This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a physics diagram or diagrams be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the
Graphic Lab. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. |
Do not post them here. -- Adoniscik ( talk) 02:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I notice that there is a redirect from "Impulse radio" to the UWB page. Is there any difference in what the two terms refer to? I do find one mention of "impulse radio" in the article, but it doesn't seem to be explained very well. Mas2265 21:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Ultra-wide band refers to the spectrum used, independent of signalling, modulation, codeing, etc. "Impulse Radio" refers to a signalling technique where symbols are constructed with pulses of very short duration with occupied bandwidth inversly proportional to pulse duration (shorter=more bandwidth : under 2ns for a 500MHz bandwidth) There have been quite a few implementations of UWB systems in the last 10 years. Early work was focused on pulse based systems.
The FCC Report and Final Order on UWB issued in 2002 gave a more general definition for UWB, leading to alternatives exploiting multiple bands and more modulation techniques. Ultimately a multi-band OFDM technique became the basis for the WiMedia (ECMA-368) high data rate (480Mbps) standard. An impulse based high-rate standard (DS-UWB)had been championed but has ultimately fallen dormant.
The IEEE P802.15.4a amendment defines an UWB PHY which is an impulse radio. The purpose of P802.15.4 is low data rate, low power, low cost systems. The Task Group 4a was created to add precision ranging capability. Impulse UWB is advantageous for accurate time-of-flight measurment. The 4a ammendment is now in final stages of IEEE publication. The standard defines a UWB PHY with modulation using pulse position and polarity, approx. 500MHz chip rate, multiple data rates (different chips/symbol), with forward error correction, multiple operating bands and bandwidths, and a number of optional features. The nominal data rate for 4a is 1Mbps with optional rates up to 25Mbps.
BTW the FCC rules allow multiple UWB bands, with different masks, throughout the spectrum, not just 3.1-10GHz. The FCC has approved numerous systems that operate below 1GHz, for example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.74.213.146 ( talk) 15:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
Why isn't there more information on ultra-wideband radar? At least there should be a disambiguation page, since UWB radar is probably considered a more mature technology (being applied commercially in ground-penetrating radar and militarily in foliage-penetrating radar). Granted, UWB radar isn't as sexy as UWB communications, but how come the whole concept of UWB in wikipedia is focused just on the communications aspects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotbeat ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This article currently claims
I agree that "Current forward error correction technology, ... can ... provide channel performance very closely approaching the Shannon limit". But that is true for just about any communication system; it has little to do with UWB in particular.
Has someone actually demonstrated a UWB system that used Low density parity check code or Reed–Solomon error correction or both? Or is this merely theoretically true, as implied by the "perhaps"?
And I am mystified at " forward error correction technology ... perhaps in combination with Reed–Solomon error correction". Since Reed–Solomon error correction is a kind of forward error correction, that's like saying "electric light technology ... perhaps in combination with electric light bulbs".
Could someone clarify this article, adjusting sentences like this to make them easier to understand? -- 68.0.124.33 ( talk) 02:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Does anyone have information on the latest usage of the various Band Groups around the world? I'm specifically interested in BG6 adoption. Thanks.
Tomkost ( talk) 17:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
My company is working on high data-rate communications with UWB. There are many challenges, but I agree that some of the info on this Wiki UWB page seems out of date. I'd like to propose several changes, see if anyone has any issues with them over the next month, then I'll update the page.
spazvt ( talk) 12:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
This sounds like the old (and still relevant) ideas from Spread spectrum. Is there a key difference? Can ultra-wideband be considered a type or a subset of spread spectrum? I think this would be good material to add to the main page. Lavaka ( talk) 01:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but what User talk:Miguel Escopeta wrote sounds like utter nonsense. Going by the article it sounds like pulse modulation as was used in fiber optics. Pulse-phase-modulation, pulse-duration-modulation or the like. "Is there a key difference?" The Phase will be the difference as it will align with the pulses rather than be different for all frequencies. -- Moritzgedig ( talk) 23:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Given that most antenna designs (eg normal dipole) are narrow band, should there be some comments about ultra wideband antennas eg spiral designs - http://www.antenna-theory.com/antennas/travelling/spiral.php or other small element planer designs( http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hans_Schantz/publication/4056610_Introduction_to_ultra-wideband_antennas/links/00b7d52a8a5d128046000000.pdf , http://www.piers.org/piersonline/pdf/Vol2No6Page544to549.pdf )
115.64.210.168 ( talk) 10:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Aart Bluestoke
I removed the line about UWB not interfering with conventional narrowband users. This is false from first principles, as any energy in the band used by another radio will interfere with it to some extent. Of course it interferes less, and probably less than commonly used spread-spectrum techniques, but it's wrong to have a headline saying "it's special because it does not interfere".
For a practical example, consider that regulations dramatically limit the UWB radiated power in the 0.96 - 1.61 GHz band, precisely because of the potential for interference with GPS signals [1].
In practice this limits UWB to starting at 1.61 GHz, no great hardship for the currently envisaged small devices and short-range transmissions.
Thomasonline ( talk) 06:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
References
There's quite a bit of cleanup to do here to capture modern UWB functionality. It has gone from a niche technology used in industrial RTLS or radar to a commercial ecosystem of > 500M devices. 802.15.4 has changed this from a failed wireless media technology to a seemingly-successful ranging technology. The progression of standards, applications (CCC/digital key), and deployment needs to be captured here. Hawerchuk ( talk) 01:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey @ A Shortfall Of Gravitas
Could you please explain how this section seemed like an advertisement?
I would like to collab/improve the article if you've got rational arguments.
