User talk:Iberned

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Iberned, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! KelleyCook (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulative list of billionaires[edit]

The article you created, Cumulative list of billionaires appears to be a cut and paste copy of List of billionaires. What are you planning to do with it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page please. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

802.11a[edit]

Hi, thanks for your comments looking to improve Wikipedia's accuracy. It took me a bit to figure out what you were referring to, but the chart was actually on this page {{Wireless Networking Standards}}. The numbers are actually fairly accurate (and a bit conservative, IMO) as 802.11n adds in MIMO or multiple physical antennas on both the base station and the client. This simple concept has the interesting feature of allowing more range at higher speed due to the way the different waves propagate. (A simple explanation: Note that 2.4Ghz/SpeedOfLight means each full wave is about 12.5 centimetres (4.9 in) long, so by spreading two antennas out merely six cm means the wave is twice as likely a wave to be at full amplitude when it reaches the client). Furthermore 802.11n improvements encompass both 2.4GHz(b/g) and/or 5GHz(a), though most cheaper draftN equipment seems to be 2.4G only.

Also, if you have any more questions, feel free to respond right under here. As you'll be on my watch page for a few months. -- KelleyCook (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. If I understand you coreectly you´re saying instead of using a 12 cm wave but make it in 2 merely 6 cm waves it has more probablity to reach it´s destination.

I always tought that the shorter the wave the less probability it has cover a long distance. For example a 700Mhz wave (42,9cm) has far more reach than a 5,8Ghz wave (5,2cm).

Or are you just saying in any MIMO case; If you have 2 antenna's there is always a 100% bigger probablity that you are reaching your destination? -- Iberned (talk) 19:54, 03 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]