Engineers learn from high end audio!

[Robert Morein]

From sci.electronics.design,

"Not much progress in RF since 1938 ... The RF industry has finally
come (up?) to the level of the pro-audio specialty devices:

http://www.j-walk.com/other/wifispray/

Frank Raffaeli
http://www.aomwireless.com/
"

[Rich.Andrews]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in news:jp6dnStrEMNyyfXcRVn-
:

> From sci.electronics.design,
>
> "Not much progress in RF since 1938 ... The RF industry has finally
> come (up?) to the level of the pro-audio specialty devices:
>
> http://www.j-walk.com/other/wifispray/
>
> Frank Raffaeli
> http://www.aomwireless.com/
> "
>
>
>

Anyone who say there hasn't been much progress in RF since 1938 is
horribly mistaken.

That statement is so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

[N]

"Rich.Andrews" > wrote in message >...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in news:jp6dnStrEMNyyfXcRVn-
> :
>
> > From sci.electronics.design,
> >
> > "Not much progress in RF since 1938 ... The RF industry has finally
> > come (up?) to the level of the pro-audio specialty devices:
> >
> > http://www.j-walk.com/other/wifispray/
> >
> > Frank Raffaeli
> > http://www.aomwireless.com/
> > "
> >
> >
> >
>
> Anyone who say there hasn't been much progress in RF since 1938 is
> horribly mistaken.
>
> That statement is so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

If you go to the above URL for WiFi Speed Spray, you'll (I hope) see
that it's all a joke. Make sure to click on the "Click here to order
online" button also.

> r

[Robert Morein]

"N" > wrote in message
om...
> "Rich.Andrews" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in news:jp6dnStrEMNyyfXcRVn-
> > :
> >
> > > From sci.electronics.design,
> > >
> > > "Not much progress in RF since 1938 ... The RF industry has finally
> > > come (up?) to the level of the pro-audio specialty devices:
> > >
> > > http://www.j-walk.com/other/wifispray/
> > >
> > > Frank Raffaeli
> > > http://www.aomwireless.com/
> > > "
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Anyone who say there hasn't been much progress in RF since 1938 is
> > horribly mistaken.
> >
> > That statement is so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to
begin.
>
> If you go to the above URL for WiFi Speed Spray, you'll (I hope) see
> that it's all a joke. Make sure to click on the "Click here to order
> online" button also.
>
> > r

You're kidding!
You mean, it's not honest like Saturday night wrestling?

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius > said:

>Speaking of traveling medicine shows, can anybody report on the doings of
>the Smarmy ******s' Club of Michigan?

Who'd be interested?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Clyde Slick]

"N" > wrote in message
om...
>
> If you go to the above URL for WiFi Speed Spray, you'll (I hope) see
> that it's all a joke. Make sure to click on the "Click here to order
> online" button also.
>


Robot Andrews is not one to readily 'get' jokes.

[Robert Morein]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "N" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > If you go to the above URL for WiFi Speed Spray, you'll (I hope) see
> > that it's all a joke. Make sure to click on the "Click here to order
> > online" button also.
> >
>
>
> Robot Andrews is not one to readily 'get' jokes.
>
It's not a joke! I just ordered some, because it can make 802.11b perform
like 802.11g, and even makes decrypting harder because it limits the
dispersion.

Important! Send this to all your friends!

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>

>>
> It's not a joke! I just ordered some, because it can make 802.11b perform
> like 802.11g, and even makes decrypting harder because it limits the
> dispersion.
>
> Important! Send this to all your friends!
>
>

Most of my friends are normals. They probably would try to
clean their windows with it, or spray it on bugs.

[Robert Morein]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> >>
> > It's not a joke! I just ordered some, because it can make 802.11b
perform
> > like 802.11g, and even makes decrypting harder because it limits the
> > dispersion.
> >
> > Important! Send this to all your friends!
> >
> >
>
> Most of my friends are normals. They probably would try to
> clean their windows with it, or spray it on bugs.
>
They are coming out with a new version that increases transparency upto
lightwave frequencies.
Too precious to waste on bugs.

