New Full Duplex Radio Chip Transmits and Receives Wireless Signals At Once (ieee.org) 33
Wave723 writes: A new chip by Columbia University researchers uses a circulator made of silicon transistors to reroute signals and avoid interference from a transmitter and receiver that share the same antenna. This technology instantly doubles data capacity and could eventually be built into smartphones and tablets. The chip enables them to work around the principle of Lorentz Reciprocity, in which electromagnetic waves are thought to always travel along the same path both forward and backward. Traditionally, electronic devices required two antennas -- a transmitter and receiver -- that took turns or operated on different frequencies in order to exchange signals.
Re: That is the definition of full duplex (Score:1)
Clearly you don't understand what is being discussed here.
good miniaturation (Score:5, Informative)
Circulators are used all of the place (radar, satcom), so nothing new. But one small and efficient enough to potentially work in a cellphone? Neat stuff. They come with their own set of tradeoffs, so it might not be worth it in the end for smartphone use, but will find use somewhere.
Re:good miniaturation (Score:5, Informative)
It's kind of new, since this is an active circulator instead of the old passive ones.
Passive ones work great except they cannot be effectively miniaturized at the low frequencies used for current cell phone communication because size is proportional to the wavelength. Active circulators, based on non-reciprocal amplifiers and appropriate phase shifted combiner/divider networks, have existed for a long time. But there's been a lot of recent attention and work to bring them to a point where they're actually useful and efficient in communication applications.
Re:good miniaturation (Score:4, Interesting)
Active circulators with an arbitrary number of ports have been known of for decades but they have to operate within the noise, power, and linearity of their active devices. When used to separate a transmitter and receiver on the same frequency, their limited isolation will cause major problems on the receive side. Their big advantage is that they can operate over wide bandwidths which makes them very useful for test instrumentation.
This design was published in 1991 and would be useless in this application. I ran across it when it was included in one of my microwave engineering books.
I suspect the refinement they came up with involves a second adaptable stage to cancel feedthrough and near end echo but in order to do this, the output of the final amplifier has to be sampled to include its high levels of noise and even if it all works perfectly, all of the noise contributed in those circuits will get added to the receiver. I looked at doing something similar by sampling an earlier stage but just the noise contributed by the final amplifier was enough to overload the receiver. You can see this effect when powering up a SSB transmitter with no modulation which promptly raises the noise level for the entire band.
Re: (Score:2)
Bah. I entered the link and Slashdot removed it.
http://techlib.com/files/RFDes... [techlib.com]
Whoa! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not new (Score:5, Informative)
What you describe is not full duplex. Two radios working together, taking turns (one transmitting, then one receiving, etc.) is the very definition of half duplex. And one radio in constant operation is simplex of course. Full duplex is always a situation where two radios are used in constant operation. One sending, one transmitting.
Full duplex using two radios on different frequencies is old school. Just a matter of a good combination of filters and enough frequency separation.
Full duplex using two radios on the SAME frequency, using directional signals is difficult but not undo-able. As long as you can prevent your receiver being blown up by your own transmission signal (and hope an unexpected reflective object in your signal path doesn't undo all your careful physical transmitter-receiver antenna separation).
Full duplex using two radios (both in continuous operation, one transmitting, one receiving, as defined at the top of my post) on exactly the SAME frequency while using a SINGLE (omni-directional) antenna is a true nightmare. And apparently these guys did just that with technology that promises it to be available in hand-held appliances.
RTFA, they used a combination of a circulator on silicon (which is the most innovative part. The circulator used in the project described by the article should kill most of the transmitted signal otherwise picked up directly by the receiver) and echo cancellation (which they developed earlier and is used to subtract any transmitter signal left which should mostly be echoes from objects that reflect the transmitted signal at distance and possibly internal echo from a sub-optimal antenna) on the received signal at the receiver end, so they can then try amplifying what's left. Which should be the (weak) signals that are transmitted towards the antenna by another transceiver.
