|
In article <0ggNh.17269$Jl.15251@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
COLIN LAMB <k7fm@teleport.com> wrote:
>Hi Wayne:
>
>!,000 watts and 8 antennas is about right for state of the art 1970s to hear
>your own signal (but only sometimes (due to Faraday rotation) and even then
>very weakly. The secret to using less was to "talk" to another station with
>a better antenna. Today, if the other station has a gigantic antenna,
>stations with 100 watts and a good single boom yagi can talk to others.
>
>On occasion, hams have "borrowed" the radio telescope at Arecibo, PR. It is
>a 1,000 foot diameter dish with 50,000 square feet of capture area. When it
>was used on vhf, the other stations can use mediocre equipment and bounce
>signals off the moon. I've not been able to find the actual gain of
>Arecibo on vhf - but contacting them would not be a routine event and I
>question whether 60 mw would do it into a moderate antenna.
>
>Maybe on 1296 MHz or 10 GHz - but that would not meet the claimed vhf
>guideline.
>
>Back to the original post, there is a distinct advantage to using a 5 watt
>transmitter over a 10 watt transmitter when you don't have a big fan out in
>front of you. As a fellow pilot who routinely flies with the fan off, I use
>a 5 watt transmitter. If people can't hear me, they are often too far away
>to be meaningful at the present moment.
>
>Colin
>
>
|
|
Re: theoretical radio range....
