Mon, 08 Feb 1999 19:16:15 -0500
My discussion meant a single RF path, namely one transmitter ttalking to one
receiver. They need to be on the same frequency, unless a repeater or other
frequency translator is used. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
Andre' Kesteloot wrote:
> Terry Fox wrote:
> > 1. If we are going to communicate over long distances, we need some
> > method of determining what frequency to transmit, and therefore to
> > receive on. The more accurate the two sides are on exact frequency, the
> > narrower the receiver can look. This reduces noise, and can lead to
> > additional "processing gain". The problem is how to coordinate the
> > frequency between the two sides to an amount that is worthwhile.
> yes, but we do not have to transmit and receive on the _same_
> frequency. The two frequnecies do not have to be related. It could also be
> that I am plagued by an insurmountable QRM on a frequency F1, and thus you
> should transmit to me on F2, and vice versa.
> On the other hand, if I know what frequency I transmit on, and I happen to
> be very stable, you could calibrate your transmitter to be nHz above or
> below from me, which will make my search for your transmission easier,
> (since I know where I am).
> In addition, we should be able to watch, say, a 200 Hz band without too much
> of a problem.