Notices
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Simple DSC-SC Demodulator that the world ignores

  1. #1 Simple DSC-SC Demodulator that the world ignores 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    28
    As an MS thesis, I liked to prove, once for all, that by receiving a DSB-SC (Double Side-band Suppressed Carrier) signal whose spectrum bandwidth is twice the bandwidth of a SSB-SC (Single Side-band Suppressed Carrier) signal, the demodulator could be made simpler and more practical than the SSB-SC one.
    I didn’t submit my solution (At that time, I had to return home earlier to take care of my private business). But I used my novel simple DSB-SC demodulator in my private short-range RF communications (between home and workplace), in the 80’s and for many years (at that time, I couldn’t get a phone line at home). It was a simple way to scramble my RF channels (first on AM band then on FM band using a suppressed carrier of frequency 32768 Hz and without a pilot).

    I thought that someday I will hear of someone else (more important than me for the world) who had also the chance to discover its trick so that a linear IC manufacturer would be able to offer it on a low-cost integrated circuit. But even after about 40 years, the belief at all universities in the world is that such demodulator doesn’t or cannot exist.
    Naturally, with time, I tried presenting it to the world via the few channels I can access which are very limited due to the world’s regulations.
    After all, who on earth will be interested to listen seriously to an independent engineer whose name is Kerim On the other hand, I am also not interested in convincing the world’s Elite in Science about its existence. I don't intend to convince them as Galileo did about his discoveries (I guess you heard of him).

    Its topology could be found on the talk page of the DSB-SC article (WikipediA).


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,667
    Quote Originally Posted by KerimF View Post
    As an MS thesis, I liked to prove, once for all, that by receiving a DSB-SC (Double Side-band Suppressed Carrier) signal whose spectrum bandwidth is twice the bandwidth of a SSB-SC (Single Side-band Suppressed Carrier) signal, the demodulator could be made simpler and more practical than the SSB-SC one.
    I didn’t submit my solution (At that time, I had to return home earlier to take care of my private business). But I used my novel simple DSB-SC demodulator in my private short-range RF communications (between home and workplace), in the 80’s and for many years (at that time, I couldn’t get a phone line at home). It was a simple way to scramble my RF channels (first on AM band then on FM band using a suppressed carrier of frequency 32768 Hz and without a pilot).

    I thought that someday I will hear of someone else (more important than me for the world) who had also the chance to discover its trick so that a linear IC manufacturer would be able to offer it on a low-cost integrated circuit. But even after about 40 years, the belief at all universities in the world is that such demodulator doesn’t or cannot exist.
    Naturally, with time, I tried presenting it to the world via the few channels I can access which are very limited due to the world’s regulations.
    After all, who on earth will be interested to listen seriously to an independent engineer whose name is Kerim On the other hand, I am also not interested in convincing the world’s Elite in Science about its existence. I don't intend to convince them as Galileo did about his discoveries (I guess you heard of him).

    Its topology could be found on the talk page of the DSB-SC article (WikipediA).
    Indeed. In my experience on science forums, radio engineers are some of the worst offenders, when it comes to crank ideas about science.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,957
    Quote Originally Posted by KerimF View Post
    I am also not interested in convincing the world’s Elite in Science about its existence.
    Er...
    Its topology could be found on the talk page of the DSB-SC article (WikipediA).
    Presumably, then, the "world's Elite in Science" are also unaware of Wikipedia?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Presumably, then, the "world's Elite in Science" are also unaware of Wikipedia?
    It is sad that even you, The Genius Duck, cannot give a scientific opinion about it.

    A couple of years ago, I tried contacting some professional engineers whose works were somehow related to the products of the international company 'Analog Devices". To my big surprise, I was allowed joining their group. So I sent them, as a gift, all details about it; in form of LTspice schematics so that they can verify it by simulation. I was expecting a simple reply as "No, it is not good as you think" or "Yes, thank you for sharing it". But, a few days later, I got an email instead to tell me that 'Analog Devices' has to obey the world's regulations, therefore, they have to throw me out of their house (fortunately, Jesus warned me already that this could happen, so I found it natural and shaked off the dust of my feet).

    Actually, the "world's Elite in Science" are aware of Wikipedia. They simply have no right to listen to all people. After all, in the real life and for one to be real rich and famous, he (Elite or not) has to obey ALL rules of his powerful Caesar (his powerful ruling system).

    Yes, people can argue each other, they can debate each other... but they can never change the natural rules that define life and how the created world runs.

    Salut,

    Kerim
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by KerimF View Post
    (fortunately, Jesus warned me already that this could happen, so I found it natural and shaked off the dust of my feet).
    Not sure why you felt the need to include this, but for me at least, any credibility you had just flew out the window...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Bufofrog View Post
    Not sure why you felt the need to include this, but for me at least, any credibility you had just flew out the window...
    Thank you for being sincere and let me know the impression you got from reading this.

    It seems that you didn't notice my recent topic, 'Jesus and Science of World’s Reality', yet. I mean; please don't think I am one of the formal Christians you used to know; if you are not one yourself (you can see on that thread why I am not).

    I had to include the above sentence for the following reasons:

    [1] If I didn't add anything or said something negative it would give the impression that I hide a rather wrong feeling towards those who were forced to play the obedient slaves while they are supposed to be free as I am.

    [2] If I said something positive, it would give also the impression that what I hide in my mind is actually the opposite of what I said (almost all people around the world are given this great talent to use it when necessary).

    [3] So I reminded the readers here that what happened to me is just another natural event which could happen anytime and to anyone else. And gave the credit of knowing this natural truth to whom I heard from first. It happened I heard it from Jesus only, but you may know someone else who also revealed this natural truth.

    On my side I guess I know why you couldn't stop yourself to let me hear your interesting remark. Almost all people in the world are supposed to give credit about what they know as natural truths (material or spiritual) to any man (or woman) in human history... but Jesus

    I personally have no intention, at all, to oppose this universal trend in any way. But, at the same time, I can't give credit just to myself for knowing and even living many crucial truths concerning my own existence and how the world is made and runs on the ground; that is in reality, far from the daily great speeches (religious and political).

    Thank you.

    Kerim
    Last edited by KerimF; March 31st, 2021 at 01:55 PM. Reason: minor corrections
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. The Big bang Theory v The steady state theory v World in a world.
    By theorist in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 27th, 2013, 06:27 PM
  2. End of the Old World: Beginning of the New World
    By gailem in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 2nd, 2008, 06:57 AM
  3. FM demodulator using PLL
    By quantumbrewer in forum Electrical and Electronics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 5th, 2007, 03:05 PM
  4. simple...God
    By evil_princess in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: October 28th, 2005, 03:57 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •