A possible cure for FCC bandwidth woes.

[Don Lancaster]

feklar wrote:

Can a 100 or a 500 mHz signal carry a 1 gHz data stream?

I believe that is well within the bounds of conventional compression and
coding theory.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[Don Lancaster]

John Larkin wrote:

Really, you should get a book on communications theory. All this stuff
is understood. Google Nyquist, Claude Shannon, communications theory,
and the Sampling Theorem for starters.

John

Vitribi covers it all.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[nospam]

feklar@rock.com (feklar) wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:13:15 GMT, "Sir Charles W. Shults III"
aichipREM@OVEcfl.THISrr.com> wrote:

This whole thing is totally hosed. If the original signal shows no sign of
this information, then no receiver, regardless of its design, will have a signal
to work with. End of wild speculation.

I didn't say there would be no signal, only that it would be so tiny
as compared to the amplitude of the sine wave carrier that it would
not be visible on a scope. Once the sine wave of the carrier was
removed, the pulse train would be visible once the sensitivity of the
scope was increased.

I have an idea. Why don't you remove the carrier at the transmitter? It
would save all that transmitting power and make the receiver much simpler.

 

[Active8]

In article <3f414ae4.2584662@news.houston.sbcglobal.net>,
feklar@rock.com says...

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:06:06 GMT, Active8
mcolasono@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote:

psuedoscience. the spectral lines might not occur simultaneaously, but
that impacts interference between transmitters operating in the same
band, not bandwidth. the spectral power density is another story. trust
me, these miniscule pulses won't make it very far at all.

google ultra wide band or UWB. you'll see that you can just broadcast
narrow pulses without a carrier and it'll splatter all over the
spectrum. the reason they get away with it is LOW POWER as in wireless
LAN or maybe collision radar, as in local, as in forget it. increase
power and change FCC rules? good luck. the FCC already approved UWB and
set the power limits to protect other services. before that, it was
CDMA, FHSS, TDMA, and all that.

But Doppler radar works. Although of course, with Doppler radar the
entire sine wave is phase shifted, and its a simple operation to
determine the phase difference of the reflected wave.

yeah, you can get more energy in narrow pulses, but the sine wave
doesn't splatter as much as the fast edge of a square pulse and the data
rate spreads the bandwidth proporionally.

With my idea you would be talking a fair number of (very slight) phase
alterations per cycle.

i thought you said the laser would cause a little pulse, not a phase
shift.

If there were two transmitters detuned enough from each other,
wouldn't the heterodyned third frequency at the receiver be similar to
the pulsed data train I was trying to implement? This would suggest
that the data rate of the heterodyne frequency (or at least half the
data rate) could be supported with one transmitter.

Of course, I am not the expert on the subject. On the other hand,
look at the sine wave of an electric guitar amp speaker output, clean
vs. distorted. The basic input signal is the same, but the clean
channel output is close to a perfect sine wave,

every guitar (every instrument) i owned had timbre as in harmonics, so
you mean sines, plural.

and the distortion
channel output is the same sine wave but with a lot of high frequency
phase and power level noise superimposed upon it, higher in frequency
than the original sine signal.

If one knew the precise makeup and characteristics of the distortion
circuitry or distortion box circuitry, one could design a reverse
circuit to remove the distortion and restore the clean sounding
signal.

it was done wih the feedforward amplifier without apriori knowlege of
the distortion characteristics.

Perhaps I didn't get my basic idea across clearly eough to allow for
this type of visualization? Instead of using a circuit to remove the
distortion to restore a clean signal, using a circuit to remove the
clean signal and leaving only the "distortion"...

that's the signal that was subtracted from the distorted signal in the
feedforward amp. dates back to the 1920s.

i understand your concept. if your name is fred and/or you have R&D
money, i'll build all the circuits you want. but you'll have to beat the
shit out of my latest offer.

interesting links. couldn't spend time on the first, so i skimmed it.

mike

now you are really screwed
http://www.infernalpress.com/Columns/election.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

 

[Active8]

In article <can2kvkquvdc6emf5mot164ntn9njai02l@4ax.com>,
nospam@nospam.invalid says...

feklar@rock.com (feklar) wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:13:15 GMT, "Sir Charles W. Shults III"
aichipREM@OVEcfl.THISrr.com> wrote:

This whole thing is totally hosed. If the original signal shows no sign of
this information, then no receiver, regardless of its design, will have a signal
to work with. End of wild speculation.