Exciting stuff :)
73, PG8W
Active circulator (Score:2)
Silicon Circulator? (Score:1)
That is the news here. Normally circulators are made of ferrite... amirite?
Re: Silicon Circulator? (Score:2)
No, just ferrite, I think.
Re: Silicon Circulator? (Score:5, Funny)
Amirite is a conflict mineral anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I find "simultaneously" to be a better term here than either "at once" or "at the same time." Alas, it's totally not a topic worth nitpicking about.
However, I commend your successful attempt to comment and nitpick on it at the same time - wait, I mean ... damn.
Re: (Score:2)
"at once" - I take to mean "immediately".
"all at once" - I take to mean "simultaneously".
Like a lot of Slashdot-edited articles - close, but no cigar.
Re: (Score:2)
"at once" - I take to mean "immediately".
"all at once" - I take to mean "simultaneously".
Like a lot of Slashdot-edited articles - close, but no cigar.
If we're really going to nitpick phrasing that bugs us, I'd like to nominate the use of "all new" to describe *one* TV show episode. Grrrr....
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, if they say it's "all-new", is it able to legally contain flashback or be a "best-of" revisited episode in any part?
I'd love to be a millionaire just to spent time suing things into oblivion when they are inaccurate like this. Shampoo adverts I'd target first, followed by any commercial use of the phrase "Unlimited".
Can I hear when I'm talking? (Score:2)
Listening while talking is a major issue for all shared communications links including wireless. Cable TV Internet and *PON based systems all have the problem that they can blind the receiver while transmitting resulting in talking over another speaker resulting in resending packets.
The canceller is the clever bit (Score:5, Interesting)
However, some of your transmit signal will always end up in the receiver for three reasons; (a) the circulator isn't perfect, (b) the antenna doesn't have a perfect match so some of the transmit energy sent to it bounces back again and (c) energy can reflect back from the immediate environment. Cancelling schemes exist, and invariably consist of some mechanism for sampling the transmitted signal and feeding just the right amount back into the receiver exactly out of phase. In theory this works, but in most practical circumstances the extremely high level of cancellation needed requires a completely unachievable precision.
For added pain, the solution tends to be very narrow band and the cancellor's settings have to be continually updated as the transmit interference changes (particularly in a mobile environment due to (c)).
If they have managed to make this work in a practical and useful way then it will be very impressive, but I would need to see some real world experiments to be convinced of its practicality.
Re:The canceller is the clever bit (Score:4, Informative)
However, some of your transmit signal will always end up in the receiver for three reasons; (a) the circulator isn't perfect, (b) the antenna doesn't have a perfect match so some of the transmit energy sent to it bounces back again and (c) energy can reflect back from the immediate environment.
Combined with the many orders of magnitude strength difference between the transmitted and received signals in a typical communications application, even a miniscule imperfection in the circulator's cancellation of transmit power at the received signal port can result in the transmit signal swamping the received signal. So the circulator must be EXTREMELY GOOD to be useful in the described way.
Re: (Score:1)
If you stopped separating uplink and downlink bands and instead tried to make them the same with this handy device, then yea your own phone won't drown out the cell tower's incoming signal on the same frequency. But the phone next to
Re: (Score:3)
I fear that you have entirely failed to grasp the point I was making. It is true that the transmit signal is many orders of magnitude stronger than the receive signal, but one cannot fix that entirely with the circulator, no matter how good it is. Time for circulator and antenna 101!
I typical ferrite circulator has three ports (let's call them A, B and C). Energy put into port A comes out of B, energy into B and out C and in C to out A. You get the idea. Now, as with everything in life, c
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the antenna isn't far from that circulator, reflection from the antenna is just seen as an impedance mismatch. Match the receiver/transmitter/antenna impedances to the circulator (or compensate for the resultant errors) and theoretically the transmitted signal can be cancelled completely at the receiver. The problem is that the transmitted signal can easily be 120 dB greater than the received signal, meaning that the correction applied has to be better than 1 PPM.
Generally, that's not possible be
It melted (Score:3)