Considering Amplitude and Phase Modulations (PAM, QAM and PSK are included in this group), the energy spent per bit (E b) needed to transmit information in a given bit error rate, is smaller for constellations with smaller number of symbols (M), or, equivalently, smaller number of bits per symbol (b), where b=log2M. The drawback of using small constellations (ex: BPSK) is that, for a given available bandwidth, the time to transmit a fixed number of bits is longer than if one uses a constellation with a higher number of symbols (ex: 8-PSK).
The following graphs show those 2 characteristics. In the first graph, observe that for a fixed bit error rate (BER), let's say 10-4, a constellation with smaller number of symbols (e.g. BPSK/QPSK) spends less energy per bit than a constellation with higher number of symbols (e.g. 16-PSK). On the other hand, observing the second graph, it is possible to see that the bandwidth efficiency (bits per second per hertz) of binary constellations is smaller than the ones of higher order constellations.

Figure 1 - taken from wikipedia

Figure 2
Considering a path-loss model, the received power is related to the transmitted power as expressed in the following equation:
Where PRx is the power of the signal in the input of the receiver, PTx is the one in the output of the transmitter, Gd = G1dkMl is the power gain factor, with Ml the link margin for compensating imperfections in hardware and noise and G1 is the gain factor at d = 1 meter [1].So, the longer is the distance, the more power should be delivered to the transmitted signal.
Considering long distance wireless transmissions, like digital TV, mobile phones, satellites, the best strategy for saving energy may be to transmit using a small constellation size, because they require less energy per bit. The power spent by the RF circuit used to transmit this signal is much lower than the power of the signal itself and can be neglected in these cases.
On the other hand, for short distances, as it is the case of some WSN where nodes are separated by short distances, the power needed for the transmitted signal has the same order of magnitude of the power spent by the RF circuit used to transmit this signal, so, the power used by the RF circuit should be considered in these cases.
The tradeoff can be seen in the following way:
- Use a constellation with low number of symbols and use a longer time to transmit information; or
- Use a constellation with high number of symbols and use a shorter time to transmit information;
The first option minimizes the energy spent by the transmitted signal, but maximizes the one of the RF circuit, because it keeps the circuit turned on for a longer time. The second option maximizes the energy spent by the transmitted signal, but minimizes the one of the RF circuit, because it can transfer information faster and turn off the circuit after doing that.
Moreover, option numer 1 is the best choice for longer distances (observe the path-loss equation above), where signal energy is dominant, while option number 2 is preferable for shorter distances, where circuit energy consumption is higher than the signal one.
So, just making it clear: the objective of my research is finding a way to minimize the energy needed to transmit information in scenarios like the ones found in wireless sensor networks, considering both transmitted signal as well as RF circuit power consumptions.
This problem was studied in [1] and in many other previous papers. The issue is not solved and there are still many open problems.
If you want to know more details about the RF circuit power consumption model, please read [1]. I use the model developed in [1] to model the RF power consumption in my most recent three papers, that you can find here. In all my papers, there is an introduction, explaining that model.
That's it, that's all. If you have any questions or suggestions, please, leave me a comment.
More details in the next post, that I plan to write in the next 15 days.
Cheers,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] S. Cui, A. Goldsmith, and A. Bahai, “Energy-constrained modulation optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 2349–2360, 2005.