I didn't say there would be no signal, only that it would be so tiny
as compared to the amplitude of the sine wave carrier that it would
not be visible on a scope. Once the sine wave of the carrier was
removed, the pulse train would be visible once the sensitivity of the
scope was increased.

I have an idea. Why don't you remove the carrier at the transmitter? It
would save all that transmitting power and make the receiver much simpler.

ROFLMAO. this feklar guy is fred all over again.

 

[Active8]

In article <3f40fb99.151238609@news.houston.sbcglobal.net>,
feklar@rock.com says...

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 06:06:11 -0700, Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun'
alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote:

It would be better to just get rid of all broadcasting thru the
airwaves. Every dwelling, etc., would he served by a fiber optic
cable with the whole broadcast band, AM, FM, TV, etc. on it. That
way, the BW used by broadcasters could be reused for mobile devices,
such as PDAs, etc.

Good idea. But with everything going to wireless and satellite, where
are the phone companies and cable companies going to come up with the
money to implement it?

the banks. most MSOs are in the red, but every subscriber is worth
between $2k-$5k credit and the systems sell for upwards of $200 per sub.
only time the banks hesitate is when congress plays games.

the fiber's getting closer to the curb, too. BTDT. telcos, MSOs,
wireless ops... they all get customers using a different line of BS that
the normal consumer can't won't verify because there's just too many
other thinks to do like turn on wrestling.

mike

Almost serves them right, spending the money that should have been
used on upgrading to fiber cable and living high off the hog, and in
the process being responsible for their own demise...

I would have expected more from US Sprint...

now you are really screwed
http://www.infernalpress.com/Columns/election.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

 

[feklar]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 07:27:26 GMT, Active8
<mcolasono@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote:

ROFLMAO. this feklar guy is fred all over again.

I take it being called a "Fred" is as bad as being called a
"Leonard"... not a good thing

I said I wasn't sure whether it would work or not, but I shouldn't
have buried it halfway down the post, it should have been at the top.
Along with something about not being an electronics or radio expert...

Hey, it is better to try and fail than to never try.

now you are really screwed
http://rjnpages.tripod.com/defeat.htm

http://www.infernalpress.com/Columns/election.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

 

[George R. Gonzalez]

"feklar" <feklar@rock.com> wrote in message
news:3f414543.1143107@news.houston.sbcglobal.net...

Reading overwritten data on a disk by subtracting out the new data.

This is possible. When data is written to a data track it begins
immediately expanding in size physically. Each new track that
overwrites an old one fails to overwrite the edges of the track, and
the original data can be read by reading the outer edge instead of the
center of the track.

I know there's several references to this on the Internet, but that doesnt
make it true.
Try using some logical and critical thinking. How could the second write
fail to expand as much as the first?

Data can be recovered this way even after it has
been overwritten 10 times, although it takes some pretty sensitive
equipment to do it.

There is a vast amount of information available
on the web regarding this. The NSA and DOD documentation is some of
the better trechnical stuff...

Think, think, think. Just because some govt beauraucrat wrote a
specification
doesnt mean #1: It's correct, #2: It's necessary.

Develop your critical thinking skills. Assume everything you see on TV is
at least
half-wrong. Assume everything you see on the Internet is at least 2/3
wrong.
(Except for my advice, of course

 

[Kevin McMurtrie]

In article <E_o0b.201643$uu5.36384@sccrnsc04>,
"George R. Gonzalez" <grg2@comcast.net> wrote:

"feklar" <feklar@rock.com> wrote in message
news:3f414543.1143107@news.houston.sbcglobal.net...

Reading overwritten data on a disk by subtracting out the new data.

This is possible. When data is written to a data track it begins
immediately expanding in size physically. Each new track that
overwrites an old one fails to overwrite the edges of the track, and
the original data can be read by reading the outer edge instead of the
center of the track.

I know there's several references to this on the Internet, but that doesnt
make it true.
Try using some logical and critical thinking. How could the second write
fail to expand as much as the first?

