Ham Radio and Moonbounce

  • 451 Replies
  • 98403 Views
*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #240 on: July 07, 2009, 02:50:06 AM »
what do you think defines omnidirectional?

If a photon can hit the receiver from multiple angles and directions, the antenna is omnidirectional.

If an antenna can receive a photon hitting a receiver from multiple angles and directions, the antenna is omnidirectional.

If the photon hits the antenna but the gain a reduced from certain angles, then it is not omnidirectional.  For example, a TV (Yagi) antenna is a metallic directional antenna, because the gain is highest in one direction (within tolerances).



EDIT: Tesla as given a better explanation.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #241 on: July 07, 2009, 03:14:24 AM »
EDIT: Tesla as given a better explanation.

Two heads are always better than one (so thanks)!

Shall we agree not to try and explain this to Tom anymore?

"Do not feed the trolls!", and all that?
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #242 on: July 07, 2009, 03:37:47 AM »
EDIT: Tesla as given a better explanation.

Two heads are always better than one (so thanks)!

Shall we agree not to try and explain this to Tom anymore?

"Do not feed the trolls!", and all that?

Sometimes I do think Tom is genuinely perplexed.  However I guess you're right.  I don't think directional aerials can be spelled out any simpler.

BTW I do think Tom is for real (i.e. I'm a Tom-Bishoper).  I just wish someone would make a documentation.  For example "When Louis Theroux Met TomB".
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #243 on: July 07, 2009, 04:09:41 AM »
EDIT: Tesla as given a better explanation.

Two heads are always better than one (so thanks)!

Shall we agree not to try and explain this to Tom anymore?

"Do not feed the trolls!", and all that?

Sometimes I do think Tom is genuinely perplexed.  However I guess you're right.  I don't think directional aerials can be spelled out any simpler.

BTW I do think Tom is for real (i.e. I'm a Tom-Bishoper).  I just wish someone would make a documentation.  For example "When Louis Theroux Met TomB".


That's a great idea!

Flat Earthers are just the sort of people he likes in his shows.

You should write to him and suggest it!
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #244 on: July 07, 2009, 03:35:53 PM »
it's quite pointless to try to understand antennas by looking at photons hitting it.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #245 on: July 08, 2009, 02:27:19 AM »
it's quite pointless to try to understand antennas by looking at photons hitting it.

It's all about waves, right?
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #246 on: July 08, 2009, 10:24:51 AM »
exactly. or let's put it that way: it's easier with waves. if you do it correctly you should get the same results with photons. but the mess starts right at the beginning then: who would guess that photons can be (and always are) polarized?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #247 on: July 08, 2009, 04:32:14 PM »
Quote
Yes, but there are collosal differences in "gain" (the degree to which a signal is amplified") at different angles of incidence ...

But the antenna cannot tell precisely which direction the photons are coming from since it's all one solid piece of metal.

If an antenna can receive a photon hitting a receiver from multiple angles and directions, the antenna is omnidirectional.

If the photon hits the antenna but the gain a reduced from certain angles, then it is not omnidirectional.  For example, a TV (Yagi) antenna is a metallic directional antenna, because the gain is highest in one direction (within tolerances).



EDIT: Tesla as given a better explanation.

Sorry, but no.

When photons hit that antenna a greater "gain" would be received if it hit it from the side where there is greater surface area. If it hit the antenna straight on, there would be less surface area to hit. So with plenty of surface area on either side, top and bottom, how would that metal antenna tell us which direction the photons are coming from?

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #248 on: July 09, 2009, 02:43:51 AM »
Sorry, but no.

Sorry, but yes?

Really Tom - it's time to give up.

You clearly no almost nothing about R.F. technology, and you are just making yourself look incredibly stubborn/stupid.

(Something which does nothing at all to enhance your reputation, or the validity of your other arguments herein.)

Julianmartin has hours of experience of ham radio 'in the field' and I have hours of experience in university physics labs with R.F. amd microwave (both E.M.) equipment.

If we say that antennae can be directional we really do know what we are talking about, OK?
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #249 on: July 09, 2009, 04:16:16 AM »
Quote
If we say that antennae can be directional we really do know what we are talking about, OK?

Not if it's a solid piece of bare metal is isn't.

Quote
If we say that antennae can be directional we really do know what we are talking about, OK?

Please tell me again how the metal antenna pictured above knows which direction the photons are hitting it from.

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #250 on: July 09, 2009, 04:28:07 AM »
Quote
If we say that antennae can be directional we really do know what we are talking about, OK?

Not if it's a solid piece of bare metal is isn't.

Quote
If we say that antennae can be directional we really do know what we are talking about, OK?

Please tell me again how the metal antenna pictured above knows which direction the photons are hitting it from.

Just for the record, you don't believe that directional antennas exist, correct?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #251 on: July 09, 2009, 05:07:50 AM »
Satellite dishes are directional. The antenna pictured above is not directional.

?

Squat

Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #252 on: July 09, 2009, 05:11:27 AM »
Satellite dishes are directional.



