3 ms·
This is snake oil until there is much better documentation. If the original signal had the capacity to carry more signal as an overlay, why wouldn't that capac
by lucasgonze 15y ago
This is snake oil until there is much better documentation.
If the original signal had the capacity to carry more signal as an overlay, why wouldn't that capacity have been available to the original sender as well? I haven't seen anything here which contradicts that proposition. There's some hocus pocus about APs arranging for distinct signatures, but that's irrelevant to how distinct signatures can be overlaid without reducing the capacity available to any one signature.
Now, maybe the original had spare capacity which it couldn't use for some reason. But that doesn't contradict Shannon.
And there's no third option. Either Shannon is true and Perlman is false or vice versa.
- Mvandenbergh 15y agoThis is not the case. If you have N spatially separated antennas then you can transmit information at a rate of N * the Shannon limit. This is the case with MIMO as well, except in MIMO both of your terminals have N antennas. This DIDO concept seems to use multiple base station antennas which may be physically separated but only one mobile antenna. Of course, as a consequence the increased channel capacity is strictly one-way.
- Dylan16807 15y agoAre you sure that makes it one-way? Can't you apply the same mapping in reverse to extract received data?