All microwave frequencies heat water molecules, fyi. The early ovens used a klystron that was good at 2.4 GHZ because it was available and cheap enough. But they don't radiate much. 5.8 GHz was chosen because the band's primary was a government band at EOL.

Yes... higher frequency bands have not been used for broadcasting. That's because planetary curvature can be conquered by refraction near the earth's surface and reflection by the ionosphere. That's why power doesn't help were we to use higher frequencies for broadcasting.  But data communications is not broadcasting. So satellite broadcasters can use higher frequencies  for broadcasting. And they do, because it's a lot easier to build directional antennas at higher frequencies. Same for radar and GPS.

Think about acoustics.  Higher frequencies from a tweeter propagate through air just as well as lower frequencies from subwoofers. But our ears are more directional antennae at the higher frequencies. Similar properties apply to EM waves. And low frequencies refract around corners and along the ground better.  The steel of a car body does not couple to higher frequencies so it reradiates low freq sounds better than high freq ones. Hence the loud car stereo bass is much louder than treble when the cabin is sealed.

On Dec 21, 2014, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014, David P. Reed wrote:

Neither 2.4 GHZ nor 5.8 GHz are absorbed more than other bands. That's an old
wives tale. The reason for the bands' selection is that they were available at
the time. The water absorption peak frequency is 10x higher.

well, microwave ovens do work at around 2.4GHz, so there's some interaction with
water at that frequency.

Don't believe what people repeat without checking. The understanding of radio
propagation by CS and EE folks is pitiful. Some even seem to think that RF
energy travels less far the higher the frequency.

I agree that the RF understanding is poor, but given that it's so far outside
their area of focus, that's understandable.

the mistake about higher frequencies traveling less is easy to understand, since
higher frequency transmistters tend to be lower power than lower frequencies,
there is a correlation between frequency and distance with commonly available
equipment that is easy to mistake for causation.

David Lang

Please don't repeat nonsense.

On Dec 20, 2014, Mike O'Dell <mo@ccr.org> wrote:
15.9bps/Hz is unlikely to be using simple phase encoding

that sounds more like 64QAM with FEC.
given the chips available these days for DTV, DBS,
and even LTE, that kind of processing is available
off-the-shelf (relatively speaking - compared to
writing your own DSP code).

keep in mind that the reason the 2.4 and 5.8 ISM bands
are where they are is specifically because of the ready
absorption of RF at those frequencies. the propagation
is *intended* to be problematic. that said, with
good-enough antennas mounted with sufficient stability
and sufficient power on the TX end and a good enough
noise floor on the RX end, one can push a bunch of bits
pretty far.

Bdale Garbee (of Debian fame) had a 10GHz bent-pipe repeater
up on the mountain above Colo Spgs for quite some time. X-band
Gunnplexers were not hard to come by and retune for the
10GHz ham band. i believe he just FM'ed the Gunnplexer
with the output of a 10Mbps ethernet chip and ran
essentially pure Aloha. X-band dishes are relatively
small and with just a few stations in the area he had fun.

-mo

Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

-- Sent from my Android device with K-@ Mail. Please excuse my brevity.


Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

-- Sent from my Android device with K-@ Mail. Please excuse my brevity.