 Jamming, Why a specific "jammer" device? |
  |
 Sep 6 2006, 06:33 AM
Post
#26
|
|||
|
Great Dragon  Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234  |
These is the same company who decided that the 6,000 Utes somehow end up running a state with 250,000 Navaho in it, not to mention the 1.5 million LDS, then never mention the Navaho in the write up. Never underestimate their ability to just not care or their lack of interest in research. |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Sep 6 2006, 10:08 AM
Post
#27
|
|||||||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
I make it sound like this is incompatible with the desired setting.
Instantaneous wireless access to information from anywhere is the be-all and end-all of technology. The interesting question is what the technical solution would be... |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Sep 6 2006, 03:25 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
hmm, i did post some links to wikipedia articles on diffrent transmission methods.
maybe i shoukld dig those up again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdma this is whats being used in the recent mobile phone systems like UMTS. this one is a bit interesting as rather then seperating by time or by frequency it mixes all the signals into each other based on how they will interfer with the transmission of all the others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_division...multiple_access this is what mfb describes, and is being used in the GSM system for mobile phones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDMA this is a bit like the old radio and tv, only that it allow two way communication at the same time by splitting the assigned frequency into smaller "subchannels". my guess is that the wireless matrix will be using a bit of all three, depending on when and where. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 6 2006, 04:20 PM
Post
#29
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
I like to think of it as the last vestige of sanity which kept it from being introduced earlier. Because I doubt that every line dev and author since 1989 never thought about it until Rob and the DS crowd came along.
*waves hands* "... and then a miracle happens."
Perhaps because they few that remain are in the Sioux Nation, seeing as though the U.S. displaced the Navajos by 300 miles west to where is now the Navajo Nation. Nigel Findley wasn't an idiot. Crazy? Sure. Idiot? Hardly. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Sep 6 2006, 04:45 PM
Post
#30
|
|||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
To be honest, the implementation of cranial decks and simlinks was so FUBAR that it hadn't to do anything with sanity at all... and that was the real reason nobody wanted to do such things.
If, by 'miracle' you mean coupled quantum pairs and their implications on communication - indeed. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 6 2006, 05:01 PM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
no. please, no. we are not going to use quantum physics to justify the commo rules. not because it wouldn't work, but because some freelancer who doesn't know entanglement from a hole in the ground will take it as carte blanche to write whatever the hell he wants. TMs that shoot fireballs from radios? hey! it's quantum physics, man! it's crrrrraaaaaaaaazzzy!
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 6 2006, 05:04 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
Let me put it another way, then:
"MAGIC!" |
|
|
|
|
Sep 6 2006, 05:13 PM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,925 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 948 |
*Tries in vain to move thread back on topic* As i said, I'm no expert or even a novice when it comes to jamming but I'm fairly certain it does NOT involve magic... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 6 2006, 05:24 PM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
well, the jamming rules in SR4 are... interesting, physics-wise. the main problem is the tiny area that is jammable by a jammer. and a jammer isn't going to be an on/off thing. SR4 jammers seem like some sort of ray or sphere that disables transmitters within its range. i'm not going to say that's impossible, but if there are any theories on how something like that would work, i'd like to see some links.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 6 2006, 07:09 PM
Post
#35
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
maybe this can help?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-far_problem |
|
|
|
|
Sep 6 2006, 08:17 PM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
that's exactly why the SR4 rules don't make sense. for one, hearability is basically only one-way. that is, transmitters in SR4 are most often coupled with receivers. if i'm jamming your reception, that doesn't necessarily mean that i'm also jamming your transmissions. it might, sure, if my transmitter is 'louder' than your transmitter--but in that case, jammers should have a much, much larger area of effect, because 'louder' transmissions can be 'heard' from much farther distances than 'quiet' ones. -1 rating per 5 meters doesn't actually make sense at all in terms of signal degradation (which follows the Inverse Square Law), but that's forgivable given SR4's stated goal of reducing complexity. what's not forgivable, in my eyes, is the fact that a jammer whose Signal is reduced to 0 after only 45 meters (rating 9 jammer) shouldn't be 'loud' enough at the source of transmission to jam a remote-control car that's about to run out of batteries, much less a milspec personal transceiver.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 6 2006, 08:35 PM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 71 Joined: 29-July 06 From: Orlando, FL Member No.: 8,981 |
I've come up with a new house rule, let me know what you think...
