is always good to try. This is where the antenna is parallel with the ground.
Horozontal antennas tend to be much better at transmitting/recieving at low angles when they are fairly close to the ground when compared to vertical antennas.
One disadvantage is the fact that there are two nulls. These will be off the ends of the antenna, so you have to stay around the front or back of the antenna (front would be looking at the antenna so it is at it's widest. like ---------.
You have to realise the complexity of RF propogation. Nearby traffic, or a nearby car that parked, or some other distant moving thing (closer or farther from the antenna) could have caused you to be in a null of the effective antenna pattern or could have caused a signal 180 degrees out of phase to be bounced to you, causing a very weak signal at your point.
So your right, but I doubt the temporary connection loss will be that detromental considering I used to unplug the cable from my network card while playing online games, then plug it back in to watch the people freeze. Yeah...I didn't have a life...
And, they come with built in anti-aliasing! Just set the resolution a little lower than the resolution of the screen so that it has to stretch the image...wala! Hehehe...it does get rid of sharpness though...
LCD's work with a backlight, CRT's work by sweeping a beam that is a *single* pixel big across the screen. This means that the pixels on the LCD are actually infinite FPS (otherwards, always on). When the vid card says to change color, the pixel changes color and stays that color until it says to change again. Since the backlight is always on, the pixel never dims like on a CRT.
hrmmm... How can you get quadruple speed from the limited bandwidth... I think this assumes that you have an inneficient browser that can't dload at full speed or something... I have watched the actual download speed of pictures and html on my modem...it's usually a little slow, but not 1/4 of the total bandwidth...not even less than a 1/2. I don't see how it is possible to quadruple the speed on my connection with my browser.
Maybe he invented some revolutionary cache system or something, that would make more sense.
Hahah...I doubt the CEO of major corporations like this actually look at the products. I highly doubt she had anything to do with it's design...usually CEO's don't do this kind of stuff either...
Why would the DMCA even consider TV shows unless they had some kind of copyright protection (which would be interesting, and I'm surprised none has yet been applied), and to record it or watch it or whatever, you had to circumvent it?
It seems that people are trying apply the DMCA where it's just not applicable.
What I'm assuming is my earliest memory is when I was put on a cold metal baby scale (the kind with sides that are bent up to hold the baby in). I remember I started crying and wanted off.
An interesting memory was, I was watching the star at the top of the christmas blink. I remember it was an eternety between blinks. A couple years ago my mom pulled out the same ornament. I plugged it in to see the interval between blinks, and it was only about 5 seconds. Kinda strange how time seemed so stretched at that age.
We should just make a slashdot account to be used for everyone comming from slashdot!
Someone has already made a slashdot accound and a slashdot.org account...if the person could only make the password slashdot or slashdot.org
Re:Could or Might interfere?
on
DOD vs. 802.11b
·
· Score: 1
I think they mean it could in the future because of it's possible widespread use (raise noise floor), and might, because they don't know what radar tech will exist at that time (maybe they wanna go back 50 years or so for cost saving). Or something similar.
I honestly think there are other motivations. I think it probably has more to do with information security than anything else. They will probably want directional or active element antennas to be used along with less power. Supposedly gts rid of their radar problem, and keeps war drivers from getting ahold of data.
Radar jamming is something that many people have taken into account. They almost always use spead spectrum where jamming becomes nearly impossible.
I think they are more worried about effecting accuracy and maybe noise. Here http://www.goerigk-jever.de/nike_rad ar_equation_ew.htm You can see that a lot of power is required to jam radar, and since the jammers are broadcasting a very strong signal, they can be easily found.
I don't understand why they are targetting 802.11 that much...considering MICROWAVE OVENS operate at the same freq which I know causes much more interference. Also, the new 2G cell phones and many other comm services can transmitt at much higher power.
Re:FCC should take care of this
on
DOD vs. 802.11b
·
· Score: 1
In most countries, the gov superceeds any EMC limitations. So if they say it's bad...then it is.
One instance I know where this happened was Germany. This certain company released a printer that happened to transmit RFI on the same freq as their secret service tyep org and it was interfering with transmitions. As you can guess, the printer causing the interference was removed from it's location.
Power degrades over distance...
on
DOD vs. 802.11b
·
· Score: 1
You have to remember that the signal from the transmitted antenna has to travel through the atmosphere (which causes losses like mentioned), then bounce off the object, which can be small or does not reflect radio waves well, then come all the way back to the antenna.
Along the way, both ways, the radio waves are being disperesed outward like the cross section of a side of a sphere with increasing radius, so at the antenna, the beamwidth will be small, but a couple miles or hundred miles out, the beamwidth will be much much larger than at the antenna, so that the x watts that are at the antenna are now disperesed througout the larger beamwidth. So there is only a small fraction of the original power to be bounced off of the airplane or spaceship or whatever. After it bounces off, the same theory applies, the signal is dispersed until it reaches the recieving antenna.
Power recieved at one point is equal to (Power transmitted * gain of antenna * lambda^2)/(4*pi*r)^2
assuming an isotropic antenna at recieving end.
The actual radar equations can be found here https://ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil/2waybi.htm
Those don't even account for atmospheric losses which get very bad at higher freqs (around 24GHz is worste).
So the mere mW of power that an 802.11 can have (remember, most people have antennas with gain) could definetly be recieved.
Most radars use some type of pattern for pulses so that they can find doppler shifts easily and distinguish theirs from others, so I don't see how 802.11 could do much except raise the noise floor, making the radar less sensetive. I guess that's bad too though.
"[1] WalMart claimed that their day-after-thanksgiving sale prices were copyrightable."
So now people are claiming that the DMCA can be used to protect things that *can* be copyrighted!? This is getting rediculouse. Walmart shouldn't have had to back down, the case should have been thrown out at the beginning! Well, I guess the lawyers still got payed, and they are the ones driving all of this...so they are somewhat happy.
it should have to go through a voting system, like the comments do...maybe require a 3 or 4 to get on the front page...because this is just getting rediculous. Or at least have another editor approve it or something...
your talking about. I click the link, and pop...there's the article. Did you guys even try!? I know I don't have a subscription...and I know I'm not logged in.
I don't see how this could be used in situations where thiefs that know what they are doing (most seem to when stealing carn) could just remove the antenna. They could just snap it off and the system would be useless.
if they don't burn something out by blowing up. I've replaced a couple capacitors on computers easily. All you do is solder a new one with the same values in. The first one was on my motherboard, cause by a slip of the hand. The second was on a Vodoo3 vid card (the badly placed ones right at the edge of the card). On the v3, it had power going to it for quite a while, but ran fine after i solderer the existing one back on.
If one breaks, and you don't want to/can't get your money back, you could always try putting in a new one yourself. The worst that you could do is cover things with solder...heheh.
because all the force, when you drop it or bump it, gets put into a very small area...I don't see why they did this...I guess it's more of a looks thing.
Slashdot Mirror
is always good to try. This is where the antenna is parallel with the ground.
Horozontal antennas tend to be much better at transmitting/recieving at low angles when they are fairly close to the ground when compared to vertical antennas.
One disadvantage is the fact that there are two nulls. These will be off the ends of the antenna, so you have to stay around the front or back of the antenna (front would be looking at the antenna so it is at it's widest. like ---------.
Just something to try.
You have to realise the complexity of RF propogation. Nearby traffic, or a nearby car that parked, or some other distant moving thing (closer or farther from the antenna) could have caused you to be in a null of the effective antenna pattern or could have caused a signal 180 degrees out of phase to be bounced to you, causing a very weak signal at your point.
So your right, but I doubt the temporary connection loss will be that detromental considering I used to unplug the cable from my network card while playing online games, then plug it back in to watch the people freeze. Yeah...I didn't have a life...
30fps...uhumm....I believe it's 29.95 fps...seriously...
don't ask me why they picked that (maybe cause time it takes to get beam back to top corner?).
I totally agree. I think it looks much better.
And, they come with built in anti-aliasing! Just set the resolution a little lower than the resolution of the screen so that it has to stretch the image...wala! Hehehe...it does get rid of sharpness though...
LCD's work with a backlight, CRT's work by sweeping a beam that is a *single* pixel big across the screen. This means that the pixels on the LCD are actually infinite FPS (otherwards, always on). When the vid card says to change color, the pixel changes color and stays that color until it says to change again. Since the backlight is always on, the pixel never dims like on a CRT.
I can't stand CRT's...they give me headaches.
56700 bits/second = 56700 bits/second
hrmmm...
How can you get quadruple speed from the limited bandwidth...
I think this assumes that you have an inneficient browser that can't dload at full speed or something...
I have watched the actual download speed of pictures and html on my modem...it's usually a little slow, but not 1/4 of the total bandwidth...not even less than a 1/2. I don't see how it is possible to quadruple the speed on my connection with my browser.
Maybe he invented some revolutionary cache system or something, that would make more sense.
Hahah...I doubt the CEO of major corporations like this actually look at the products. I highly doubt she had anything to do with it's design...usually CEO's don't do this kind of stuff either...
That makes me realise...what do CEOs actually do?
To my understanding...
Why would the DMCA even consider TV shows unless they had some kind of copyright protection (which would be interesting, and I'm surprised none has yet been applied), and to record it or watch it or whatever, you had to circumvent it?
It seems that people are trying apply the DMCA where it's just not applicable.
What I'm assuming is my earliest memory is when I was put on a cold metal baby scale (the kind with sides that are bent up to hold the baby in). I remember I started crying and wanted off.
