Talk:Ultra-wideband

message: Do not post them here. --Adoniscik (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Call for papers

message: 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)
replies: text: As I understand it, UWB is usually implemented by impulse radio. --Apoc2400 06:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two separate implementations of UWB today: multiband OFDM and impulse radio. The section about advantages is not very NPOV: one example is that the GPS system uses narrowband signalling, but is still used for positioning.Mossig 09:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point. I'll try to put some qualifiers in there.Qz27 09:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impulse Radio and UWB 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Latest Band Group Usage 

message: 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  There are many challenges, but I agree that some of the info on this Wiki UWB page seems out of date.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.
# I see lots of application for communications, therefore include that in summary paragraph at top.  Second summary paragraph mentions possible conflicts with existing systems, but I thought that was determined not to be the case before the FCC opened the spectrum in 2002, stating that the rise in noise seen by traditional transmitters would not be significant.
# I've done a search of FCC filings and found >120 devices that have received certification.
# Will update regulatory status to include China, Korea, Japan, EU.  Australia currently in flux.  Since WiMedia Alliance is disbanded, I'll directly upload their last regulatory status picture from Jan 2009 when China finished regulations.
# I'm going to create a new "List of UWB Channels" page similar to "List of WLAN Channels" to make all of the channel/band/TFC linkage clearer since this is something we've struggled to understand.
spazvt (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Updates, Jan 2011 

message: 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)
replies: text: Totally different from Spread Spectrum signals.  UWB is not a type or a subset of classical spread spectrum modulation techniques.  It is an entirely different modulation scheme.  (Classical Spread Spectrum signals can be either frequency hop (FH) or PN sequence type signals.)  Close to these spread spectrum transmitters, both FH and PN SS (Spread Spectrum) can be easily detected by even a narrowband receiver.  UWB signals, on the other hand, are extremely difficult to detect even in close proximity to the UWB transmitter unless rather esoteric correlation techniques are employed. UWB signals can be thought of as being orthogonal in all ways to classical modulation types.  Technically, UWB signals are spread spectrum signals only in terms of the power spectral density sense, but without any really significant peaks in amplitude over frequency, even at close distances to the UWB transmitter, unlike seen with both FH and PN SS transmitters.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference from spread spectrum 

message: 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)
replies: text: Spiral antennas are very wide band, but not suitable for or relevant to UWB. UWB antennas must preserve the temporal relationship between the different frequency bands, i.e. they must be non-dispersive. Most types of frequency-independent antennas like spirals, log-periodic antennasTypical UWB antennas in fact are fat conical dipoles, with various tricks to make them work reasonably well over a very wide band. Thomasonline (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The phase linearity of antennas for UWB transmissions is super critical.  Although fat conical dipoles do work, typical UWB antennas most commonly used for actual applications are not usually conical fat dipoles, but, rather, are planar antennas designed based upon time dispersal mitigation techniques.  These techniques are specifically known in the industry as complementary antennas.  This way, the antennas can be manufactured using standard planar PC printed antenna types of construction.  See for example, Frequency Independent Antennas by Victor H. Rumsey (Academic Press, 1966, starting on p. 25.)  It is probably the best introduction to designing such antennas.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antenna design? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Also it isn't even explained what UWB is. Is is a branded marketing term, a form of FCC license, an industry consortium, a technology, a signal classification, a waveform, a IEEE standard, ... ? --Moritzgedig (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in fact an IEEE Standard, number 802.15.4a as provided by this (https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/36143-exploring-ultra-wideband-technology-for-micro-location-based-services) The article is used as a source in the Article. 80.132.185.206 (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern UWB (as of 2021) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed advertisement tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ultra-Wideband, not Ultra-wideband