ChesterW wrote:> These guys claim a new modulation method that exceeds the data > transmission rate set by the Shannon limit. Any opinions? Opinions on > this topic that is, I KNOW you all have considerable opinions on other > issues ;) > > http://www.astrapi-corp.com > > ChesterWThey are not the only one going beyond the Shannon barrier. "Hyper-Fi: The patented solution to our $1.5 trillion problem". The hype goes on-- Ruckus Wireless (RKUS),a small company out of California, has created and more importantly, patented a type of super signal that they call "Hyper-Fi". They created a "dynamic" antenna that moves the Wi-Fi signal the same way a lighthouse moves its beam, giving a focused signal for stronger and higher data rates. That works for everyone.. Research shows that delivering all of the expected data will swell the wireless market to $1.5 trillion by 2020. And this crap - err - farce has been going on for maybe 10 years or so.
Breaking the Shannon Channel Capacity Limit
Started by ●July 28, 2015
Reply by ●July 28, 20152015-07-28
Reply by ●July 28, 20152015-07-28
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 21:18:45 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:>On 7/28/2015 6:34 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 18:00:24 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 7/28/2015 5:41 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:29:10 -0500, ChesterW <iamsnoozin@yahoo.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> These guys claim a new modulation method that exceeds the data >>>>> transmission rate set by the Shannon limit. Any opinions? Opinions on >>>>> this topic that is, I KNOW you all have considerable opinions on other >>>>> issues ;) >>>>> >>>>> http://www.astrapi-corp.com >>>>> >>>>> ChesterW >>>> >>>> Probably just another "perpetual motion" fraudulent scheme like this >>>> one... >>>> >>>> <http://tmtechinc.com/> >>> >>> I don't see a description of how TM works, so how can you say it doesn't >>> surpass the Shannon limit? I will acknowledge it is unlikely to be >>> real, but until you know what it is, how can you say it is a fraud? >> >> I was involved, as a contractor... until I asked too many questions > >lol Not a job you want to put on your resume.Let's just note that I discussed it with one of my sons-in-law, expert in contract law, then a prosecutor, now a judge... I'm clean. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Reply by ●July 28, 20152015-07-28
On 7/28/2015 9:19 PM, rickman wrote:> On 7/28/2015 6:36 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: >> On 7/28/2015 6:00 PM, rickman wrote: >>> On 7/28/2015 5:41 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:29:10 -0500, ChesterW <iamsnoozin@yahoo.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> These guys claim a new modulation method that exceeds the data >>>>> transmission rate set by the Shannon limit. Any opinions? Opinions on >>>>> this topic that is, I KNOW you all have considerable opinions on other >>>>> issues ;) >>>>> >>>>> http://www.astrapi-corp.com >>>>> >>>>> ChesterW >>>> >>>> Probably just another "perpetual motion" fraudulent scheme like this >>>> one... >>>> >>>> <http://tmtechinc.com/> >>> >>> I don't see a description of how TM works, so how can you say it doesn't >>> surpass the Shannon limit? I will acknowledge it is unlikely to be >>> real, but until you know what it is, how can you say it is a fraud? >>> >> >> You might look up the derivation of the Shannon limit, for a start. Not >> too many assumptions involved. > > That's not the question I am asking. >If it's logically impossible, then it's not real. Read the paper. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
Reply by ●July 28, 20152015-07-28
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 19:28:21 -0700, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> Gave us:>ChesterW wrote: >> These guys claim a new modulation method that exceeds the data >> transmission rate set by the Shannon limit. Any opinions? Opinions on >> this topic that is, I KNOW you all have considerable opinions on other >> issues ;) >> >> http://www.astrapi-corp.com >> >> ChesterW > They are not the only one going beyond the Shannon barrier. > > "Hyper-Fi: The patented solution to our $1.5 trillion problem". > The hype goes on-- > Ruckus Wireless (RKUS),a small company out of California, has created >and more importantly, patented a type of super signal that they call >"Hyper-Fi". They created a "dynamic" antenna that moves the Wi-Fi signal >the same way a lighthouse moves its beam, giving a focused signal for >stronger and higher data rates. > That works for everyone.. > Research shows that delivering all of the expected data will swell >the wireless market to $1.5 trillion by 2020. > > And this crap - err - farce has been going on for maybe 10 years or so. >A directed signal that maximizes what is available is NOT "going beyond the Shannon barrier". So "farce" is the right term to describe such a claim.
