Telephony query

I just thought, under conventional telephony technology, i.e. pre-21CN, when you talk on the phone, you are using sound waves - right?

As these travel at 770 mph (in air *), I can't understand why we don't hear a delay when we talk to someone (say) 500 miles away, as this should cause aprox a 45 minute delay and this doesn't seem to be happening

I realise that the 21CN transfers voice digitally and an electronic signal is supposedly faster than sound?

I just happened to think of this query whilst I was reading an article about the speed of light the other day.

Any comments anyone?



* I'm not sure if this speed is the same travelling down a telephone line (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound )


p.s. I didn't know where to post this topic as there doesn't seem to be a board category that is suitable.

No they are travelling as electromagnetic waves - 3x10^8 ms-1 or 186000miles per second multiplied by the factor for the cable ... about 0.65 (ish) for copper and 1 for fibre optic. And yes there is a delay - about 0.1 second to the US when switching is allowed for. But on UK internal calls it is not noticeable.

Edited by MHC (Mon 31-Dec-07 08:19:08)

And of course the delay is in both directions so imperceptible..

Sorry, can't resist. Strictly the electromagnetic wave carrying the signal is not travelling in the copper, so it's not the copper that determines the speed. Instead the wave is travelling outside the copper, in the insulation and surrounding medium. So the speed of the electric signal is determined by the shape and materials used around the copper, not the copper itself. The closer to a vacuum the better. Two air spaced wires achieve around 95% of the speed in a vacuum. Coax cable with foam insulation can achieve around 80%. Twisted pair is typically around 65-70%.

Optic fibres are also made of solid material (not a vacuum), and so the speed of light (which of course is also an electromagnetic wave) in the fibre is also slower than in a vacuum. It's typically around 70%, depending on the type of fibre - very similar to twisted pair speeds in fact.

In reply to:

---

No they are travelling as electromagnetic waves - 3x10^8 ms-1 or 186000miles per second multiplied by the factor for the cable ... about 0.65 (ish) for copper and 1 for fibre optic. And yes there is a delay - about 0.1 second to the US when switching is allowed for. But on UK internal calls it is not noticeable.

---

Thanks for replying.

I wasn't going to post the query because it sounds daft but I'm glad I did now.

In reply to:

---

Strictly the electromagnetic wave carrying the signal is not travelling in the copper, so it's not the copper that determines the speed. Instead the wave is travelling outside the copper, in the insulation and surrounding medium.

---

I didn't know that.

I assume that broadband signals travel in the same way i.e. travelling outside the copper in the insulation?

p.s. I was obviously mistaken thinking that sound waves are used.

Cheers.

how can that be true, the electromagnetic wave must travel down the copper, if it were to travel down the insulation, every line in the cable would have cross talk on them. also cables perform better in extreme cold than in a vacuum, par se.

Edited by yz450 (Mon 31-Dec-07 17:27:35)

In reply to:

---

how can that be true, the electromagnetic wave must travel down the copper, if it were to travel down the insulation, every line in the cable would have cross talk on them

---

You're thinking about the electrons rather than the electromagnetic wave (consisting of photons). Electrons are confined to the copper, but they travel extremely slowly and don't carry the electrical energy themselves. The energy travels in the electromagnetic field surrounding the copper. Copper (and metals in general) are very good at absorbing electromagnetic waves rather than conducting them. Any photons entering the copper get absorbed in a very short distance, ending up just heating the metal. That's why metals are very effective for electric shielding for example.

As long as the wires in a pair are close together and the frequency is fairly low then the wave is concentrated very close to (but not in) the copper, the majority travelling within the insulation. As the frequency increases the wave spreads out further. That's actually what causes crosstalk. If the wave travelled within the copper then there wouldn't be any crosstalk at all.

Conversely within a coax cable the wave travels entirely within the insulation between the shield and the central wire (but still not in the copper itself), so crosstalk doesn't occur. The outer copper shielding in the cable prevents the wave from escaping.