An interesting memory was,
I was watching the star at the top of the christmas blink. I remember it was an eternety between blinks. A couple years ago my mom pulled out the same ornament. I plugged it in to see the interval between blinks, and it was only about 5 seconds. Kinda strange how time seemed so stretched at that age.
I don't think anyone could have guessed that the military would be stupid and bring this up...
We should just make a slashdot account to be used for everyone comming from slashdot!
Someone has already made a slashdot accound and a slashdot.org account...if the person could only make the password slashdot or slashdot.org
I think they mean it could in the future because of it's possible widespread use (raise noise floor), and might, because they don't know what radar tech will exist at that time (maybe they wanna go back 50 years or so for cost saving). Or something similar.
I honestly think there are other motivations.
I think it probably has more to do with information security than anything else. They will probably want directional or active element antennas to be used along with less power. Supposedly gts rid of their radar problem, and keeps war drivers from getting ahold of data.
Radar jamming is something that many people have taken into account. They almost always use spead spectrum where jamming becomes nearly impossible.
d ar_equation_ew .htm
I think they are more worried about effecting accuracy and maybe noise.
Here
http://www.goerigk-jever.de/nike_ra
You can see that a lot of power is required to jam radar, and since the jammers are broadcasting a very strong signal, they can be easily found.
https://ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil/2waybi.htm
I don't understand why they are targetting 802.11 that much...considering MICROWAVE OVENS operate at the same freq which I know causes much more interference. Also, the new 2G cell phones and many other comm services can transmitt at much higher power.
In most countries, the gov superceeds any EMC limitations. So if they say it's bad...then it is.
One instance I know where this happened was Germany. This certain company released a printer that happened to transmit RFI on the same freq as their secret service tyep org and it was interfering with transmitions. As you can guess, the printer causing the interference was removed from it's location.
You have to remember that the signal from the transmitted antenna has to travel through the atmosphere (which causes losses like mentioned), then bounce off the object, which can be small or does not reflect radio waves well, then come all the way back to the antenna.
Along the way, both ways, the radio waves are being disperesed outward like the cross section of a side of a sphere with increasing radius, so at the antenna, the beamwidth will be small, but a couple miles or hundred miles out, the beamwidth will be much much larger than at the antenna, so that the x watts that are at the antenna are now disperesed througout the larger beamwidth. So there is only a small fraction of the original power to be bounced off of the airplane or spaceship or whatever. After it bounces off, the same theory applies, the signal is dispersed until it reaches the recieving antenna.
Power recieved at one point is equal to (Power transmitted * gain of antenna * lambda^2)/(4*pi*r)^2
assuming an isotropic antenna at recieving end.
The actual radar equations can be found here
https://ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil/2waybi.htm
Those don't even account for atmospheric losses which get very bad at higher freqs (around 24GHz is worste).
So the mere mW of power that an 802.11 can have (remember, most people have antennas with gain) could definetly be recieved.
Most radars use some type of pattern for pulses so that they can find doppler shifts easily and distinguish theirs from others, so I don't see how 802.11 could do much except raise the noise floor, making the radar less sensetive. I guess that's bad too though.
BTW, the navy has a good book on radar.
"[1] WalMart claimed that their day-after-thanksgiving sale prices were copyrightable."
So now people are claiming that the DMCA can be used to protect things that *can* be copyrighted!? This is getting rediculouse. Walmart shouldn't have had to back down, the case should have been thrown out at the beginning! Well, I guess the lawyers still got payed, and they are the ones driving all of this...so they are somewhat happy.
it should have to go through a voting system, like the comments do...maybe require a 3 or 4 to get on the front page...because this is just getting rediculous. Or at least have another editor approve it or something...
your talking about.
I click the link, and pop...there's the article.
Did you guys even try!?
I know I don't have a subscription...and I know I'm not logged in.
This wouldn't be dmca because no copyright protection was circumvented.
I don't see how this could be used in situations where thiefs that know what they are doing (most seem to when stealing carn) could just remove the antenna. They could just snap it off and the system would be useless.
if they don't burn something out by blowing up. I've replaced a couple capacitors on computers easily. All you do is solder a new one with the same values in. The first one was on my motherboard, cause by a slip of the hand. The second was on a Vodoo3 vid card (the badly placed ones right at the edge of the card). On the v3, it had power going to it for quite a while, but ran fine after i solderer the existing one back on.
If one breaks, and you don't want to/can't get your money back, you could always try putting in a new one yourself. The worst that you could do is cover things with solder...heheh.
What, are you gunna break it!?
It's VERY hard (is it even possible to get 100W!?) to get any real power out of thermocouples though.
because all the force, when you drop it or bump it, gets put into a very small area...I don't see why they did this...I guess it's more of a looks thing.