6 Comments
May 27Liked by Vikram Sekar

Great article. I believe there is a typo in "while providing 36 dB rejection at 4.4 GHz (Band n41), only 200 MHz away. This is definitely promising." Should be n79, not n41

Expand full comment
author

Great catch, I'll correct it right away.

Expand full comment
May 26Liked by Vikram Sekar

One more question if I may.

From filters' perspective, what advantages, disadvantages, challenges or opportunities you foresee if future communication goes to higher frequency bands, e.g. millimeter waves? More specifically, do you think it will become harder or easier to make filters?

Expand full comment
author
May 27·edited May 27Author

At mmWave, the wavelength is smaller and electromagnetic resonance filters might be small enough. This is a problem for cellular frequencies below 6GHz, which is why acoustic-wave filters work so well. Also, the spectrum is not as crowded at mmWave compared to lower frequency bands. Filter selectivity need not be as high.

That being said, people have been successful in making acoustic-wave filters at mmWave. So maybe that still has uses. Also, I don't know of any startups or companies focused on using a hybrid approach (acoustic+LC) to make filters for future wireless communications. Definitely an opportunity there!

Expand full comment

All good points and took me to ponder a bit, thank you!

Expand full comment
May 26Liked by Vikram Sekar

Thank you, Vikram!

The quality of this week's newsletter is outstanding; I really appreciate you explaining your best expertise in a language that other non-experts can easily understand!

Expand full comment