Data can be recovered this way even after it has
been overwritten 10 times, although it takes some pretty sensitive
equipment to do it.

There is a vast amount of information available
on the web regarding this. The NSA and DOD documentation is some of
the better trechnical stuff...

Think, think, think. Just because some govt beauraucrat wrote a
specification
doesnt mean #1: It's correct, #2: It's necessary.

Develop your critical thinking skills. Assume everything you see on TV is
at least
half-wrong. Assume everything you see on the Internet is at least 2/3
wrong.
(Except for my advice, of course

This does work. Data in the center of the track is saturated by the
last write but data at the edges is a blur of previous writes. It is
possible to extract data from track edges by cancelling the last signal
blurred over it. It could even be possible to recover multiple layers
on older hard drives with fat tracks.

This trick was easy with old Apple Disk ][ floppies. Head placement was
terribly sloppy even with giant 1/30 inch tracks. Moving the head by
fractional tracks widths could recover old data that was written with a
slightly different alignment. No fancy signal cancellation was required
to get a few old sectors here and there.

 

[Active8]

In article <3f41ec9b.43990005@news.houston.sbcglobal.net>,
feklar@rock.com says...

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 07:20:33 GMT, Active8
mcolasono@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote:

With my idea you would be talking a fair number of (very slight) phase
alterations per cycle.

i thought you said the laser would cause a little pulse, not a phase
shift.

Is there a difference? Couldn't adding a tiny pulse of extra energy
to a tiny section of a cycle of a carrier sine wave be defined as
either adding a pulse or causing a minute phase angle shift in the
carrier wave?

whatever. it's a moot point. it's still miniscule.

Say the pulse is added on the rising voltage, wouldn't adding a tiny
extra amount of power cause a slight increase in the slope of the wave
for the duration of the pulse? More towards up than to the right for
lack being able to think of a better way to describe it... And as
soon as the pulse ended the rise angle would revert back to what it
had before. A minute change in the angle, but a change nevertheless.

now you are really screwed
http://rjnpages.tripod.com/defeat.htm

http://www.infernalpress.com/Columns/election.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

 

[N. Thornton]

Hi

The original concept is a non worker, but I dont see that as as big a
problem as some do. If the OP is interested in coming up with stuff
like this, which s/he evidently is, then I would regard this as a good
learning experience. Success is 99% failure. We all have to learn at
some point, and we all came up with non runner ideas.

Now... the odds of the OP inventing something useful are extremely
low, but not zero given the data so far.

If you want to make money, stick to your job. If you are determined to
come up with something and are upto it, keep going. At some point you
might get there - so long as you do read up and get to nuderstand
where the problem lies with this one. The odds are very against you
though.


Regards, NT

 

[feklar]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:46:28 GMT, "George R. Gonzalez"
<grg2@comcast.net> wrote:

Try using some logical and critical thinking. How could the second write
fail to expand as much as the first?

Think of it this way: how can one train on a single track pass
another? Sure, as you say, they will both reach their destination at
the same speed, but the second one will always be physically behind
the first one.

Now if both writes occurred at the same time, it would be as you say,
but if one occurs first, the second one will catch up with it
physically, but never overtake it. The width of the first track will
always be wider than the width of the second one, regardless that they
are expanding at the same speed.

now you are really screwed
http://rjnpages.tripod.com/defeat.htm

http://www.infernalpress.com/Columns/election.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

 

[Mark Zenier]

In article <Yks0b.199899$o%2.92144@sccrnsc02>,
George R. Gonzalez <grg2@comcast.net> wrote:

Well, no, and no. The data at the edges is mostly noisy and LP filtered
due to the magnetic field fringes looping out. "The last signal" is
unknown,
and can only be estimated by reading the track, WHICH INCLUDES BOTH SIGNALS,
not just the most recent. So you don't know what the most recent data was,
at least not to the required accuracy in amplitude and phase, so you
don't have what you need to subtract out. You don't know the amplitude,
as this varies depending on the media temperature, the head temperature,
and other unknowables. You don't know the phase, as disk speed can
and does vary. And floppy disks don't have that much margin,
there's no way they could support double the data with the old data maybe
20db down,
around 6db below the noise level.

