Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#22
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 4/1/2014 5:53 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 16:02:33 -0400, Poquito Loco wrote: I believe you, but it was just humorous. You referred to 'available bandwidth' being greater, and Greg talked about a 'wider path'. Well, to a rank amateur like me, 'greater bandwidth' and 'wider path' sound pretty similar! === There are basically two ways to achieve greater bandwidth. One is to send data at higher speed in a single stream. That works but it is presently running up against the speed of light, as well as density and cooling issues. The second way is to break up the data into multiple parallel streams, i.e., "a wider path", sort of like converting a two lane road into a 3 or 4 lane road so it can handle more cars. In the old days we called it "multiplexing" of which there are many forms or types. The same "road" is used but is shared in terms of the time it is used. In RF communications systems capacity is frequency dependent. The higher the frequency, the more data can be transmitted over the same "road". Optical systems are orders of magnitude higher in "frequency" and are expressed in wavelengths and the capacity is increased correspondingly. Multiple "connections" to a processor that required several physical roads can be combined into one also. The other benefit (as previously mentioned) is the ability for optical paths to cross and intersect, unlike physical copper tracing. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Here comes the judge | General | |||
But, judge, I had the right of way! | General | |||
sometimes, go judge a tag | ASA | |||
don't judge a paper | ASA | |||
don't judge a cat | ASA |