Reply by ●July 29, 20152015-07-29
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 21:22:45 -0400, rickman wrote:> On 7/28/2015 7:33 PM, Tim Wescott wrote: >> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 18:00:24 -0400, rickman wrote: >> >>> On 7/28/2015 5:41 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:29:10 -0500, ChesterW <iamsnoozin@yahoo.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> These guys claim a new modulation method that exceeds the data >>>>> transmission rate set by the Shannon limit. Any opinions? Opinions >>>>> on this topic that is, I KNOW you all have considerable opinions on >>>>> other issues ;) >>>>> >>>>> http://www.astrapi-corp.com >>>>> >>>>> ChesterW >>>> >>>> Probably just another "perpetual motion" fraudulent scheme like this >>>> one... >>>> >>>> <http://tmtechinc.com/> >>> >>> I don't see a description of how TM works, so how can you say it >>> doesn't surpass the Shannon limit? I will acknowledge it is unlikely >>> to be real, but until you know what it is, how can you say it is a >>> fraud? >> >> The proof of the Shannon limit is pretty straightforward, and very >> clear cut: >> >> http://web.stanford.edu/class/ee104/shannonpaper.pdf >> >> The paper tries to disprove it for non-periodic signals, but they base >> their claims on the notion that the Fourier transform doesn't work for >> non-periodic signals -- which it does, admirably. >> >> At that point my BS detectors started ringing loudly, and I stopped >> reading. I suspect that if you go deep enough into their paper they'll >> be making all these claims about their exponential or polynomial >> functions or whatever, and you'll find that at they're taking some >> infinitely-long signal in time and lopping it off to finite length -- >> which will increase the bandwidth, which will blow their argument all >> to hell, etc., etc. > > But until you see what they are doing, you can't really say... > > I remember a paper many years ago that was looking at data which might > show discrepancies from the laws of gravity. Yes, we have done lots and > lots of work with those laws and they seem solid enough. But this was > taken seriously at the time.But this paper is based on the obviously false premise that you cannot analyze non-periodic waveforms using the Fourier transform. That's not a "discrepancy from known" -- that's a "1 + 1 = apples".> At some point they will have to protect their work with a patent. Then > we will all get to see just what they are doing.At some point the fact that they're stupidly or fraudulently wrong will catch up with them. Then we'll be left as much in the dark as we are now. If the fundamentals are canny and dishonest, then they're squirreling away the venture capital someplace where they'll be able to keep it when things go pear-shaped. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●July 29, 20152015-07-29
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 19:28:21 -0700, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:>> ChesterW > They are not the only one going beyond the Shannon barrier.If you're going to quote web pages, it might be helpful if you also provided a URL and clearly separate your comments from the quotes.> "Hyper-Fi: The patented solution to our $1.5 trillion problem". > The hype goes on-- > Ruckus Wireless (RKUS),a small company out of California, has created >and more importantly, patented a type of super signal that they call >"Hyper-Fi". They created a "dynamic" antenna that moves the Wi-Fi signal >the same way a lighthouse moves its beam, giving a focused signal for >stronger and higher data rates. > That works for everyone.. > Research shows that delivering all of the expected data will swell >the wireless market to $1.5 trillion by 2020. > > And this crap - err - farce has been going on for maybe 10 years or so.Ruckus was formed in June 2004. It was formerly called Video54. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruckus_Wireless> The technology your describe is an optional part of the IEEE 802.11n MIMO specification and is called beamforming and beam steering. <http://www.ruckuswireless.com/technology/80211n> 802.11n is largely responsible for the higher wireless throughput claims found in current wireless products. (Big numbers are a good thing). It also helps in dealing with multipath cancellation (frequency selective fading) by using multipath reflections to boost throughput as the spatial diversity part of 802.11n. Whenever this comes up, there's usually some discussion of whether MIMO violates the Shannon bandwidth limit. These might help: "MIMO Spatial Multiplexing" <http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/antennas/mimo/spatial-multiplexing.php> "Capacity Limits of MIMO Systems" <http://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/ee/ee359/ee359.1062/cup_mimo.pdf> The HyperFi buzzword appears to be a failed attempt to pump up the stock by replacing mundane acronyms and boring technobabble names with something that might be expected to appeal to investors and others that find technology profitable, but quite unfathomable: <http://www.stockgumshoe.com/reviews/oxford-club/hyper-fi-teased-to-drive-10-stock/> <http://www.pennymotion.com/investment-articles/the-hyper-fi-stock/> I don't think I've seen the term used in the last few months. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Reply by ●July 29, 20152015-07-29
On 7/28/15 4:29 PM, ChesterW wrote:> These guys claim a new modulation method that exceeds the data > transmission rate set by the Shannon limit. Any opinions? Opinions on > this topic that is, I KNOW you all have considerable opinions on other > issues ;) > > http://www.astrapi-corp.com > > ChesterWThanks for all of the responses. I found their math kind of pretty and liked partitioning Taylor's expansion of e^x to form a signal constellation. Besides, who wouldn't want to encode data using complex-plane spirals? Their idea that somehow the use of exponential high slew-rate symbols (that they admit require faster sampling) somehow avoids adding bandwidth to the signal though is clearly wrong. It's disappointing. The company just raised $1.5M in seed funding. They are claiming 10x over Shannon. ChesterW
