Science Memes

11437 readers

1427 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1368

Recognize the mother of Wifi (i.imgflip.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

141 comments fedilink hide all child comments

What's your evidence, Richard Easton??!?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 68 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Note that this frequency hopping is no longer used in most WiFi networks today. It is, however, critical to classic Bluetooth, and BLE still somewhat uses it. I have no idea how it's related to GPS.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Frequency hopping in wifi was never well supported. 802.11a was primarily DSSS and afaik, very few, if any consumer devices supported the FHSS mode.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Indeed. Just speaking from a signals point of view, frequency hopping is not competitive for high bandwidth applications. It is however surprisingly durable in the presence of interference despite its simplicity. We’re seeing this play out in newer Bluetooth standards.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Isn't it still extensively used for RC stuff like drones and model aeroplanes / cars though? Asking as an amateur.

[–] Warl0k3 11 points 8 months ago

It very much is! It's widely touted as a safety feature, since interference on one frequency means you wont lose control of the flying blender for more than a few milliseconds (well, usually...)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

Yes. It works well because this is an application that requires low bandwidth, and interference could cause you to lose control and is even expected with multiple operators in the vicinity. You definitely want to have resilience to other interfering signals.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Time splitting is just lazy frequency hopping, change my mind

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Can two devices transmit at exactly the same time with time splitting?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

From a human perspective, yes, that's exactly what it does

If you want to get pedantic about the technical details, it's not time splitting if you're not splitting the time...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Technically speaking, isn’t differentiating between any two things pedantic? For example the moon, and chocolate, both are things. If you don’t want to get pedantic about it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

What I mean is if you don't slice time into slots, you're not using time slicing. It doesn't make sense to talk about time slicing at all anymore

Two devices can transmit at the same time with all sorts of setups, even on the same frequency. And it's not inaccurate to describe time slicing as "a method to allow multiple devices to transmit and receive simultaneously"

The question isn't valid. Being truly pedantic would be pointing out that any number of devices can transmit at the same time, you didn't say the messages would be received