1.) Forget everything you know because its all wrong. If you ever played spelljammer you know this phrase well. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 6 2006, 09:31 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
mfb, do not forget that datatraffic is a two way prosess.
the TCP part of the TCP/IP protocol of today expect each machine to verify that they have gotten the packages being sendt. so if a jammer makes one end unable to hear the other end of the data stream conversation, its effectively off the network. i dont think the jamming rules and hardware are supposed to be used when taking out say a radar sensor. alltho i guess you would get the same effect there as the radar would be unable to see the echo over the strong jammer signal. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 6 2006, 09:42 PM
Post
#39
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Exactly. You would have to rewrite the entire signal rating thing to a drop over range system, then implement substraction rules for jamming, obstacles, etc. But 'both transmitters must be in range to each other for two-way transmission' is already way better than drones miraculously transmitting farer because the RCD got an upgrade. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 7 2006, 05:30 PM
Post
#40
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
yeah, but then you have to assume that the designers of high-end communications gear are willing to give up dependability for verification. i can't see that happening. verification is only important for security, and security can be handled through encryption. oh, something about the near-far thing that i just realized. it only applies if the jamming transmitter is closer to the receiver than the communicating transmitter. in real life, if you move closer to the receiver than the jammer, you'll be able to drown out the jammer with your own transmission (at least as far as the nearby receiver is concerned). in SR4, moving closer to the receiving transmitter just means that you'll be jammed, too. another thing that i think SR4 misses, that would help balance jammers should one decide to make them more realistic: it should be very easy to locate the source of jamming via triangulation. a 'smart' jammer (one designed to jam a certain set of frequencies, which only transmits its jamming signal when it hears those frequencies being used) would be slightly more difficult, or at least require two seconds more thought before setting out to find it. in case anyone ever wondered, there are ways to bypass specific-frequency jammers. the first is to have a fallback frequency--everyone knows that if you get jammed, you flip over to channel X and continue the mission. the other is to have your mage go astral and tell everybody what freq to switch over to. the astral mage thing also works well for creating quick-and-dirty encryption, if you're willing to bend the rules a bit in the direction of realism. the mage (or a spirit, if you can get one smart enough) tells the intended receiver a passphrase to use to generate a decryption key to the encryption the mage's team is using. that should be enough to at least transmit a real key to the distant receiver. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 8 2006, 03:07 AM
Post
#41
|
|||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
sr4 dont as much miss the triangulation thing as not cover it, maybe yet another topic for unwired? and it seems we are talking a bit past each other. im looking at the wireless matrix as wifi, you seems to approach it as HAM radio.
