3 ms·

The biggest relevation I had with bluetooth was seeing an actual pairing sequence and data transmission on an RF spectrum analyser. It really is low-power. Onc

The biggest relevation I had with bluetooth was seeing an actual pairing sequence and data transmission on an RF spectrum analyser. It really is low-power. Once you realize it is a rat's fart above the noise floor you have a whole new appreciation for the fact that it even works in the first place.

cedivad 4y ago
No, you had a bad test setup. BT is 10dB below wifi, I can't see how what you are saying makes sense. Also it uses simple encodings that save on processing power but require more rf power to be decoded successfully.
- DoingIsLearning 4y ago
  > No, you had a bad test setup. I was not in a test chamber at all and I had all sorts of real world background noise. Not sure what you mean, if bad setup means real-world with all sorts of automobile RF noise then yes, it was a bad setup?
- stackbutterflow 4y ago
  For those who don't know, every 3db the energy is halved/doubled. So at -10db the energy has been halved over 3 times.
  - knorker 4y ago
    And for those who don't know, that's not actually a particularly big difference. The inverse square law means this is just the difference between 1 meter and 3 meters. And your WiFi has no problems at 3 meters from the AP.
knorker 4y ago
No, that's not it. That's not why my bluetooth disconnects every single time I unsuspend my chromebook, about 2 minutes after connecting bluetooth it'll disconnect again, and will be permanently on the second time. That's not why I have to reboot my phone sometimes, or reboot my headphones, to get it to "unstuck". And the fact that it works to "turn it off and on again". It's reliably broken, not just by random patterns. If it were signal strength then we'd be seeing dropped packets. I get some dropped packets when on the other side of the house, on a different floor, from the transmitter. Yet sometimes I can still not get anything through at all when the devices are right next to each other, until I reboot them. And power goes down with distance squared. "Right next to each other" is at that point almost (but not quite) "so loud it could damage each other's receiver".

cedivad 4y ago

No, you had a bad test setup. BT is 10dB below wifi, I can't see how what you are saying makes sense. Also it uses simple encodings that save on processing power but require more rf power to be decoded successfully.

DoingIsLearning 4y ago
> No, you had a bad test setup. I was not in a test chamber at all and I had all sorts of real world background noise. Not sure what you mean, if bad setup means real-world with all sorts of automobile RF noise then yes, it was a bad setup?
stackbutterflow 4y ago
For those who don't know, every 3db the energy is halved/doubled. So at -10db the energy has been halved over 3 times.
- knorker 4y ago
  And for those who don't know, that's not actually a particularly big difference. The inverse square law means this is just the difference between 1 meter and 3 meters. And your WiFi has no problems at 3 meters from the AP.

knorker 4y ago

No, that's not it. That's not why my bluetooth disconnects every single time I unsuspend my chromebook, about 2 minutes after connecting bluetooth it'll disconnect again, and will be permanently on the second time. That's not why I have to reboot my phone sometimes, or reboot my headphones, to get it to "unstuck". And the fact that it works to "turn it off and on again". It's reliably broken, not just by random patterns. If it were signal strength then we'd be seeing dropped packets. I get some dropped packets when on the other side of the house, on a different floor, from the transmitter. Yet sometimes I can still not get anything through at all when the devices are right next to each other, until I reboot them. And power goes down with distance squared. "Right next to each other" is at that point almost (but not quite) "so loud it could damage each other's receiver".