2 ms·
> This would/could be a zero latency system No, this is just discrete multitone. Leaving aside the issue of errors, it still takes you time to know the carrie
by mlyle 3y ago
> This would/could be a zero latency system
No, this is just discrete multitone. Leaving aside the issue of errors, it still takes you time to know the carrier is gone. You'd have much better choices about how to do this that are more spectrally efficient and equivalent in latency.
Reductio ad absurdum: if it were zero latency, you could turn on and off the signal infinitely fast, and then send an infinite amount of information across a narrow channel.
> This proposal is for a 50 kHz system, so if they used bandwidth in the same way, that would be 100 carriers sending on/off commands and/or combinations.
Yah, or broadly: it's like OFDM. You don't have to constrain yourself to one bit per carrier, and you can use error coding across multiple carriers, etc.
Also important to consider authentication...
- RF_Enthusiast 3y agoYes, those are both good points. Also, a bad actor could straight up jam the signal. If you want to check out the signal of the competing system, it's just above or just below 15.735 MHz, using the sidebands of a shortwave broadcaster operating in Digital Radio Mondiale. 5 kHz is usually the DRMondiale signal, and 5 kHz is the sideband transmission.
- cycomanic 3y agoMicrowave links for HF are already ubiquitous. I find it surprising that nobody jams the signals, but it isn't happening to large extend AFAIK