![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
|||||||
| Electronic Projects Design/Ideas/Reviews Are you building an electronic project or want to? Maybe you need some assistance? Come and submit your electronic questions here and let our experienced members find a solution. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
(permalink) |
|
why modulating a wave with a signal of very high frequency enables long distance transfer of information????/
__________________
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(permalink) |
|
High frequency is not a requirement; you just have to have an antenna that will radiate the carrier frequency. Low frequencies follow the curvature of the earth better than higher frequencies. Above 100 mHz, distance is limited by the earth's curvature. In the 15mHz to 50mHz range, signals can be bounced off the ionosphere to increase range.
__________________
see my website: www.geocities.com/russlk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(permalink) |
|
Using high frequency enables higher data transfer rates.
__________________
I'm no electronics god, i just talk too much. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(permalink) | |
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
(permalink) |
|
Now just a sec.
He asked a really good question. You understand that the higher the frequency the shorter the wavelength. and the distance (believe it or not) is a heck of a lot smaller than lower frequencies. This is one reason why you can pick up stations from far away with low frequencies. This is at least what I think it is. About 3 years ago, I built a cheap shortwave radio when I was learning about amplifiers. and I managed to pick up a station from Alabama, and yet, I'm still in Ontario, Canada. When I play with my superregen at a high frequency, I can't pick up stations outside of Ontario.
__________________
-=: The best low-priced components to troubleshoot with are the speaker and the LED :=- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(permalink) | |
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
(permalink) | |
|
Quote:
Does it get all 20 or 30 of the FM stations in Toronto? You can probably see the CN Tower from where they transmit from.
__________________
Uncle $crooge |
||
|
|
|
|
|
(permalink) |
|
Another point: in freespace, a lower frequency radio wave will travel farther than a higher frequency. This has nothing to do with atmospheric skip or the ionesphere or anything.
__________________
I'm no electronics god, i just talk too much. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(permalink) | |
|
Quote:
__________________
see my website: www.geocities.com/russlk |
||
|
|
|
|
|
(permalink) | ||
|
Quote:
Happy reading :lol:
__________________
I'm no electronics god, i just talk too much. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
(permalink) |
|
The equation given by pyroandrew is ridiculous: The free space loss depends on how much of the radiated power is captured. If you have a sharply focused beam and capture all the radiated power, to think that the loss in one mile is 36.6db boggles the mind. Those who proposed to power a satelite using microwaves certainly did not use that equation!
__________________
see my website: www.geocities.com/russlk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(permalink) |
|
The equation given in the link is correct.
This is the attenuation between two isotropic antennae. OK so an isotropic antenna is a theoretical concept but you have to start somewhere and then add the gain (or loss) of the practical antenna with respect to an isotropic antenna. An isotropic antenna is one which radiates a uniform field in all directions. JimB
__________________
Experience is directly proportional to the value of the equipment ruined. |
|
|
|
|