In article ,
Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:
The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:
In article ,
Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:
/snip/
Line of site. If you don't line up your aerial correctly with the site
of the transmitter, you will not get good reception. Really!

It's line of *SIGHT* - nothing to do with the 'site' of the transmitter.
One aerial should be visible from the other. (FSVO visible)

Sorry. I should have said "THIS IS A JOKE".

Or not said "Really!"?

That WAS the joke :-)

Grrk. You can transmit only a constant signal (i.e. containing no
information) on a precise frequency. Digital transmission actually
uses a MUCH wider frequency range than analogue! Seriously.

Digital is what it says, and encodes by strings of minute pulses, and
the bandwidth is very narrow. AM can also be transmitted on a very
precise wavelength. Only FM requires a lot of bandwith to wriggle about
in because it's the frequency changes which carry the information.

Er, no. That is the "O-level" explanation. The "A-level" one points
out that any variation in the amplitude of the signal will cause AND
NEED a variation in bandwidth. And the degree-level one introduces
Fourier theory. I was never an expert, but the executive summary is
that, to transmit information at N bits/sec, you need quite a lot
more than N cycles/sec of bandwidth.

You absolutely CAN'T transmit N bits/sec of independent information
on frequencies less than N cycles/sec apart, HOWEVER you do it, because
they will interfere with one another.

The problem is what is done to save money, not what it is possible to do
to retain quality.

Yes. And to line the pockets of "worthy people", like Rupert Murdoch.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.