RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| reply to davoice
Re: everything
Dav, the sub thread was talking about wireless phones and Kamm made a statement on wireless phones that was not totally true. The web site for the company in question seems to imply that it will be in the 802.11/? spectrum which could be either 2.4 or 5.8 GHz areas. Maybe that is for world wide compatibility.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
Smokey
Even drunk on a bet ya make it to Canada
Premium
join:2003-05-20
Va Beach
clubs:
 ·Cox HSI
1 edit | reply to davoice
Only 5 feet? Doesn't that severally limit the application potential for the technology? I would think that something like this is designed for applications similar to mine where the video source is far from my viewing location. While I installed wire to suit my needs, if this would allow me to put the box in one location and the TV/monitor in another it would have fare more benefits.
Edit:
Now having read the story, I see that they claim to have made it work at 30 feet. That is more than I would need, and I think more than most others as well.
--
Para Bellum!! |
|
davoice
join:2000-08-12
Saxapahaw, NC
·Comporium
| reply to RayW
Remember... UWB in this manner is pitched as a "USB replacement". Meaning less than 10 feet transmission, probably closer to 5 feet. We're not talking about whole-house connections here. We're talking about device to device sitting near each other w/o wires.
No... UWB does not operate exclusively in the 2.4 or 5.x ghz range. It uses a range of frequencies to either side of the center frequency - and does so at very low power.
In the US, the FCC mandated that UWB radio transmissions can legally operate in the range from 3.1 GHz up to 10.6 GHz, at a limited transmit power of -41dBm/MHz. That's how it got the name "ulta wide band"... the wide band of frequencies that provide enough spectrum to actually do high bandwidth, real-time applications.
For more info, see:
»www.intel.com/technology/comms/uwb/
}Davoice |
|