and i have no clue what so ever what your trying to say here. T---J--R with the jammer aimed at the R. J-T-R with still the jammer aimed at R? and yes moving closer to the jammer will lead to your own transmissions being drowned as well, as long as your signal strength isnt high enough. think about it like having a noisy engine being the jammer, and your trying to talk to a mechanic standing next to it. whats the best way of doing it? walk close and yell, or ask him to step away from the engine? ok, so i can see part of your issue now. but thats to do with the jammer loosing effect as you step away from it while there not being any signal loss or growth as the communicating parties move closer or farther apart. yet another issue that can be signed of as a lack of detail in the SR4 BBB rules. and a understandable lack at that as having special rules like this in the book would add even more to its size and cost. have it not allways been like this in SR versions? that the detailed rules show up in the expansion books? and them maybe some of it is boiled down and attempted crammed into the next version of the BBB, with variable results (i kinda recall the drone rules making sense in rigger2, but when it showed up in SR3 it made no sense what so ever because much needed explanations had been cut away)? and sorry if this post is wierd, i have a slight cold problem... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 8 2006, 03:38 AM
Post
#42
|
|||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Huh? Verification is important for dependability and is, at best, security neutral (in the worst case scenarios it can damage security). TCP/IP was not designed for security. It is a highly insecure protocol that has required countless add-ons and patches to make it secure. What it was designed to do was facilitate accurate and robust data transmission across networks. Packet loss is a fact of life in all networks. It really is unavoidable. It can only be minimized. The problem is that if your packet is lost or corrupted then your packet is lost or corrupted. The sending computer has to send another one or your computer won't have any clue about what is going on. But in order of the sending computer to know wether or not it should send a new packet verification is required. Without verification the sending computer might as well send the exact same packet millions of times or it might send a series of pac et ha lo ks so thing ike t is to the reciever and the reciever would have no way to ask for a complete copy of the message because there is no verification. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 8 2006, 05:07 AM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
i'm talking about being able to depend on your comms to relay your voice to listeners. if my team is caught in an ambush, i want to be able to radio the rigger for heavy fire support whether i can hear him or not. even in non-emergency situations, a high-end receiver unit should be able to recieve data from a transceiver that it can't send data back to. (ignore my prior ramblings about security and verification. had a blonde moment.)
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 8 2006, 08:59 AM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441 |
Most military-spec tranceivers are probably going to be able to send without receiving acknowledgements from the receiver -- making sure that the stuff works under degraded conditions is really important in this field. Having the whole thing fail just because the receiver can't send an acknowledgement just isn't going to fly.
Comparing this stuff to TCP/IP is totally bogus. TCP/IP is really designed to run on a medium where transmission errors occur on the order of 10^-9, where as RF stuff runs on the order of 10^-5, which is a huge difference. Totally different design requirements. Most military grade stuff these days runs on some sort of fast frequency hopping scheme, with encryption layered on top of it. To even intercept the transmission, you have to be able to figure out what the hop sequence is, or be able to listen to ALL of it and somehow piece it all together. To jam such a scheme, you either have to know what the sequence is, or do broad-spectrum jamming. (when I say "fast" I do mean "fast." The frequency will often change DURING the transmission of a single bit.) Now, in 100 years, maybe everything is fast frequency hopping, with really a secure frequency hopping sequencing scheme. Then that means you pretty much have to do broad-spectrum jamming. But what if all of the non-military grade stuff is incapable (by design) of broad-spectrum jamming? Why then, you have to have something that is capable -- aka, the jammer ;) As far as being able to jam in a certain direction, the answer to that is easy -- use a directional antenna. Ever see one of those parabolic sattelite dishes they use to focus incoming sattelite transmissions on a receiver? Those work in reverse if you put a transmitter where the receiver is, and they'll send out beams in a more or less straight line from the dish. And there are many other directional antennas that can send out in cones, or ovals, or send out in every direction BUT the cone. Neat stuff. (Note that in reality, they do send out in pretty much all directions, it's just that the gain is reduced or increased directionally dependant on the antenna, sometimes dramatically.) |
|
|
|
|
Sep 8 2006, 09:06 AM
Post
#45
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
eh, if an emitter is capable of transmitting on a wide array of frequencies, it'd be child's play to bypass any safeguards preventing you from transmitting on all those frequencies at once. there'd probably be a hundred morons in Seattle alone that would screw around and do it by accident. i agree that it shouldn't necessarily be possible to wide-spectrum jam with any ol' out-of-the-box transmitter, but creating one from existing parts is so simple that it really should be part of the base EW rules. you might even be able to do it purely through software. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 8 2006, 09:21 AM
Post
#46
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441 |
Not necessarily. If the frequency selection is done in hardware, and all that you can do is jam a sequence key into a register, then that is definitely not the case. Try bypassing the hardware safeguards when the safeguards are implemented with a few million 10nm transistors, happily mixed in with the other millions of non-safeguard transistors providing your transmitter's other capabilities. See what I'm getting at here? (FWIW, this is why electronics are all throw away these days. When you have so many circuit elements jammed so closely together, it becomes just about impossible to identify what went wrong, and even harder to fix it even if you could.)
