Re: LF: Re: The myth of interference ?

To:	[email protected]
Subject:	Re: LF: Re: The myth of interference ?
From:	"Andre Kesteloot" <[email protected]>
Date:	Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:58:07 -0500
References:	<[email protected]> <009101c2ec5b$4a92a9e0$b932f7c2@a7j7r2>
Reply-to:	[email protected]
Sender:	<[email protected]>
User-agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01

John Rabson wrote:

The author seems to be confusing "interference" in the sense a physicist
would use the term (that is, interaction between photons or electromagnetic
waves in a fundamental sense) and the sense in which a radio engineer would
use it (disturbance of one radio transmission system by another).

If I have understood him correctly, he seems also to be suggesting that

there is an infinite amount of transmission bandwidth available.

Exactly, and based on the premises of this article, our politicalleaders could now resell the _same_ RF bandwidth to multiple users :-)

73
André N4ICK

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
LF: The myth of interference ?, Andre Kesteloot LF: Re: The myth of interference ?, John Rabson LF: Re: The myth of interference ?, Stewart Nelson Re: LF: Re: The myth of interference ?, Andre Kesteloot <=

Previous by Date:	Re: [Fwd: LF: POUR LES FRANCOPHONES], Jay Rusgrove
Next by Date:	LF: Re: VLF signals, Alberto di Bene
Previous by Thread:	LF: Re: The myth of interference ?, Stewart Nelson
Next by Thread:	LF: bandplan, hamilton mal
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]