 
SuperJudge
Magus
Premium
join:2002-11-14
Albany, GA
clubs: | Almost packet loss. It's like, you'll have a 200Mb packet, and it'll take a week to get there, but it'll be a bigun.
--
Updated My Journal
TP&C | |
|
 | 
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana | Re: Almost packet loss. It's that darn speed of light problem again. Eienstien where are you? | |
|
| | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| Re: Almost packet loss. said by ronpin  :
It's that darn speed of light problem again. Eienstien where are you?
not to be a wise ass or anything but is it speed of light or speed of sound. I thought that a satellite was actually a frequency (i honestly don't know). If so wouldn't they just have to speed the frequency used ? ie.. different band ??
--
This package does not contain a winner... | |
|
| | |
SuperJudge
Magus
Premium
join:2002-11-14
Albany, GA
clubs: | Re: Almost packet loss. You are correct. | |
|
| | | rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
| EM waves regardless of frequency do not travel any speed other than C. Distance divided by velocity = time. Geostationary orbit = 35790km, speed of light (c) = 299,792,458 m/s:
35790000/299792458m/s = 120ms MINIMUM That is simply the time it takes the signal to get there, add another 120ms for the signal to come back about 50ms more for switching and transmission time and you you are going to end up around 3-400ms with total travel time around the net. The only change that would effect it is to alter the laws of physics or to move the satellite closer to the earth (and not geostationary). | |
|
| | | |
SuperJudge
Magus
Premium
join:2002-11-14
Albany, GA
clubs:
| Re: Almost packet loss. said by rahvin112 :
EM waves regardless of frequency do not travel any speed other than C. Distance divided by velocity = time. Geostationary orbit = 35790km, speed of light (c) = 299,792,458 m/s:
35790000/299792458m/s = 120ms MINIMUM That is simply the time it takes the signal to get there, add another 120ms for the signal to come back about 50ms more for switching and transmission time and you you are going to end up around 3-400ms with total travel time around the net. The only change that would effect it is to alter the laws of physics or to move the satellite closer to the earth (and not geostationary).
Refraction slows EM waves down.
»www.mogami-wire.co.jp/e/puzzle/pzl-14.html
»math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R···ght.html
--
Updated My Journal
TP&C | |
|
| | | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: Almost packet loss. Nice Googling, but he said MINIMUM. Anything that reduces the propagation velocity to below the theoretical maximum is going to increase the latency. What is your point? | |
|
| | | | | |
SuperJudge
Magus
Premium
join:2002-11-14
Albany, GA
clubs: | Re: Almost packet loss. My bad, it was OT, actually. His point was the latency. | |
|
| | | | 
dbirdman
Premium,MVM
join:2003-07-07
Eureka, CA
| said by rahvin112 :
35790000/299792458m/s = 120ms MINIMUM That is simply the time it takes the signal to get there, add another 120ms for the signal to come back about 50ms more for switching and transmission time and you you are going to end up around 3-400ms with total travel time around the net.
You, and whoever quoted the 46,600 mile round trip, missed two legs. You have to go up, down, up and down again for a round trip. That is 480ms without any switching, and it applies only to a dish sitting on the equator under the bird pointing straight up. For the rest of us, the trip is longer, and when you include switching you wind up with a minimum value in the 550-650ms range.
--
XP Pro | SatMex5 | 1230 | 4020 Premium | Datastorm Mobile | |
|
| | | 
superdog
I Need A Drink
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA
| said by BosstonesOwn :
I thought that a satellite was actually a frequency (i honestly don't know).
It is a frequency and all radio waves travel at the speed of light.:)
--
»www.wavecrazy.net | |
|
| | | 
herdfan
Premium
join:2003-01-25
Hurricane, WV
| Its the speed of light. Radio frequencies travel near the speed of light, the difference in frequencies are related to the size of the wave, not the speed in which it travels.
So unless they can find a way to make light make the 46,600 mile round trip faster, the latency will always be there. | |
|
| | | TemporalFlux
Premium
join:2003-08-07
Ont, Canada
·Rogers Hi-Speed
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
1 edit | It is not sound.
Light is a very short electromagnetic wave. Satellite electromagnetic waves are short too but they are longer than light and you can't see them because they are out of range to our eyes.
Light (that you can see) is about 0.00005 CM and a satellite sized wave (Microwave) is about 1 CM in size (possibly less).
If it was sound it would be like trying to talk to the rovers on Mars (Slow). (Assuming there was something to carry the vibrations, like air.)
--
Welcome those that represent SCO. Direct them to the room that says /dev/null on it. | |
|
| | | spurious
join:2001-06-09
Florence, OR | Sound waves do not travel in a vacuum (space). Satellites are in space. They use radio waves, which are electro-magnetic waves, similar to light, and these DO travel at the speed of light.
Ed | |
|
| Zidewinder
join:2003-10-27
Sarasota, FL
| said by SuperJudge :
It's like, you'll have a 200Mb packet, and it'll take a week to get there, but it'll be a bigun.
ROFLMAO! Sorry, I know this post is pointless, but that struck me so funny, I just had to reply lol.  | |
|
| |
SuperJudge
Magus
Premium
join:2002-11-14
Albany, GA
clubs: | Re: Almost packet loss. I'm glad somebody caught it, nobody has a sense of humor anymore. I exaggerate 1 billion times a day.
--
Updated My Journal
TP&C | |
|
|
|
SuperJudge
Magus
Premium
join:2002-11-14
Albany, GA
clubs: | Re: What is needed... Speed of sound. It doesn't matter, though, because 'speed of bad news' and 'speed of porn' are still faster.
--
Updated My Journal
TP&C | |
|
| |
| |
dilettante
join:2002-01-01
Haslett, MI | You have entered.... The Twilight Zone | |
|
|
dilettante
join:2002-01-01
Haslett, MI | Re: You have entered.... This thread is almost making me believe all the claims about how poor our educational system is.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. They let these people operate heavy machinery! | |
|
teknikk
Wi-Co, Inc.
Premium
join:2003-01-22
Los Angeles, CA
clubs:  | Question would it be possible to speed this up using lasers? or light signals? | |
|
| 
Rexter
YeeHaw
join:2002-11-17
cloud 9 | Re: Question A lazer is just focused light. It does not move any faster. | |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs: | File Transfers This would be great for people who transfer large files, and need the speed and dont care about the latency.
--
low cost public gameservers www.clanpubs.net | |
|
| 
misiek
join:2000-12-25
Round Lake, IL
| Re: File Transfers said by tiger72 :
This would be great for people who transfer large files, and need the speed and dont care about the latency.
Some P2P users are gonna be happy, LOL  | |
|
| | 
griminal
Finally.
join:2001-06-25
Bangor, MI | Re: File Transfers 170 MB FAP! | |
|
| | | 
koolman2
Premium
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK | Re: File Transfers You'd use that up in seconds. | |
|
|
|
|
Space Lag
What is needed...