[hfsig] time syncronous radio protocol query
chris at yipyap.com chris at yipyap.comFri Sep 24 19:37:10 UTC 2004
- Previous message: [hfsig] RE: Report From the DCC
- Next message: [hfsig] More on synchronization
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hi, I recently attended the DCC in Des Moines. I learned about a lot of things. As usual, I was confirmed in my ignorance about a whole lotta stuff. One thing that got my mind turning was the HF digital protocol presentations about Winlink and SCAMP. I don't know hardly anything about information theory, practical data bandwith at HF, etc, which will probably be obvious in my questions! So, my mind was thinking, how would I get information faster through an limited, unreliable channel? I thought of a couple of ways to 'cheat'. Like those old signal-flag raisers in the days of sailing ships, I might use a coding system where a small amount of data would be a pointer to a larger meaning which is already located at the message destination. That might have some merit. If everyone is going to be using a computer with some software on it then there is already an assumption of shared information resources. The software on each end could have a dictionary of some sort. But the efficiency of the system relies on the frequent use of a small range of information bits. Otherwise you end up with a large dictionary, and larger pointers to get to everything. I think I would call this a separate passive channel. Another way would be to have a separate active channel, one where control information could pass outside of the data channel. I think some computer networks work this way. But, how do you get a separate channel when the receiving station is far away and HF is what we are working with? Ok, so here is where my ignorant questions are starting to come to the front. Why not use the continous flow of time as a separate active channel? I can see a couple of ways this might be of use. One would be in synchronizing data flow. You could have a synchronous-like protocol in an async environment. Another would be to use the current timestamp as an encoding key of some sort to get into that shared dictionary. I found a couple of web pages where people have talked about this a little. One is on the BBN website and it appears to be related to some military research. Support for Time-Synchronized Radios http://www.ir.bbn.com/projects/udaan/tdma_add.pdf Another is a study on the ACM site about improved efficiency with time synchronization. This one I haven't been able to read because I'm not a member of the ACM. Real-time support in multihop wireless networks http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=299571 I can see some problems in this of course. You would have delays in signal propagation and slight shifts of synchronization between the sender and the receiver. So then I get to my questions: 1) surely someone has already done this? or shown that it is a bad idea? 2) how much synchronization is possible in a practical sense? Using ntp or gps methods, how synchronized can two remote systems be? 3) assuming we can get the two ends of our communication system synchronized to a high degree, would that actually improve communications in a substantial way? (I think that is what the ACM paper is about, but I can't read it.) Thanks for the opportunity to air my thoughts. Chris kc0atc
- Previous message: [hfsig] RE: Report From the DCC
- Next message: [hfsig] More on synchronization
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the hfsig mailing list
