🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <46fefb70$0$7493$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Green Xenon [Radium] <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:

> > Sure it is possible. It won't be of any assistance to you (or to
> > anyone else since you can't put 8 pounds in a 1-pound sack.
> > Bandwidth is bandwidth, no matter how you slice it. Do you
> > really think that nobody has thought of various methods of
> > transmitting video over low-bandwidth paths? If so, you need
> > to study not only science and engineering but the HISTORY
> > of science and engineering.
>
>There are 8-bits-per-symbol, only 1 baud. The symbol is split into 8 
>parts. Each part is 1-bit.
>
>How is this �putting 8 pounds in a 1-pound sack?�
>
>It�s more like �putting 1 pound in a 1-pound sack�

You are using the word "split" without defining what you are meaning,
and I think you may be using the word "bit" in two different ways (as
in "a single binary digit's worth of information" and "a part")...
maybe I'm wrong about the latter.

Sure, you can carry 8 bits of information per symbol, at a rate of one
baud.  That's an information rate of 8 bits per second, which isn't a
terribly useful amount of information.

What I *think* you are saying is something along the lines of

  "If there's no way to carry N bits of information per symbol (where 
   N is a large number) at a rate of 1 symbol per second, in a
   specified bandwidth, over a channel having a certain amount of
   dynamic range / signal-to-noise ratio available, then I'd
   like to somehow divide each symbol into eight sub-symbols which
   each carry N/8 of the information, but which still make up only one
   symbol per second.  My hope is that these eight sub-symbols could
   be easier to transmit, somehow, than a single symbol carrying N
   bits, and that I could thus transmit them more easily but without
   using any more bandwidth.  Can I do that?"
   
If that's what you're asking, the answer is "no".

Once you hit the theoretical information limit of the communication
channel (which is set by the bandwidth you use and by the amount of
noise on the channel) you can't do any better than that.  No matter
how you modulate (changing the baud rate, the amount of information
per symbol, etc.) you can't do better than this.

And, as we've been trying to make clear, your goal is quite far beyond
the theoretical limit.  You just can't get there.  You're trying to
put all of Lake Erie in a water-glass.

Let it go, Radium.

-- 
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org>                                   AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page:  http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
  I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
     boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

"Green Xenon [Radium]"  wrote ...
> "Richard Crowley"  wrote  :
> > "Green Xenon [Radium]"  wrote ...
> > > Anyways, my next question. Is it possible to split the symbol of a 
> > > 1
> > > baud, 8-bit-per-symbol signal
> > > into 8 bits? I.e. in this case, a single
> > > symbol would be split into 8 different
> > > parts each carrying one of the
> > > bits. Is this possible? If so, would
> > > this be of any assistance to me?
>
> > Sure it is possible. It won't be of any assistance to you (or to
> > anyone else since you can't put 8 pounds in a 1-pound sack.
> > Bandwidth is bandwidth, no matter how you slice it. Do you
> > really think that nobody has thought of various methods of
> > transmitting video over low-bandwidth paths? If so, you need
> > to study not only science and engineering but the HISTORY
> > of science and engineering.
>
> There are 8-bits-per-symbol, only 1 baud. The symbol is split into 8 
> parts. Each part is 1-bit.
>
> How is this �putting 8 pounds in a 1-pound sack?�
>
> It�s more like �putting 1 pound in a 1-pound sack�

Which weighs more: one 8-pound sack, or eight 1-pound sacks?
Yes, it is a trick question, but you are the master of trick questions. 

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message 
news:13g11vn3e4ksc08@corp.supernews.com...
> Which weighs more: one 8-pound sack, or eight 1-pound sacks?
> Yes, it is a trick question, but you are the master of trick questions.

Or we might ask our boy Radium this one:

Which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of
gold? ;-)


Bob M.

Bob Myers wrote:
> "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message 
> news:13g11vn3e4ksc08@corp.supernews.com...
>> Which weighs more: one 8-pound sack, or eight 1-pound sacks?
>> Yes, it is a trick question, but you are the master of trick questions.
> 
> Or we might ask our boy Radium this one:
> 
> Which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of
> gold? ;-)
> 
> 
Errm...
1 troy ounce (Gold) = 1.09714 imperial ounces (Feathers)
12 Troy ounces = 1 Troy pound (Gold)
16 ounces = 1 pound (Feathers)

1 (troy) pound Gold = 0.822857 pounds (Imperial) feathers

Sorry to be picky...;-)

-- 
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 10/1/07 2:18 PM, in article fdrnc7$mi8$1@stable.tornevall.net, "John
Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Bob Myers wrote:
>> "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
>> news:13g11vn3e4ksc08@corp.supernews.com...
>>> Which weighs more: one 8-pound sack, or eight 1-pound sacks?
>>> Yes, it is a trick question, but you are the master of trick questions.
>> 
>> Or we might ask our boy Radium this one:
>> 
>> Which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of
>> gold? ;-)
>> 
>> 
> Errm...

Errm?  Clearing your throat?

> 1 troy ounce (Gold) = 1.09714 imperial ounces (Feathers)
> 12 Troy ounces = 1 Troy pound (Gold)
> 16 ounces = 1 pound (Feathers)
> 
> 1 (troy) pound Gold = 0.822857 pounds (Imperial) feathers
> 
> Sorry to be picky...;-)

To be picky......... I'm sure it was assumed that both the feathers and gold
would be measured with the same scale.

"John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:fdrnc7$mi8$1@stable.tornevall.net...
> Bob Myers wrote:
>> "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message 
>> news:13g11vn3e4ksc08@corp.supernews.com...
>>> Which weighs more: one 8-pound sack, or eight 1-pound sacks?
>>> Yes, it is a trick question, but you are the master of trick questions.
>>
>> Or we might ask our boy Radium this one:
>>
>> Which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of
>> gold? ;-)
>>
>>
> Errm...
> 1 troy ounce (Gold) = 1.09714 imperial ounces (Feathers)
> 12 Troy ounces = 1 Troy pound (Gold)
> 16 ounces = 1 pound (Feathers)
>
> 1 (troy) pound Gold = 0.822857 pounds (Imperial) feathers
>
> Sorry to be picky...;-)
>

Oh, fine - just GIVE the answer away!

Why, pray tell, did you THINK I was suggesting this
question be asked of our dear friend Radium?  Didn't
occur to you that there might actually be a reason I
chose those two particular materials?

Bob M. 

"Don Bowey" <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:C326B53C.791C0%dbowey@comcast.net...
> To be picky......... I'm sure it was assumed that both the feathers and 
> gold
> would be measured with the same scale.

Sorry, Don - bad assumption, which was the whole point of
the "trick question."  But John W. just HAD to go and spoil
the fun before we could possibly see Radium jump in....sigh...

Bob M.

On 10/1/07 6:05 PM, in article fds5gg$lah$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com, "Bob Myers"
<nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:

> 
> "Don Bowey" <dbowey@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:C326B53C.791C0%dbowey@comcast.net...
>> To be picky......... I'm sure it was assumed that both the feathers and
>> gold
>> would be measured with the same scale.
> 
> Sorry, Don - bad assumption, which was the whole point of
> the "trick question."  But John W. just HAD to go and spoil
> the fun before we could possibly see Radium jump in....sigh...
> 
> Bob M.
> 
> 

Well, Radium sets hooks far better that he takes one.  I suspect he has no
interest in other's questions.

Bob Myers wrote:
> 
> "John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:fdrnc7$mi8$1@stable.tornevall.net...
> > Bob Myers wrote:
> >> "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
> >> news:13g11vn3e4ksc08@corp.supernews.com...
> >>> Which weighs more: one 8-pound sack, or eight 1-pound sacks?
> >>> Yes, it is a trick question, but you are the master of trick questions.
> >>
> >> Or we might ask our boy Radium this one:
> >>
> >> Which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of
> >> gold? ;-)
> >>
> >>
> > Errm...
> > 1 troy ounce (Gold) = 1.09714 imperial ounces (Feathers)
> > 12 Troy ounces = 1 Troy pound (Gold)
> > 16 ounces = 1 pound (Feathers)
> >
> > 1 (troy) pound Gold = 0.822857 pounds (Imperial) feathers
> >
> > Sorry to be picky...;-)
> >
> 
> Oh, fine - just GIVE the answer away!
> 
> Why, pray tell, did you THINK I was suggesting this
> question be asked of our dear friend Radium?  Didn't
> occur to you that there might actually be a reason I
> chose those two particular materials?
> 
> Bob M.


   No, other than he's a gold bricking bird brain.


-- 
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

In article <fdrnc7$mi8$1@stable.tornevall.net>, 
johnwilliamson@btinternet.com says...
> Bob Myers wrote:
> > "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message 
> > news:13g11vn3e4ksc08@corp.supernews.com...
> >> Which weighs more: one 8-pound sack, or eight 1-pound sacks?
> >> Yes, it is a trick question, but you are the master of trick questions.
> > 
> > Or we might ask our boy Radium this one:
> > 
> > Which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of
> > gold? ;-)
> > 
> > 
> Errm...
> 1 troy ounce (Gold) = 1.09714 imperial ounces (Feathers)
> 12 Troy ounces = 1 Troy pound (Gold)
> 16 ounces = 1 pound (Feathers)
> 
> 1 (troy) pound Gold = 0.822857 pounds (Imperial) feathers
> 
> Sorry to be picky...;-)
> 
> 

There's a bit in one of Richard Feynmann's books where he's talking 
about borrowing the US's silver reserves to make generator windings for 
the Manhattan Project during WW2. The Treasury agreed to the request, 
but took offence for being asked for several tons of silver, pointing 
out that "we actually measure silver in ounces"...

-- 
Halmyre