Talk:Eb/N0

message: The noise spectral density in the denominator of this term should in fact be capital-N, subscript-zero. JanCeuleers 13:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added redirects for correct spelling Dimawik 21:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

message: Man, this stub sucks.  The older, conversational piece was much more informative for people who are actually doing work with this parameter, and it clearly referenced its confusing nature.  Wikipedia isn't meant to get choked for style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.103.5 (talk) 
:The previous version was a copyright violation. –Mysid(t) 07:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  overrevised 

message: I made some changes. I changed occurrences of CNR (carrier to noise ratio) to the more correct SNR (signal to noise ratio), since not all signals have carriers, and carriers don't
convey information; I noted that Eb/N0 is useful in spread spectrum systems, which are generally power limited; and I noted that the "cutoff rate" is now largely obsolete given the discovery of turbo codes that closely approach the Shannon bound. Karn 05:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  some changes 

message: I guess it amounts to a question of whether we should make an exception to our own rules here, on the grounds that the double solidus is so widespread.  I propose a show of hands for the two main options.  Please vote for your preferred option, with brief explanation. The discussion can continue in the above section.
====I prefer bit/s/Hz====
# It is the established unit in the literature. Wikipedia is not the place to define new unused units. The unit we vote for need support by references. Bit/s/Hz and similar forms (b/s/Hz, bits/s/Hz) together gives about 55000 hits in Google. This unit is not ambigous, since according to the Order of operations article, division and multiplication operators on a line (not under each other) should be evaluated from left to right. Mange01 (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: # It is the established unit in the literature. Wikipedia is not the place to define new unused units. The unit we vote for need support by references. Bit/s/Hz and similar forms (b/s/Hz, bits/s/Hz) together gives about 55000 hits in Google. This unit is not ambigous, since according to the Order of operations article, division and multiplication operators on a line (not under each other) should be evaluated from left to right. Mange01 (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I prefer '''bit/s/Hz'''

message: # The alternative bit/s/Hz is ambiguous (or at best confusing to a non-expert) Thunderbird2 (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I prefer '''bit·s<sup>−1</sup>·Hz<sup>−1</sup>'''

message: # Use (bit/s)/Hz. Brief explanation: 
#*That is used in books; the Google searches above don't distinguish those using the parentheses from those not using them.
#*The parentheses really make it clear to everyone.  This number is arrived at by dividing a rate expressed in bit/s by a frequency expressed in Hz. 
#*It retains the same order, but does so unambiguously.
#*The negative superscripts notation is far less familiar than a slash for division.
#*We've only scratched the surface so far; what about the even more confusion three-solidus combinations of this with a length parameter (m or mi or km or whatever), such as bit/s/Hz/mi? Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I prefer (bit/s)/Hz 

message: # bps/Hz has 12,800 Google hits. It is more explicit than just "bits" and makes clear that it is a ratio of bandwidth to frequency. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I prefer bps/Hz 

message: # Bits per cycle.  But we need to mention all the forms that are used.  Probably starting with an SI-standard form and then listing the various things that it is called would be good.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I prefer bits per cycle

message: In fact any unit that is not ambiguous is my prefered unit. 
I actually would like to see the unit changed ASAP to a non-ambiguous unit until this survey is considered complete
Davidjessop (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: I prefer (bits/s)/Hz

message: What is the relationship between Ec/Io and Eb/No and how can we convert Eb/No to Ec/Io Singh6 (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The mathematical definition is the same. However the source of Io is cross-talk (co-channel and adjacent channel interference), while No is caused by other random noise sources. Mange01 (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the relationship between Ec/Io and Eb/No 

message: The current title of this article is terrible.  The title of an article should be a transparent name of the concept described therein.  Not an acronym.  Not a formula.  Definitely not an incomprehensible formula that means nothing even to electronics engineers (like me). "Bits/s/Hz" would be already unacceptable; "Eb/N0", gasp. Please find a decent name for it. (If this concept is important in the field, is should have a name right?) It does not matter that the title is long or hardly used by experts; redirects can be used to satisfy them.All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't really have a name, and if typically just called Eb/N0 in the field.  Some sources do expand it out as  energy per bit to noise spectral density ratio (including a variety of odd hyphenations, not which seem necessary or helpful); or energy per bit per noise spectral density.  Also frequent with "noise power density" instead of "noise spectral density".  Maybe you'll find something else more common.  But if you do a WP:requested move, you'll probably get beat down by the followers of Born2cycle, who will point out that the present term is more concise, and is already recognizable to those familiar with the topic, which is all they care about.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Inventing a new name (for example "Normalized signal-to-noise ratio", or "Bit energy over noise density"), would make people surprised. Everyone in the field knows this term as "E bee over N ou".Mange01 (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's "E bee over N zero".  Dicklyon (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I found it by googling that, so I hope it stays like that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.248.10 (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The title is terrible