|
|
Posted by Green Xenon [Radium] on 09/30/07 05:34
On Sep 29, 8:59 pm, dpl...@radagast.org (Dave Platt) wrote in
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.tech.digital-tv/msg/872fdf9b0c765bd0 :
> In article <46fefb70$0$7493$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
> Green Xenon [Radium] <gluceg...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > Sure it is possible. It won't be of any assistance to you (or to
> > > anyone else since you can't put 8 pounds in a 1-pound sack.
> > > Bandwidth is bandwidth, no matter how you slice it. Do you
> > > really think that nobody has thought of various methods of
> > > transmitting video over low-bandwidth paths? If so, you need
> > > to study not only science and engineering but the HISTORY
> > > of science and engineering.
>
> >There are 8-bits-per-symbol, only 1 baud. The symbol is split into 8
> >parts. Each part is 1-bit.
>
> >How is this “putting 8 pounds in a 1-pound sack?”
>
> >It’s more like “putting 1 pound in a 1-pound sack”
>
> You are using the word "split" without defining what you are meaning,
> and I think you may be using the word "bit" in two different ways (as
> in "a single binary digit's worth of information" and "a part")...
> maybe I'm wrong about the latter.
>
> Sure, you can carry 8 bits of information per symbol, at a rate of one
> baud. That's an information rate of 8 bits per second, which isn't a
> terribly useful amount of information.
>
> What I *think* you are saying is something along the lines of
>
> "If there's no way to carry N bits of information per symbol (where
> N is a large number) at a rate of 1 symbol per second, in a
> specified bandwidth, over a channel having a certain amount of
> dynamic range / signal-to-noise ratio available, then I'd
> like to somehow divide each symbol into eight sub-symbols which
> each carry N/8 of the information, but which still make up only one
> symbol per second. My hope is that these eight sub-symbols could
> be easier to transmit, somehow, than a single symbol carrying N
> bits, and that I could thus transmit them more easily but without
> using any more bandwidth. Can I do that?"
>
> If that's what you're asking, the answer is "no".
>
> Once you hit the theoretical information limit of the communication
> channel (which is set by the bandwidth you use and by the amount of
> noise on the channel) you can't do any better than that. No matter
> how you modulate (changing the baud rate, the amount of information
> per symbol, etc.) you can't do better than this.
>
> And, as we've been trying to make clear, your goal is quite far beyond
> the theoretical limit. You just can't get there. You're trying to
> put all of Lake Erie in a water-glass.
>
> Let it go, Radium.
Within physical-possibility, what is the largest amount of
bits-per-symbol [assuming a baud-rate of only 1-bit-per-symbol] that can
be reached without the highest-voltage causing any clipping, generating
any temperatures above 70 Fahrenheit, resulting in any harm to
anyone/anything [including the equipment itself], or shortening the life
of the equipment and without the lowest-voltage being lost in the noise?
What is the maximum-possible amount of discrete levels between the
highest and lowest voltage in such a signal?
An 8-bit signal can have a maximum of 256 different voltage levels
between the highest and lowest voltage. Right? Go too high and the
signal clips, go too low and the signal will not be recognized.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|