Home > Archive > Electrical Engineering > June 2007 > Re: AM radio: astronomically-high frequency modulator signal present on an astronomically-low frequ









You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

 

Author Re: AM radio: astronomically-high frequency modulator signal present on an astronomically-low frequ
Sue...

2007-06-25, 8:25 pm

On Jun 25, 9:21 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.
>
> Paul Cardinale said that there is no higher limit to the frequency a
> carrier wave can transport -- regardless of the carrier wave's
> frequency.
>
> Karl Uppiano said 2.89e6-photons-per-second is the minimum wattage
> required to carry an audio signal.
>
> After reading the above, I assume it is mathematically-possible to
> carry a modulator signal with a frequency of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
> power-10^1,000,000,000 gigacycles every 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
> power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond and an amplitude of 1-watt-per-
> meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose frequency is 10^-
> (1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) nanocycle* every
> 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaeons and whose
> amplitude is a minimum of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
> power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaphotons per 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
> power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond.
>
> If I assume wrong, please explain how I am wrong as Cardinale already
> said that there is no minimum carrier-frequency required on AM radio.
> IOW, there is no limit to how high a frequency a modulator signal can
> be and still be coherently encoded on an AM carrier wave.
>
> A 20 KHz tone can exist in a 1 Hz AM carrier signal -- or that is what
> I am getting from Cardinale's statement.
>
> 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) second is an
> extremely short amount of time. 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
> power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond is even shorter because a
> nanosecond is shorter than a second.
>
> 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 cycles is an extremely
> large amount of cycles. 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000
> gigacycles is even more because a gigacycle is more than a cycle.
>
> Gigaeon = a billion eons
>
> Eon = a billion years
>
> Gigacycle = a billion cycles.
>
> *nanocycle = billionth of a cycle
>
> Gigaphoton = a billion photons
>
> 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 -- now that is one
> large large number.
>
> 10^1,000,000,000 = 10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000
>
> So you get:
>
> (10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
> power-1,000,000,000)
>
> 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) = 10^-(10-to-the-
> power-1,000,000,000)-to-the-power-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000)
>
> 10^-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
> power-1,000,000,000) is an extremely small number at it equals 10-to-
> the-power-NEGATIVE-[(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-
> to-the-power-1,000,000,000)]
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium


Just add and subtract the frequencies to get the sidebands.
Then evaluate the bandwitdth of the path for the four resultant
frequencies. Leave the photons for the quantum physicists
unless atomic emission or absorption is involved.It usually
isn't up to infrared frequencies.

Sue...

LinkBot





Other archives available: Cellular phones topics archive | Web Design forum archive | Software help archive | Hardware reviews archive | Programming topics archive

Copyright 2004 - 2008 homeownerschat.com