[geocentrism] Re: radiated power.
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:01:45 +1000
Gary and all friends, those figures last post were an error. Where I
calculated the receiver end.. Anyone notice. Of course the footprint would only
get 30 watts. All of it. The 1000 watts is an illusion really, something that
could confuse... The gain of the transmision antenna produces a signal in the
reception area equivalent to what it would get if the transmission point power
was 1000 watts TRANSMITTING IN EVERY DIRECTION. Its a neat way of saving power
to service specific area.
This by the way also is proof that they lied in 9/11 hyjack by telling us and
giving us fake mobile phone calls from the hyjacked planes.. The mobile
phone transmitters donot not let any signal get wasted up towards the sky. And
a reciever up there would not be able to differentiate (establish) which tower
to talk to, when there were so many looking at it at a height even if there was
signal and they were low enough to work it.
Minor point , the principle is clear, but I did not want the math men jumping
on me lol.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Philip
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 3:21 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: radiated power.
Can you give me a primer link on the stuff, Philip?
Thanks,
Gary
Gary, it is a logarithm function, and I never did quite want to, use it.
Although I did find log and trig tables handy.
I will try for a link., the one I got it from..
Basically it is a mathmatical representation of what happens if you take a
light bulb with a point source of light say of 10 watts. (related to lumens
rated. ) And then you use reflectors to send all the light like a torch focus
in to one directional beam..
This then will put a beam to that spot that might calculate to be the
equivalent of what one would expect if the source of the lumens had been 1000
watts without any reflector. They used terms like effective power in the beam,
and its aperture, which could be a segment of a sphere.
With radio in my olden days for practical reasons at the lower frequencies
the reference of the dB gain was over a dipole (which does not transmit from a
spherical point in all directions. I for the same practical reasons preferred
the to use the "power gain" rather than the more technical db gain. I just
instinctivly said a 5db gain antenna would multiply the power by 3.
With the gHz frequencies of satellites the dipole is almost a point source,
so we use a dish.
In any case I would still prefer to say, that if an antenna output was 30dbW
(sa stated for Aussat. ) it would from a 30 watt input produce an equivalent
power in its beam of 1034 Watts..
I would say it had a power gain of 1034/30 or 34.
I am going into this detail to show how easy it is to prove the Geostat is
there. The beam from that distance may spread to cover the continent of
Australia, guess say 2000 000 Km2. Divide 1000 watts by this area in m2, and
you have the amount of microwatts that hit a dish that is pointing at the
source...
The receiving dish will have the same if not higher power gain. and acting in
reverse will amplify the signal to a quality at the central dipole/ low noise
amplifier sufficient to provide a good TV picture. A storm or a bird, or a
movement of the dish off co ordinates will lose or degrade the signal. Geostats
are no good for moving receivers, unless they were provided with extremely
complex autotracking equipment.
The same idea is used for solar power where a dish of mirrors track the sun ,
focussing the one KW /per m2, all onto the boiler at the centre, producing
steam at extremely high temperatures. Go a few degrees off from the sun, and
there is no steam.
Philip sorry for being longwinded.
T
Other related posts:
