| reply to P Ness
Re: Oh No interference!! Did any of you idiots bother to even read about XMAX??
3 days ago....
»xMax Wireless
The same technology can be used on wires. So no more need to cry about interference. BPL even old copper lines 100 times faster. If even a few of you were paying attention to that bit of news you would not be debating this. |
|
1 edit | said by justncredible:Did any of you idiots bother to even read about XMAX?? 3 days ago.... » xMax WirelessThe same technology can be used on wires. So no more need to cry about interference. BPL even old copper lines 100 times faster. If even a few of you were paying attention to that bit of news you would not be debating this. You have no clue whether this can be used on power lines. The "clock" carrier in the middle of the emission they show on their website is above Part 15 levels, which would preclude it from BPL use. Were you paying attention? |
|
| well yes I do have a clue,, unlike you.
»www.xgtechnology.com/faq.htm
If you people would check out the facts before you post. Read down the list, notice the study is complete, notice it will work over wires. Notice the 100X gains claimed, while at 100,000 lower the power levels. Kinda makes you think the interference will be gone,,,, ya think,,, just maybe? |
|
|
|
N3EVL
join:2004-12-13
Shrewsbury, MA | The point being raised and which you seem not to have noticed is that, unlike UWB, this technology relies on the presence of a conventional carrier at conventional signal levels in addition to the sub-noise-level sidebands. in the example diagram, this carrier was above the levels permitted by Part 15. To be suitable as a basis for BPL it would have to be reduced to be within Part 15 limits which may or may not be practical. |
|
w2co
join:2003-07-16
Longmont, CO | reply to justncredible
"Kinda makes you think the interference will be gone,,,, ya think,,, just maybe?"
Interference is a two way street buddy, and part 15 devices must accept interference from licensed services. Even if it were below part 15 levels, the fact that it is on the power lines actually makes it worse than if it were just a "point source" radiator. Anyway the fact is it will not communicate very well in the presence of high RF fields either. Lets see you get through this. |
|
| reply to justncredible
said by justncredible:well yes I do have a clue,, unlike you. » www.xgtechnology.com/faq.htmIf you people would check out the facts before you post. Read down the list, notice the study is complete, notice it will work over wires. Notice the 100X gains claimed, while at 100,000 lower the power levels. Kinda makes you think the interference will be gone,,,, ya think,,, just maybe? Again, you lack clue. It may work over wire, but you don't know how many dB above the noise floor the clocking signal needs to be. This may exclude it from being used on a radiating medium like an unshielded powerline.
It may work, but I don't see any information where they tried powerlines, so you're basically grasping at straws proposing vaporware as a solution. If you were really informed, you would be pushing microwave based BPL which is much further along and based on proven technology. It also blows away HF BPL and probably this technology you're referring to in terms of available throughput. |
|
| reply to w2co
said by w2co:"Kinda makes you think the interference will be gone,,,, ya think,,, just maybe?" Interference is a two way street buddy, and part 15 devices must accept interference from licensed services. Even if it were below part 15 levels, the fact that it is on the power lines actually makes it worse than if it were just a "point source" radiator. Anyway the fact is it will not communicate very well in the presence of high RF fields either. Lets see you get through this. That's old technology, and BPL is new technology, so it can't interfere with BPL. (Sorry, I couldn't resist repeating this classic quote  ) |
|
| reply to rf_engineer
it works UNDER the noise level, and yeah I saw the graph that shows it above, but that is the separated signal. That is the data spike and not the power level used to transmit the signal. They are below the noise. As for calling it vaporware, well the testing is done and now they are ready to take it to market, so I guess 6 months to a year we can say if this is true or vaporware. |
|
| said by justncredible:
it works UNDER the noise level, and yeah I saw the graph that shows it above, but that is the separated signal. That is the data spike and not the power level used to transmit the signal. They are below the noise. As for calling it vaporware, well the testing is done and now they are ready to take it to market, so I guess 6 months to a year we can say if this is true or vaporware.
Separated signal? You serious? It's a clock signal that is required to extract the data that's in the noise. It is transmitted as part of the signal. Without it, their is no data extraction. I'd call that part of the signal.
Even if this is out of testing, there's no indication that they intend on applying it to BPL, and it turns the several competing BPL "standards" on their ears. The incumbent BPL vendors have too much money invested in their current modulation techniques to pick this up, otherwise they would all probably be adopting 802.11 based BPL right now to escape the mess in the HF bands. |
|