BR SpunkyGeek ( talk) 00:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Can someone please change the name? It's supposed to have a capital W, like how Wi-Fi has a capital "F." EnSingHemm ( talk) 15:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a physics diagram or diagrams be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the
Graphic Lab. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. |
Do not post them here. -- Adoniscik ( talk) 02:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I notice that there is a redirect from "Impulse radio" to the UWB page. Is there any difference in what the two terms refer to? I do find one mention of "impulse radio" in the article, but it doesn't seem to be explained very well. Mas2265 21:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Ultra-wide band refers to the spectrum used, independent of signalling, modulation, codeing, etc. "Impulse Radio" refers to a signalling technique where symbols are constructed with pulses of very short duration with occupied bandwidth inversly proportional to pulse duration (shorter=more bandwidth : under 2ns for a 500MHz bandwidth) There have been quite a few implementations of UWB systems in the last 10 years. Early work was focused on pulse based systems.
The FCC Report and Final Order on UWB issued in 2002 gave a more general definition for UWB, leading to alternatives exploiting multiple bands and more modulation techniques. Ultimately a multi-band OFDM technique became the basis for the WiMedia (ECMA-368) high data rate (480Mbps) standard. An impulse based high-rate standard (DS-UWB)had been championed but has ultimately fallen dormant.
The IEEE P802.15.4a amendment defines an UWB PHY which is an impulse radio. The purpose of P802.15.4 is low data rate, low power, low cost systems. The Task Group 4a was created to add precision ranging capability. Impulse UWB is advantageous for accurate time-of-flight measurment. The 4a ammendment is now in final stages of IEEE publication. The standard defines a UWB PHY with modulation using pulse position and polarity, approx. 500MHz chip rate, multiple data rates (different chips/symbol), with forward error correction, multiple operating bands and bandwidths, and a number of optional features. The nominal data rate for 4a is 1Mbps with optional rates up to 25Mbps.
BTW the FCC rules allow multiple UWB bands, with different masks, throughout the spectrum, not just 3.1-10GHz. The FCC has approved numerous systems that operate below 1GHz, for example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.74.213.146 ( talk) 15:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
Why isn't there more information on ultra-wideband radar? At least there should be a disambiguation page, since UWB radar is probably considered a more mature technology (being applied commercially in ground-penetrating radar and militarily in foliage-penetrating radar). Granted, UWB radar isn't as sexy as UWB communications, but how come the whole concept of UWB in wikipedia is focused just on the communications aspects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotbeat ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This article currently claims
I agree that "Current forward error correction technology, ... can ... provide channel performance very closely approaching the Shannon limit". But that is true for just about any communication system; it has little to do with UWB in particular.
Has someone actually demonstrated a UWB system that used Low density parity check code or Reed–Solomon error correction or both? Or is this merely theoretically true, as implied by the "perhaps"?
And I am mystified at " forward error correction technology ... perhaps in combination with Reed–Solomon error correction". Since Reed–Solomon error correction is a kind of forward error correction, that's like saying "electric light technology ... perhaps in combination with electric light bulbs".
Could someone clarify this article, adjusting sentences like this to make them easier to understand? -- 68.0.124.33 ( talk) 02:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Does anyone have information on the latest usage of the various Band Groups around the world? I'm specifically interested in BG6 adoption. Thanks.
Tomkost ( talk) 17:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
My company is working on high data-rate communications with UWB. There are many challenges, but I agree that some of the info on this Wiki UWB page seems out of date. I'd like to propose several changes, see if anyone has any issues with them over the next month, then I'll update the page.
spazvt ( talk) 12:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
This sounds like the old (and still relevant) ideas from Spread spectrum. Is there a key difference? Can ultra-wideband be considered a type or a subset of spread spectrum? I think this would be good material to add to the main page. Lavaka ( talk) 01:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but what User talk:Miguel Escopeta wrote sounds like utter nonsense. Going by the article it sounds like pulse modulation as was used in fiber optics. Pulse-phase-modulation, pulse-duration-modulation or the like. "Is there a key difference?" The Phase will be the difference as it will align with the pulses rather than be different for all frequencies. -- Moritzgedig ( talk) 23:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Given that most antenna designs (eg normal dipole) are narrow band, should there be some comments about ultra wideband antennas eg spiral designs - http://www.antenna-theory.com/antennas/travelling/spiral.php or other small element planer designs( http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hans_Schantz/publication/4056610_Introduction_to_ultra-wideband_antennas/links/00b7d52a8a5d128046000000.pdf , http://www.piers.org/piersonline/pdf/Vol2No6Page544to549.pdf )
115.64.210.168 ( talk) 10:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Aart Bluestoke
I removed the line about UWB not interfering with conventional narrowband users. This is false from first principles, as any energy in the band used by another radio will interfere with it to some extent. Of course it interferes less, and probably less than commonly used spread-spectrum techniques, but it's wrong to have a headline saying "it's special because it does not interfere".
For a practical example, consider that regulations dramatically limit the UWB radiated power in the 0.96 - 1.61 GHz band, precisely because of the potential for interference with GPS signals [1].
In practice this limits UWB to starting at 1.61 GHz, no great hardship for the currently envisaged small devices and short-range transmissions.
Thomasonline ( talk) 06:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
References
There's quite a bit of cleanup to do here to capture modern UWB functionality. It has gone from a niche technology used in industrial RTLS or radar to a commercial ecosystem of > 500M devices. 802.15.4 has changed this from a failed wireless media technology to a seemingly-successful ranging technology. The progression of standards, applications (CCC/digital key), and deployment needs to be captured here. Hawerchuk ( talk) 01:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey @ A Shortfall Of Gravitas
Could you please explain how this section seemed like an advertisement?
I would like to collab/improve the article if you've got rational arguments.
BR SpunkyGeek ( talk) 00:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Can someone please change the name? It's supposed to have a capital W, like how Wi-Fi has a capital "F." EnSingHemm ( talk) 15:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)