In reply to:

---

Conversely within a coax cable the wave travels entirely within the insulation between the shield and the central wire (but still not in the copper itself), so crosstalk doesn't occur. The outer copper shielding in the cable prevents the wave from escaping.

---

So the electrical signal travels through the insulation and is prevented from leaking out by the conductor. Point well made. I think the electrical engineers around here are going to suffer, now that that one is out.

Your a wealth of knowledge and I do enjoy reading your replies

In reply to:

---

I think the electrical engineers around here are going to suffer, now that that one is out.

---

Physics and electrical engineers never did mix very well!

In reply to:

---

I do enjoy reading your replies

---

Well, at least it makes a change from posts about download speeds, although I doubt that many would share your interest!

In reply to:

---

Well, at least it makes a change from posts about download speeds, although I doubt that many would share your interest!

---

Just a passing interest

>Well, at least it makes a change from posts about download speeds, although I doubt that many would share your interest

Fascinating info, just don't start on about the quantum stuff, I find the behaviour at that level far too creepy.

Took a while for me to get to grips with "try it in the master socket".

In reply to:

---

So the electrical signal travels through the insulation and is prevented from leaking out by the conductor. Point well made. I think the electrical engineers around here are going to suffer, now that that one is out.

---

Strange though it may seem he is (sort-of) right so the sarcasm was in vain. DC principals don't apply to RF I'm afraid which doesn't need any conductors at all to propogate (or insulators either come to that). Need proof - just take a look at the sun (assuming it will one day be visible again if only for a fleeting instant) there's 93million miles of vacuum between your eyea and the sun but that didn't stop the light reaching you at all.

But to get the little amount of energy there is in a phone signal to where you need it, a wire/fibre is needed.

Yep it is. Furthermore the better the quality of the conductor the more signal will get through because the conductors do carry the signal. My response was to the commentry on coaxial cable.

In reply to:

---

Strange though it may seem he is (sort-of) right so the sarcasm was in vain. DC principals don't apply to RF

---

I didn't take the comment as sarcasm but rather as pointing out the irony of what actually happens (energy travelling in the insulation) compared to common understanding (energy travelling in the copper). The same applies to DC by the way - AC doesn't carry energy in a fundamentally different way to DC.

You still need the copper of course, where electricity is concerned. With electricity the electromagnetic wave wouldn't exist without the electron current flowing in the conductor (which creates the magnetic component of the field). Neither is the current alone sufficient - you also need a voltage difference between the conductors (which creates the electric component of the field, between but not within the conductors).

Googling around, there's quite a nice detailed non-mathematical explanation here for anybody that's interested.

In reply to:

---

the conductors do carry the signal

---

I disagree. The conductors are responsible for the signal being carried, but they don't actually carry it. See above.

In reply to:

---

the conductors do carry the signal

---

I disagree. The conductors are responsible for the signal being carried, but they don't actually carry it. See above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADSL and voice telephony are a lot more complicated than I thought!

I will admit to thinking that the conductor actually carried the signal (whether it be voice or a broadband signal)

I was wrong but at least I know now.

> With electricity the electromagnetic wave wouldn't exist without the electron current flowing in the conductor

So where is the conductor between the sun and your eyeball? Or for that matter between the TV transmitter and your TV set etc. etc.

The electromagnetic field requires no conductor at all. In fact it requires absolutely nothing - not even the "luminiferous ether" should you be fond of googling.

If you read the quote again, I specifically said "with electricity" you need the electron current. Clearly your examples of light travelling and radio waves are not forms of electricity. They're all electromagnetic waves, but they are initiated in different ways (although not fundamentally different - they're all produced by moving charged particles in one way or another).

Electricity is essentially an electromagnetic wave travelling outside and in parallel with two (or more) conductors, created by a combination of movement of electric charge along the conductors together with an electric potential difference between the conductors. The point I was making is that the electrical energy (ie: the phone or ADSL signal in the phone line case) is carried by the wave outside the conductors, not by the electrons (or anything else) within the conductors. The signal is therefore travelling through the materials around the conductors, and so these materials influence the communication of the signal (in particular the propagation speed).