Reply by ●July 29, 20152015-07-29
On 7/28/2015 8:22 PM, rickman wrote:> On 7/28/2015 7:33 PM, Tim Wescott wrote: >> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 18:00:24 -0400, rickman wrote: >> >>> On 7/28/2015 5:41 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:29:10 -0500, ChesterW <iamsnoozin@yahoo.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> These guys claim a new modulation method that exceeds the data >>>>> transmission rate set by the Shannon limit. Any opinions? Opinions on >>>>> this topic that is, I KNOW you all have considerable opinions on other >>>>> issues ;) >>>>> >>>>> http://www.astrapi-corp.com >>>>> >>>>> ChesterW >>>> >>>> Probably just another "perpetual motion" fraudulent scheme like this >>>> one... >>>> >>>> <http://tmtechinc.com/> >>> >>> I don't see a description of how TM works, so how can you say it doesn't >>> surpass the Shannon limit? I will acknowledge it is unlikely to be >>> real, but until you know what it is, how can you say it is a fraud? >> >> The proof of the Shannon limit is pretty straightforward, and very clear >> cut: >> >> http://web.stanford.edu/class/ee104/shannonpaper.pdf >> >> The paper tries to disprove it for non-periodic signals, but they base >> their claims on the notion that the Fourier transform doesn't work for >> non-periodic signals -- which it does, admirably. >> >> At that point my BS detectors started ringing loudly, and I stopped >> reading. I suspect that if you go deep enough into their paper they'll >> be making all these claims about their exponential or polynomial >> functions or whatever, and you'll find that at they're taking some >> infinitely-long signal in time and lopping it off to finite length -- >> which will increase the bandwidth, which will blow their argument all to >> hell, etc., etc. > > But until you see what they are doing, you can't really say... > > I remember a paper many years ago that was looking at data which might > show discrepancies from the laws of gravity. Yes, we have done lots and > lots of work with those laws and they seem solid enough. But this was > taken seriously at the time. > > At some point they will have to protect their work with a patent. Then > we will all get to see just what they are doing. >They claim "TM was issued its bedrock U.S. Patent, Number 9014293 on April 21, 2015 and has other U.S. and International patents pending." I didn't try to look up the patent.
Reply by ●July 29, 20152015-07-29
On 28/07/2015 23:03, Phil Hobbs wrote:> On 7/28/2015 5:41 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:29:10 -0500, ChesterW <iamsnoozin@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >>> These guys claim a new modulation method that exceeds the data >>> transmission rate set by the Shannon limit. Any opinions? Opinions on >>> this topic that is, I KNOW you all have considerable opinions on other >>> issues ;) >>> >>> http://www.astrapi-corp.com >>> >>> ChesterW >> >> Probably just another "perpetual motion" fraudulent scheme like this >> one... >> >> <http://tmtechinc.com/> >> >> ...Jim ThompsonI expect enough funders will fall for it though. Shannon's theorem hangs on the original signal being band limited. The reason they may seem to do better is that their non-periodic signal with a growing exponential is not strictly band limited!> Oh, dear, the orbital angular momentum folks have come to microwave. A > few years back the original OAM people were claiming that there was this > vast number of completely untapped propagation modes in fibres that > would allow some ridiculous gross bandwidth increase. > > Then some saner folks published this beautiful > letter-to-the-journal-editor that I can't lay my hands on...it showed > that if the OAM people were correct, the blackbody radiation from a hot > object would go up by a similar ridiculously large factor, which is not > observed. The OAM states aren't new-and-different, they're just another > basis set for the EM field. Nothing to see here folks, show's over, > move along.You can in principle get a factor of two channel improvement by using the same frequency and two orthogonal polarisations but that is all. Agreed. Any apparent breaking of the Shannon capacity limit that they might see is due to pumping up the signal amplitude in their new "spiral" basis set. It looks to me like the same basis set apply to the interpretation of NMR spectra so there really is nothing new here. Maximum entropy analysis of NMR in the 1980's by Sibisi & Skilling explored solving the problem in terms of amplitude across the complex plane - allowing both the frequency and the decay rate to be modelled. There were been earlier solutions by Ernst but theirs was the neatest. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v311/n5985/abs/311446a0.html The NMR basis set are a set of decaying exponentials. You get into trouble if you try to use growing exponentials in any practical system. That is about the earliest I know of where this has been done. You can extract the optimum solution trading resolution against available local SNR at considerable computational cost. These days with computer time so cheap this is not an unreasonable strategy. The implicit periodicity of the finite Fourier transform is a mere limitation on the practical case and another red herring. Numerically FFTs can be used to simulate exact classical DFT by suitable gridding functions and post processing to sacrifice aliased edges. Radio astronomy and NMR folks are masters at these techniques. -- Regards, Martin Brown
Reply by ●July 29, 20152015-07-29
On 28/07/2015 22:29, ChesterW wrote:> These guys claim a new modulation method that exceeds the data > transmission rate set by the Shannon limit. Any opinions? Opinions on > this topic that is, I KNOW you all have considerable opinions on other > issues ;) > > http://www.astrapi-corp.com > > ChesterWIn fact, the speed limit on most of the Shannon is 6 kph. That's ~1.7 m/s. In a 1.7m length of canal boat, I reckon you could probably fit 10 million 16GB memory chips, so that puts the Shannon limit at upwards of 1e18 bits per second. Cheers -- Syd
