SuperJudgeRaiden Wins Premium Member join:2002-11-14 Atlanta, GA |
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. | |
|
| ronpinImagine Reality join:2002-12-06 Nirvana |
ronpin
Member
2004-Apr-13 9:34 am
Re: Almost packet loss.It's that darn speed of light problem again. Eienstien where are you? | |
|
| | |
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 ?? | |
|
| | | SuperJudgeRaiden Wins Premium Member join:2002-11-14 Atlanta, GA |
Re: Almost packet loss.You are correct. | |
|
| | | |
to BosstonesOwn
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). | |
|
| | | | SuperJudgeRaiden Wins Premium Member join:2002-11-14 Atlanta, GA |
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/ ··· -14.html» math.ucr.edu/home/baez/p ··· ght.html | |
|
| | | | | |
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? | |
|
| | | | | | SuperJudgeRaiden Wins Premium Member join:2002-11-14 Atlanta, GA |
Re: Almost packet loss.My bad, it was OT, actually. His point was the latency. | |
|
| | | | |
to rahvin112
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. | |
|
| | | superdogI Need A Drink MVM join:2001-07-13 Lebanon, PA |
to BosstonesOwn
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.:) | |
|
| | | herdfan Premium Member join:2003-01-25 Hurricane, WV |
to BosstonesOwn
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. | |
|
| | | 1 edit |
to BosstonesOwn
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.) | |
|
| | | |
to BosstonesOwn
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 | |
|
| |
to SuperJudge
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. | |
|
| | SuperJudgeRaiden Wins Premium Member join:2002-11-14 Atlanta, GA |
Re: Almost packet loss.I'm glad somebody caught it, nobody has a sense of humor anymore. I exaggerate 1 billion times a day. | |
|
n2jtx join:2001-01-13 Glen Head, NY |
n2jtx
Member
2004-Apr-13 9:47 am
What is needed......is a subspace communication system. This will vastly improve the latency versus current speed-of-light technology. | |
|
| SuperJudgeRaiden Wins Premium Member join:2002-11-14 Atlanta, GA |
Re: What is needed...Speed of sound. It doesn't matter, though, because 'speed of bad news' and 'speed of porn' are still faster. | |
|
| ronpinImagine Reality join:2002-12-06 Nirvana |
to n2jtx
said by n2jtx: ...is a subspace communication system. This will vastly improve the latency versus current speed-of-light technology.
Uh yeah -- I have one -- for sale -- cheap!. I'm gonna let you in on the ground floor -- just email me with your VISA number (heh-heh). | |
|
| |
|
You have entered....The Twilight Zone | |
|
| dilettante |
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! | |
|
teknikk7Wi-Co, Inc. Premium Member join:2003-01-22 Los Angeles, CA |
teknikk7
Premium Member
2004-Apr-13 11:24 am
Questionwould it be possible to speed this up using lasers? or light signals? | |
|
| RexterLibertas, Aequitas, Veritas join:2002-11-17 cloud 9 |
Rexter
Member
2004-Apr-13 11:31 am
Re: QuestionA lazer is just focused light. It does not move any faster. | |
|
tiger72SexaT duorP Premium Member join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO |
tiger72
Premium Member
2004-Apr-13 11:52 am
File TransfersThis would be great for people who transfer large files, and need the speed and dont care about the latency. | |
|
| misiek Premium Member join:2000-12-25 Round Lake, IL |
misiek
Premium Member
2004-Apr-13 12:13 pm
Re: File Transferssaid 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 | |
|
| | griminalFinally. join:2001-06-25 Bangor, MI |
Re: File Transfers170 MB FAP! | |
|
| | | koolman2 Premium Member join:2002-10-01 Anchorage, AK |
koolman2
Premium Member
2004-Apr-13 2:53 pm
Re: File TransfersYou'd use that up in seconds. | |
|
|
|