB stopband attenuation and zero time delay. As you can imagine, I didn't have the skills required to design such a filter. [-Rick-]
Reply by ●February 9, 20042004-02-09
I. R. Khan wrote:>>Some years ago Walker contacted me to see if I knew >>of a way to design a "special" digital filter. >>Mr. Walker wasn't able to describe the characteristics of the >>desired filter to the degree that I could understand its nature, >>but he did say the desired filter had to have zero time >>delay!! We exchanged many E-mails in which I did my >>best to explain to Mr. Walker (and a colleague of his) that >>we can't build digital filters that have zero time (group) >>delay. I was unsuccessful (I think) in convincing >>Mr. Walker of my claim. So I said, I was sorry but I'm >>not capable designing such a filter and I bid the two >>fellows, "Good Luck". Then a year later I saw a number of your >>written pieces about VMSK. > > > Are the backward difference approximations used for numerical > differentiation not the zero delay FIR filters? > > Ishtiaq.No. Real-time constraints are inflexible. Whenever output depends on more than one sample, you need to wait until you have them all. If you plan to have your children form a string quartet, the music must wait until at least four have been born -- and in practice, a little longer. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Reply by ●February 9, 20042004-02-09
Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:> I. R. Khan wrote: > >>>Some years ago Walker contacted me to see if I knew >>>of a way to design a "special" digital filter. >>>Mr. Walker wasn't able to describe the characteristics of the >>>desired filter to the degree that I could understand its nature, >>>but he did say the desired filter had to have zero time >>>delay!! We exchanged many E-mails in which I did my >>>best to explain to Mr. Walker (and a colleague of his) that >>>we can't build digital filters that have zero time (group) >>>delay. I was unsuccessful (I think) in convincing >>>Mr. Walker of my claim. So I said, I was sorry but I'm >>>not capable designing such a filter and I bid the two >>>fellows, "Good Luck". Then a year later I saw a number of your >>>written pieces about VMSK. >> >> >> Are the backward difference approximations used for numerical >> differentiation not the zero delay FIR filters? >> >> Ishtiaq. > > No. Real-time constraints are inflexible. Whenever output depends on > more than one sample, you need to wait until you have them all. If you > plan to have your children form a string quartet, the music must wait > until at least four have been born -- and in practice, a little longer.So how many children do I need to build an N-tap, zero-delay filter? :) -- % Randy Yates % "Maybe one day I'll feel her cold embrace, %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % and kiss her interface, %%% 919-577-9882 % til then, I'll leave her alone." %%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
Reply by ●February 9, 20042004-02-09
Randy Yates wrote:> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes: >> ... Real-time constraints are inflexible. Whenever output depends on >>more than one sample, you need to wait until you have them all. If you >>plan to have your children form a string quartet, the music must wait >>until at least four have been born -- and in practice, a little longer. > > > So how many children do I need to build an N-tap, zero-delay filter? :)There's no telling until the design is done. Knowing has to wait. :-) Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
