Talk:Frequency-hopping spread spectrum

Untitled
Dunno why the talk here was the content of the article, but I'm cleanin' up. :D I did notice the opening sentence in the article and how it's quite redundant, stating "spread spectrum" within the first few words. I'm removing that redundancy for a start. Cheers.

E dog95 20:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The introduction did not explain in layman's words what is frequency-hopping. Therefore I took the liberty of expanding it and adding a basic algorithm section. It only outlines the simple steps on which frequency-hopping relies, because they were never actually explained.

Lasombra bg (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Lasombra_bg

Since military radar on a single frequency identifies the point source, they often had to shut-off their transmitters to prevent localization and subsequent targeting. No doubt some smartie has figured-out how to run a more stealthy radar using freq-hopping/ss technique to use instead of the single frequency devices used in civilian radar. Is this topic too secret to discuss yet? -annom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.82.201 (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about secrecy, but if the content is encyclopedic & has reliable sources then the addition would be welcome. E_dog95'   Hi ' 19:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Under Technical Considerations, the Paragraph starting "In a real multipoint radio system...", Does it really belong here? Fits more on Spread Spectrum i think as it discusses an aspect related to Spread Spectrum in general and not specific to FHSS. Should we Remove it? Elhawarey (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Confusion in lead section
This line in the lead section confuses me:

"Spread-spectrum signals are difficult to intercept. An FHSS signal simply appears as an increase in the background noise to a narrowband receiver. An eavesdropper would only be able to intercept the transmission if the pseudorandom sequence was known."

The first two sentences say FHSS makes it difficult to intercept. Then the last sentence says if the pseudorandom sequence was known the eavesdropper could intercept, which obviously makes sense. However if this bullet point is trying to emphasise the advantage of FHSS, then the last sentence doesn't read like it's enhancing that point. If the eavesdropper has intercepted the transmission, then he/she has completely defeated whatever security advantages FHSS has to offer, so in that sense the last sentence is kind of confusing given the context. 130.216.217.113 (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There is usually too much general talk about OFDM. Not enough discussion about how hard or easy it may be (today) to intercept the frequency hopped transmissions. And nobody appears to explain what modulation method is used for FHSS, such as frequency shift keying, and nobody explains clearly how multipath signals are demodulated in FHSS systems. One can certainly expect to encounter multipath effects at 12 cm wavelengths. KorgBoy (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frequency-hopping spread spectrum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227070459/http://kom.aau.dk/~petarp/papers/DAFH-AFR.pdf to http://kom.aau.dk/~petarp/papers/DAFH-AFR.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227070459/http://kom.aau.dk/~petarp/papers/DAFH-AFR.pdf to http://kom.aau.dk/~petarp/papers/DAFH-AFR.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Multiple inventors
I'm not sure that the headline "Multiple inventors" is appropriate; perhaps simply "Invention" or "Invention and development" would be better.

I added information to expand this section and make it a bit more coherent and readable: (1) added information about the first U.S. patent (1924) considered to be spread-spectrum in nature; (2) contributed more details about the development of spread-spectrum technology, primarily by Sylvania, during the 1950s and 60s; and (3) added (and corrected) the common misconception about spread-spectrum technology first being used during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I kept the phrase, "...private companies independently developed Code Division Multiple Access, a non-frequency-hopping form of spread-spectrum, and has been cited numerous times since." However, I find this wording to be vague and confusing, and would recommend either rewriting or removing it. I would have corrected it myself, but I'm not precisely sure what the original author was trying to say.

BuffaloChuck (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Exaggerated claims about Lamarr and Antheil patent
There's no evidence that this patent contributed in any signficant way to modern communications technology. The claim that this technology was rediscovered in 1957 and "combined" with transistor technology is not supported by the text of the source article. See Talk:Hedy_Lamarr for more discussion on this - this needs a cleanup over several articles. Peter G Werner (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I wonder what you mean by "not supported by the text of the source article". I assume by "source article" you mean | this aps.org news article, used as a citation at the end of the sentence with the 1957 claim.  That article says something very close to what you claim is not supported; from the aps.org news article: "It wasn’t until 1957 that engineers at Sylvania Electronic Systems Division adopted the concept, using the recently invented transistor for an electronic system."  So it seems, to me, that the source article does support this 1957 claim.  I agree that Hedy Lamarr's work seems to have had little, if any, effect on the world of technology, but it is not clear to me what you mean when you say this  statement is "unsupported" by this news article.  Any clarification you can offer would be much appreciated.  Thanks! DoctorMatt (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)