[Frank Raffaeli]

"Rich.Andrews" > wrote in message >...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in news:jp6dnStrEMNyyfXcRVn-
> :
>
> > From sci.electronics.design,
> >
> > "Not much progress in RF since 1938 ... The RF industry has finally
> > come (up?) to the level of the pro-audio specialty devices:
> >
> > http://www.j-walk.com/other/wifispray/
> >
> > Frank Raffaeli
> > http://www.aomwireless.com/
> > "
> >
> >
> >
>
> Anyone who say there hasn't been much progress in RF since 1938 is
> horribly mistaken.
>
> That statement is so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin.
>
> r

I think the speed spray could work for cheap audio cables, yes? Why
spend all that money on precious metals and inert gasses?

Maybe I shouldn't give away my ideas for free ... ;-)

Seriously, Rich, I can understand why you said what you said. There
certainly is a lot of marketing hype about RF. Perhaps there have been
some advancements, but they are mainly cosmetic, rather than
substantive. Certainly, much of the electronics is smaller and
cheaper. I guess a cell phone would have been a bit cumbersome in
1938, but you could have used it as a space-heater ...

Frank Raffaeli
http://www.aomwireless.com/

[Robert Morein]

"Frank Raffaeli" > wrote in message
om...
> "Rich.Andrews" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in news:jp6dnStrEMNyyfXcRVn-
> > :
> >
> > > From sci.electronics.design,
> > >
> > > "Not much progress in RF since 1938 ... The RF industry has finally
> > > come (up?) to the level of the pro-audio specialty devices:
> > >
> > > http://www.j-walk.com/other/wifispray/
> > >
> > > Frank Raffaeli
> > > http://www.aomwireless.com/
> > > "
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Anyone who say there hasn't been much progress in RF since 1938 is
> > horribly mistaken.
> >
> > That statement is so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to
begin.
> >
> > r
>
> I think the speed spray could work for cheap audio cables, yes? Why
> spend all that money on precious metals and inert gasses?
>
> Maybe I shouldn't give away my ideas for free ... ;-)
>
> Seriously, Rich, I can understand why you said what you said. There
> certainly is a lot of marketing hype about RF. Perhaps there have been
> some advancements, but they are mainly cosmetic, rather than
> substantive. Certainly, much of the electronics is smaller and
> cheaper. I guess a cell phone would have been a bit cumbersome in
> 1938, but you could have used it as a space-heater ...
>
> Frank Raffaeli
> http://www.aomwireless.com/

A microwave transciever the size of a fat credit card for $25 vs. a
Hallicrafters SX-38?
You consider this cosmetic?

[Frank Raffaeli]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message >...

[snip!]
> >
> > Seriously, Rich, I can understand why you said what you said. There
> > certainly is a lot of marketing hype about RF. Perhaps there have been
> > some advancements, but they are mainly cosmetic, rather than
> > substantive. Certainly, much of the electronics is smaller and
> > cheaper. I guess a cell phone would have been a bit cumbersome in
> > 1938, but you could have used it as a space-heater ...
> >
> > Frank Raffaeli
> > http://www.aomwireless.com/
>
> A microwave transciever the size of a fat credit card for $25 vs. a
> Hallicrafters SX-38?
> You consider this cosmetic?

I admit I'm stretching the point. It's certainly more gainly as a
credit-card sized gadget, and less costly. But what of the
specifications?

There are Nokia handsets on the market that require a signal at -90
dBm to achieve a rho (Signal quality factor) of 0.90 ... This hardly
seems an advancement when the theoretical value is -114 dBm. I'd bet
the Hallicrafters comes at least 18 dB closer to theoretical than the
Nokia, (in it's native bands) with better dynamic range ... though it
may waver a bit on frequency.

This is because the manufacturers are in competition to sell a variety
of cheap handsets and turn the designs quickly. It's also because most
of us don't complain when the call drops. RF is still a milk-and-honey
business. People will buy anything ....

What I originally meant was, there seems to have been no significant
advances in RF theory since ... let's add another 10 years to include
Claude Shannon's paper ... circa 1948. The 1938 radios still came
closer to the theretical sensitivity limit than the modern Nokias and
others.

Frank Raffaeli
http://www.aomwireless.com/