I am with you on this one. Based upon the complexity of the other stuff you can build, it should be possible to build a broad-spectrum jammer pretty easily. Strictly speaking, if you really wanted to do a broad-spectrum jammer, I suspect you could just use the thermal noise across a few million little resistors amplified up a bajillion times and sent out over the air. You should be able to do that with a 2070ish electronics shop, IMHO. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 8 2006, 09:35 AM
Post
#47
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
what we have to keep in mind people is that the SR4 comlink have more in common with a laptop equiped with wifi, or maybe a cell phone, then it have with a military or HAM radio.
if your using your comlink to talk to people your basicly using it like you would use a cell phone, or a laptop with skype installed. only diffrence is that this is a mesh network, so each and every comlink/phone/laptop is a retransmission/router point. and maybe every streetlight have one mounted next to the light to act as a backbone system. therefor, if the jammer degrades the signal so that the network breaks down, forget about your skype call going thru. if you only want a ham radio, grab a micro-transciver, or convice the GM that the comlink software can drop into a ham mode for 1-way burst transmissions. and expect a lot of "say again?!"... |
|
|
|
|
Sep 8 2006, 07:06 PM
Post
#48
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
actually, they'll probably say "repeat that!?", and then you can yell at them about artillery support.
valid points, Vaevictis, though SR4 computers use optical thingamawhats instead of micro-transistors. even there, though, i can see many commlinks coming with a 'PANICBUTTON mode' for emergencies. all it'd take is for some moron deleting the actual PANICBUTTON number from his friends list (people have deleted stranger things), then accidentally going into PANICBUTTON mode and humming to himself. basically, while it might be possible to design a stupid-proof piece of electronics, it's also quite possible to accidentally design one with exploitable flaws. call me a cynic, but i see the latter as being much more likely than the former. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 8 2006, 09:29 PM
Post
#49
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
true. one of the reasons why intel and others do not release the specs or code needed to open source the drivers for the wifi chips, is that they use software limiting of signal strength.
diffrent nations have diffrent requirements on max transmitter strength before it requires a licence, and to save money they produce a single chip that can then have their strength limited in software/driver. work ok for the joe wageslave with a dell, but not so good for the techie with a tricked out penguin laptop. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 8 2006, 10:08 PM
Post
#50
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441 |
Yeah, I thought about that, but the principle is the same. Rerouting and modifying circuits -- optical or electrical -- on a nanometer or smaller scale is just not going to be practical. And by "not practical", I mean nearly impossible. It would be definately easier to build something from scratch. As an aside, even though they use optics as the basis for their modern "electronics", they'll still have some use for transistors of some kind. IMO, it's impossible to drive RF stuff by optics; you may have the logic controlled by optics, but somewhere along the line, you're going to have traditional electronics involved to actually generate and receive the RF signal. It'll be small by comparison of the optical logic circuits, but it'll be there.
I understand, and I don't necessarily disagree that it's *possible* that such a case might arise, I just expect that on the electronics side, it's going to be the exception rather than the rule. Designing electronics is not like designing software; software design is considerably more complicated and considerably less rigorous. With software, it's usually impossible to prove or enumerate use cases, where as with electronics, it's not. (Actually, given the types of programs they have available in 2060+, ie, agents and AIs, I'm suprised that this hasn't changed. Software flaws simply shouldn't exist anymore if you can have an agent go through all of the possible use cases in the background.) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 5th July 2026 - 04:49 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.