Actually, the residual previous data is about 10 percent of the
total, which is why designing a clock/data seperator is such a bitch.

Mark Zenier mzenier@eskimo.com Washington State resident

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <3f414ae4.2584662@news.houston.sbcglobal.net>,
feklar <feklar@rock.com> wrote:
[...]

But Doppler radar works. Although of course, with Doppler radar the
entire sine wave is phase shifted, and its a simple operation to
determine the phase difference of the reflected wave.

In Doppler, the phase or frequency of many-many cycles is shifted. You
can think of the transmitter, moving target and receiver as a mechanical
modulator of the RF signal. The frequency components of the modulation
signal are very near DC whereas the microwaves are at a high frequency.

With my idea you would be talking a fair number of (very slight) phase
alterations per cycle.

If you make more than one phase shift per cycle, the modulation signal
must include frequencies above the intended carrier. You can no longer
use the various rules of thumb to deal with the signal.

You can't assume:

- Side bands will be radiated equally well as the carrier.
- Side bands are all recieved at the reciever nearly equally.
- The transmitter to receiver delay is equal for sidebands.

If there were two transmitters detuned enough from each other,
wouldn't the heterodyned third frequency at the receiver be similar to
the pulsed data train I was trying to implement? This would suggest
that the data rate of the heterodyne frequency (or at least half the
data rate) could be supported with one transmitter.

You are right in that it doesn't matter how a RF signal going to a
receiver is created. It only matters what signal is created. It is
fairly common for more than one transmitter to share the same antenn
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[feklar]

So the FBI and CIA and NSA and Department of Defense and hard drive
data recovery services are all mistaken, and you are right. And your
two posts outweigh the hundreds of detailed research papers regarding
the subject at .com and .mil sites. I guess I'm OK with that, I
suppose, if everyone else is.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:35:04 GMT, "George R. Gonzalez"
<grg2@comcast.net> wrote:

"Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmurtri@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:mcmurtri-0A30A2.06203119082003@typhoon.sonic.net...


This does work. Data in the center of the track is saturated by the
last write but data at the edges is a blur of previous writes.

Can you find even one reference to somebody that has actually done this?
No, not third-hand-hearsay, quoted from an ad-hoc manuscript presented at
UseNix.
I suspect if anybody had actually recovered even one sector of old-data,
it would be documented somewhere.

It is possible to extract data from track edges by cancelling the last
signal
blurred over it.

Well, no, and no. The data at the edges is mostly noisy and LP filtered
due to the magnetic field fringes looping out. "The last signal" is
unknown,
and can only be estimated by reading the track, WHICH INCLUDES BOTH SIGNALS,
not just the most recent. So you don't know what the most recent data was,
at least not to the required accuracy in amplitude and phase, so you
don't have what you need to subtract out. You don't know the amplitude,
as this varies depending on the media temperature, the head temperature,
and other unknowables. You don't know the phase, as disk speed can
and does vary. And floppy disks don't have that much margin,
there's no way they could support double the data with the old data maybe
20db down,
around 6db below the noise level.


It could even be possible to recover multiple layers
on older hard drives with fat tracks.

It's possible pigs could fly too if they twirled their tails fast enough.

This trick was easy with old Apple Disk ][ floppies. Head placement was
terribly sloppy even with giant 1/30 inch tracks. Moving the head by
fractional tracks widths could recover old data that was written with a
slightly different alignment. No fancy signal cancellation was required
to get a few old sectors here and there.

I will concede that those first-generation disk drives had wide track
spacing,
and if misaligned, perhaps could write and read data between the tracks.
But around 1982, flopy disk heads got better, with a tunnel-erase winding
on the head that specifically erased the outer fringes.

But back to the original goal of increaqsing spectrum efficiency,
there's no money or fame in improving that in obsolete disk drives, it's
been done already.


Regards,

George

now you are really screwed
http://rjnpages.tripod.com/defeat.htm

http://www.infernalpress.com/Columns/election.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

 

[George R. Gonzalez]

"feklar" <feklar@rock.com> wrote in message
news:3f42b0a5.5808711@news.houston.sbcglobal.net...

