A ghostly radio station that no one claims to run

Re:A ghostly radio station that no one claims to run by eeZah7Ux on Friday August 11, 2017 @12:26PM (#14991460)

Bandwidth is key. Transmitting digital signals at high rate would eat up most of the spectrum.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A ghostly radio station that no one claims to run by criddell on Friday August 11, 2017 @12:35PM (#14991578)

How were they able to pack so many digital radio stations on FM? Is it because it's higher frequency?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A ghostly radio station that no one claims to run by Qworg on Friday August 11, 2017 @12:46PM (#14991720)

Yes, definitely.

You can think of the trade off roughly as "frequency increases increase bandwidth and decrease penetration/range"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A ghostly radio station that no one claims to run by exabrial on Friday August 11, 2017 @09:39PM (#14995863)

Until you get to x-rays! I've always wondered why this is

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A ghostly radio station that no one claims to run by planteen on Saturday August 12, 2017 @10:29AM (#14997998)

If you are looking at xray penetration in the atmosphere, it is very opaque. Almost no xrays get through hence why space telescopes are needed to do xray astronomy.

[ Parent | on HN ]