Sure you have a spectrum. The voltage between ends of an antenna is a scalar, and it _does_ pick up all frequencies, although some more strongly than others; it's up to the rest of the circuitry to filter down to the one you care about. I think CDMA is a great idea here.
-
-
Antwort an @NoraDotCodes @rusk_redux und
Then I'm clearly misunderstanding what you meant by "single value". An attacker doesn't need to block values in the spectrum between 50->100 or 100->200 or... they just need to keep asserting 42, and if they do it quicker than you can sample and read then you'll only get 42.
1 Antwort 0 Retweets 0 Gefällt mir -
Antwort an @sweharris @rusk_redux und
Yeah, apologies - that was maybe unclear. If you think about something like the electromagnetic field (which is a vector field), you can measure its value at any time at a given point in space. By measuring rapidly (at some frequency S) you are able to observe multiple signals...
1 Antwort 0 Retweets 0 Gefällt mir -
Antwort an @NoraDotCodes @sweharris und
... of any frequency below S/2 (by Nyquist). This is a similar idea, except without the requirement of "any point in space"; it's as if when you put up an antenna, you got the same stations, no matter where in the universe you are.
1 Antwort 0 Retweets 1 Gefällt mir -
Antwort an @NoraDotCodes @rusk_redux und
_If_ I'm understanding this right (no guarantees!) then it would need to be accumulative; if I transmitted a 1 & you transmitted a 1 at the same time then the measured value would be a 2, universally. In that scenario I think we'd be able to discern separate signals by sampling.
2 Antworten 0 Retweets 0 Gefällt mir -
Antwort an @sweharris @NoraDotCodes und
And if I am misunderstanding (again) then my apologies and don't waste any more time on me :-)
1 Antwort 0 Retweets 0 Gefällt mir -
Antwort an @sweharris @NoraDotCodes und
I think the proposition was that the value could be “set”, so superposition principle ala constructive interference wouldn’t come into play. I think in your scenario the individual distributed “keys” would ensure nobody sets colliding values
2 Antworten 0 Retweets 0 Gefällt mir -
Antwort an @rusk_redux @NoraDotCodes und
In my scenario a pair of communicating parties could select a frequency for state transitions and then oversample (say 100x) on reception. I'd expect averages to even out (other tx, noise, griefers), so the received bit could be determined. Add in ECC for safety :-)
1 Antwort 0 Retweets 0 Gefällt mir -
Antwort an @sweharris @rusk_redux und
Maybe I've spent too much time playing with 80s computers, but I'm now thinking of CMOS logic; transmit at value 5 for a "1" and value 0 for a "0", and any average received value above 2.5 counts as a 1, else it counts as a 0. Heh. Slower transmissions would be more reliable!
1 Antwort 0 Retweets 0 Gefällt mir -
Antwort an @sweharris @rusk_redux und
Out of curiousity, have you read "Macroscope" by Piers Anthony (originally published 1969 before he turned into a total hack). I first read it when I was a kid and it has a similar idea of universal communications. Including, now I think of it, griefers!
1 Antwort 0 Retweets 1 Gefällt mir
Antwort an @sweharris @rusk_redux und
No, cool idea!
14:02 - 18. Juni 2021
0 Antworten
0 Retweets
1 Gefällt mir
Das Laden scheint etwas zu dauern.
Twitter ist möglicherweise überlastet oder hat einen vorübergehenden Schluckauf. Probiere es erneut oder besuche Twitter Status für weitere Informationen.