So the FBI and CIA and NSA and Department of Defense and hard drive
data recovery services are all mistaken, and you are right. And your
two posts outweigh the hundreds of detailed research papers regarding
the subject at .com and .mil sites. I guess I'm OK with that, I
suppose, if everyone else is.

Your search engines must work better than mine. Pls point us to a single
research paper that shows oh say, even a 1% recovery rate for a full sector.

 

[YD]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:04:18 GMT, feklar@rock.com (feklar) wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:13:15 GMT, "Sir Charles W. Shults III"
aichipREM@OVEcfl.THISrr.com> wrote:

This whole thing is totally hosed. If the original signal shows no sign of
this information, then no receiver, regardless of its design, will have a signal
to work with. End of wild speculation.

I didn't say there would be no signal, only that it would be so tiny
as compared to the amplitude of the sine wave carrier that it would
not be visible on a scope. Once the sine wave of the carrier was
removed, the pulse train would be visible once the sensitivity of the
scope was increased.

now you are really screwed
http://www.infernalpress.com/Columns/election.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

Ummm'k. So what happens when the neighbour's hot-rodding kid drives by
and his unsheilded ignition superimposes a pulse train of his own on
the recieved signal?

- YD.

 

[feklar]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 00:36:43 GMT, "George R. Gonzalez"
<grg2@comcast.net> wrote:

Your search engines must work better than mine. Pls point us to a single
research paper that shows oh say, even a 1% recovery rate for a full sector.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/secure_del.html

now you are really screwed
http://rjnpages.tripod.com/defeat.htm

http://www.infernalpress.com/Columns/election.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

 

[George R. Gonzalez]

"feklar" <feklar@rock.com> wrote in message
news:3f42f82f.24125729@news.houston.sbcglobal.net...

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 00:36:43 GMT, "George R. Gonzalez"
grg2@comcast.net> wrote:

Your search engines must work better than mine. Pls point us to a single
research paper that shows oh say, even a 1% recovery rate for a full
sector.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/secure_del.html

I've read this paper several times before, that's why I asked for anything
other than "UseNix" papers.

Nowhere in there is there anything like real Science.
There's a lot of blather, vague references to unnamed and unreferenced
experiments, but no hard numbers on data recovery.

A scientific paper FYI has DATA, often GRAPHS, CHARTS, DIAGRAMS,
PHOTOGRAPHS, plus a full explanation of experimental techniques, methods
used, and analysis methods. You'd expect to see charts and graphs of "S/N
ratio", "remanence vs. passes", etc. A real publishable scientific paper is
peer-reviewed before publication, then revised, often several times before
it's accepted in a legitimate scientific publication.

Vague allusions to "the magnetic fields can be seen with a SEM", isnt
science.

 

[feklar]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 14:08:59 GMT, "George R. Gonzalez"
<grg2@comcast.net> wrote:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/secure_del.html

I've read this paper several times before, that's why I asked for anything
other than "UseNix" papers.

Nowhere in there is there anything like real Science.
There's a lot of blather, vague references to unnamed and unreferenced
experiments, but no hard numbers on data recovery.

A scientific paper FYI has DATA, often GRAPHS, CHARTS, DIAGRAMS,
PHOTOGRAPHS, plus a full explanation of experimental techniques, methods
used, and analysis methods. You'd expect to see charts and graphs of "S/N
ratio", "remanence vs. passes", etc. A real publishable scientific paper is
peer-reviewed before publication, then revised, often several times before
it's accepted in a legitimate scientific publication.

Vague allusions to "the magnetic fields can be seen with a SEM", isnt
science.

I guess the other guy that recoverd data from his Apple ][ floppies
was hallunicating then.

If you say so, it must be so, I guess. Afer all, you are a USENET
expert and USENIX is only a University research arm.

I'd bring up something about the hundreds of thousands of dollars the
FBI, CIA, DOD, NSA spend every year security destroying hard drives by
shredding the metal platters or melting them down as a matter of
procedure, but these days I would expect any money to disappear down
any government black hole for any excuse at any time.

now you are really screwed
http://rjnpages.tripod.com/defeat.htm

http://www.infernalpress.com/Columns/election.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm