Tech Review reports an "impossible" development, https://www.technologyreview.com/lists/innovators-under-35/2016/inventor/dinesh-bharadia/
Because the signal from broadcasting a radio transmission can be 100 billion times louder than the receiving one, it was always assumed that outgoing signals would invariably drown out incoming ones. That's why radios typically send and receive on different frequencies or rapidly alternate between transmitting and receiving. "Even textbooks kind of assumed it was impossible," Bharadia says.
Bharadia developed hardware and software that selectively cancel the far louder outgoing transmission so that a radio can decipher the incoming message. The creation of the first full-duplex radio, which eventually could be incorporated into cell phones, should effectively double available wireless bandwidth by simply using it twice.
Any bets on when this will make it to production, maybe as part of 7G(eneration) wireless? Or will the technology go black, used first by military?
And, does a person's name ever influence their career? "Bharadia" sounds awfully close to "bi-radio"...
(Score: 2, Funny) by DannyB on Thursday September 22 2016, @01:27PM
So this could be a solution for people who are "transmit only" ?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by fishybell on Thursday September 22 2016, @03:32PM
No, for them you need a mute button [dailymail.co.uk]/
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @01:37PM
So why is this not just a reinvention of echo cancellation which is a common communication engineering technology.
Used in long distance circuits, conference phones, modems from the 80's, and more recently coherent optical circuits.
He claims that it works when tx is 100Billion time louder than rx. (110dB)
That sounds like good engineering, but not necessarily surprising.
What am I missing here?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @05:14PM
You're missing a marketing arm to tell the world of your success in using known principles and applying it to Internet/Cloud/Mobile Phones. This guy has such a department, and may reap the rewards of it.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday September 22 2016, @09:54PM
Just *how* good the engineering is.
The problem with echo cancellation is that it's not perfect. But that's okay, because the echo is generally smaller, or at least not much larger, than the original signal. So if you can eliminate the echo with even 90% accuracy, you're left with random noise that's less than 10% of the amplitude of the signal you're trying to receive, a 10:1 signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR). You can usually work with that.
In this case though, you're dealing with an "echo" that's millions or billions of times larger than the incoming signal. It has very little lag, and comparatively low uncertainty, but even if you can deliver really incredibly impressive, near-perfect signal cancellation, eliminating 99.999% of the transmitted signal, you're still left with noise that's 0.001% of a million times bigger than the incoming signal: 10x as much "random" noise as you have signal. That's going to be like listening for ghost voices in TV static.
And these folks are claiming they can reconstruct the received signal despite an "echo" a 100 billion times larger than the incoming signal. To do that, with the same "adequate" 10:1 SNR as in the first example, they need to eliminate 99.9999999999% of the echo. That's not just good, that's practically godlike.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday September 22 2016, @10:09PM
I realize a bunch of 9s doesn't necessarily mean much to a lot of people, so let me give a more concrete example:
The moon is 238,900 miles away. Being able to eliminate that much noise is akin to being able to map, from here, the height of the moons surface with 1/8" accuracy
Or alternately, to be able to stand in LA, and measure the thickness of a single strand of hair in New York
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Friday September 23 2016, @03:33AM
And for those MBAs you could just say it's 12σ, that's 2 times more 9's than with 6σ [wikipedia.org]!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @12:16PM
Except it's not.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Friday September 23 2016, @09:50PM
I was referring to the amount of nines.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @01:57PM
The real problems are twofold: at what significant power level will the transmit power will end up desensing the receiver. It doesn't matter that one hits a magic formula, the question is still a basic one of how much power can be shoved out before the densense will occur. (And, improperly done, can end up permanently damaging a receiver's sensitivity.) But is the power level sufficient for whatever purpose one has in mind... I can see some kind of combination of echo suppression and data frequency handshaking (host uses one set of tones, client uses different frequencies) which would allow this.
The second problem.... The traditional method of solving this is a frequency shift between transmitter and receiver of enough bandspace and at frequencies that do not pick up any unsupressable natural harmonics - commercial and amateur repeaters have been doing this for decades. That, though, requires a duplexer. You know, like your phone already has in order to enable two-way communication? (And data-side, like Modems have had for decades?) So what problems does this idea really solve that traditional duplexing hasn't? Why is it that desirable to have the duplex occur on a single frequency?
The final problem... this is apparently a promo piece about how the person has dropped out to make their own startup. Come back when he's been successful at that, for until it is applied (and applied successfully) it is still just theory, or a solution in search of a problem.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VanderDecken on Thursday September 22 2016, @02:32PM
TBH, I can't see this as being all that interesting for mainstream military purposes. The big wins there are frequency hopping, burst tx, and crypto. As someone else said, it sounds like more of a solution looking for a problem, unless there's a second order benefit in SIGINT or some such.
The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @02:42PM
My bet is military has been using it for years, in CW radars.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Spook brat on Thursday September 22 2016, @04:43PM
I disagree; much of military radio protocol is based on the limitation of talk-or-listen-but-never-both that, until now, was considered inherent to radio operation. I'd be interested to see how that culture shifts after adoption of this new technique.
Of course, it's likely that protocol would remain; there are advantages to a system where only one person talks at once, and I kinda doubt the .mil would want to lose that. At least, though, when SHTF and radio discipline breaks down, the radio operator would know that they're talking over someone else. That alone would be worth adopting full duplex radio in a military setting.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Thursday September 22 2016, @04:57PM
If this technology pans out, the military will certainly embrace it...ten years after it's commonplace everywhere else. The speed of military acquisition is mind-numbingly slow...
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @06:34PM
The transmitting part can cleanly remove his own signal and read the other one, but a third party would have to do a lot more work to deduce both the signals. I don't know enough about radio to comment on how much work really, but it seems like it would impede casual eavesdropping while probably not seriously impeding a real adversary.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Thursday September 22 2016, @07:24PM
it seems like it would impede casual eavesdropping while probably not seriously impeding a real adversary.
Not even that. Anyone listening with an antenna that's not literally on the same circuit as the transmitter doesn't have anywhere near the problem listening to both transmissions as either transmitter does. It's like standing in a cocktail party; unless someone is shouting right in your ear it's not hard to hear multiple conversations at once.
If you want to make a clean recording of only one voice in multiple broadcasts then that can be tricky, but it's not a problem fixed by this article's innovation (and not particularly hard, either).
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @08:09PM
And, does a person's name ever influence their career? "Bharadia" sounds awfully close to "bi-radio"...
... Alexander Graham Bell
... Thomas Crapper
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @10:47PM
Lance Romance and Judy Swallows take the cake / bukkake.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @12:50AM
http://www.scilogs.com/counterbalanced/academic-nominative-determinism-the-years-best/ [scilogs.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptronym [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @12:25PM
crapper was a term that came into use after Crapper's invention, so does not count as nominative determinism. In other words, the crapper was named for the man, so it could not have determined his fate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 22 2016, @08:40PM
Comtech has been doing this with sat modems. It's a pay-extra feature.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday September 23 2016, @03:48AM
His name is Dinesh which literally means Lord of the Day.
His family name is Bharadia. It is derived from word Bharat, which is the name of India in Sanskrit.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday September 23 2016, @03:58PM
Whatever happened to Steve Perlman's miracle radio technologies?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]