Why should satellite dishes need to be directional?   ???

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #253 on: July 09, 2009, 06:11:45 AM »
If the antenna exists as a piece of metal, it's obviously not "directional".

RE-READ my post troll before you make stupid assertions like that.

Tom appears to be refusing to admit that he - the non-expert in this debate - is wrong in a most childish manner.

I do not know if you are too dumb to grasp this, or if you are being willfully obtuse - either way debating with you has become pointless.

Shall we agree not to try and explain this to Tom anymore?

"Do not feed the trolls!", and all that?

Really Tom - it's time to give up.

You clearly no almost nothing about R.F. technology, and you are just making yourself look incredibly stubborn/stupid.

Sorry Tom ...

Your stubborn stupidity is evident to all, and I will not engage with you in this debate any further.

Edit: and as nobody can come up with a reasonable Flat-Earth explanation for trans-global radio wave propagation, I must conclude that The Earth is as sphere.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2009, 06:15:05 AM by 3 Tesla »
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42319
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #254 on: July 09, 2009, 06:34:24 AM »
Quote
If we say that antennae can be directional we really do know what we are talking about, OK?

Not if it's a solid piece of bare metal is isn't.

Quote
If we say that antennae can be directional we really do know what we are talking about, OK?

Please tell me again how the metal antenna pictured above knows which direction the photons are hitting it from.

As EM waves hit an antenna, an alternating current is induced in the antenna.  If, like the antenna shown above, the antenna has many "branches" (for the lack of me knowing the proper term), then the EM waves hitting those branches will induces many alternating currents.  Depending on the angle of incidence at which the EM waves hit the branches, the synchronization of those induced alternating currents may be affected causing either constructive or destructive interference to occur.

Does that help, Tom?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #255 on: July 09, 2009, 06:41:03 AM »
Does that help, Tom?

He will be either unbale or unwilling to understand this no matter how often, differently, clearly or creatively we explain this to him.
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #256 on: July 09, 2009, 06:41:21 AM »
As EM waves hit an antenna, an alternating current is induced in the antenna.  If, like the antenna shown above, the antenna has many "branches" (for the lack of me knowing the proper term), then the EM waves hitting those branches will induces many alternating currents.  Depending on the angle of incidence at which the EM waves hit the branches, the synchronization of those induced alternating currents may be affected causing either constructive or destructive interference to occur.

Does that help, Tom?

It's one solid metal structure connected to a receiver. The little "branches" aren't going to tell the receiver anything, since it's part of a conductive metal structure.

Since it's all interconnected as one conductive metal structure the antenna doesn't "know" whether the photons are hitting one branch or another.

?

Squat

Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #257 on: July 09, 2009, 06:43:42 AM »
Why should satellite dishes need to be directional Tom?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #258 on: July 09, 2009, 06:50:33 AM »
He will be either unbale or unwilling to understand this no matter how often, differently, clearly or creatively we explain this to him.

You haven't "explained" anything. You're children grasping at straws, thinking that it's possible to find the direction of an AM or HAM radio signal. If you knew the first thing about HAM and AM you would know that it's a field which bounces many millions of times between the ground and ionosphere. The photons aren't coming from any specific direction, it's all around you.

Ever heard of the number stations? It's an AM broadcast of women repeating seemingly numbers in monotone for hours on end (thought to be spy communications). They've been broadcasted on regular intervals for over forty years. They're of great interest and are widely studied. However, as much as hobbiests and researchers try, no one can find the location of the number signals because it's impossible to locate the source of an AM signal. AM is a field which bounces between the ionosphere and the ground in many many directions.

Only FM and other directional signals might be locatable.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2009, 07:20:21 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #259 on: July 09, 2009, 06:51:07 AM »
Why should satellite dishes need to be directional Tom?

Try pointing your satellite dish at the ground and see what kind of reception you get.

?

Squat

Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #260 on: July 09, 2009, 06:52:51 AM »
Why should satellite dishes need to be directional Tom?

Try pointing your satellite dish at the ground and see what kind of reception you get.

Why will pointing it at the sky be any better?

Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #261 on: July 09, 2009, 07:00:03 AM »
... the antenna has many "branches" (for the lack of me knowing the proper term), ...

dipoles

apart from that good explanation.

photons can't hit anything, they are absorbed. photons are only absorbed by the antenna if the antenna is able to absorb energy carried by the associated em wave in form of said photons. if the wavelenght or polarisation or angle of incident is wrong the electrons in the antenna can't couple with the electric field component of the wave and there will be no energy transfer so no photons will be absorbed.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #262 on: July 09, 2009, 07:11:38 AM »
You haven't "explained" anything.

No: you haven't understood anything.

You're children grasping at straws

No: you are a child with his fingers in his ears shouting "Na! Na! Na! Na! Na! I can't hear you!"
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #263 on: July 09, 2009, 07:13:42 AM »
Guys, let's make sure this doesn't start slipping into personal attacks.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #264 on: July 09, 2009, 07:22:57 AM »
You haven't "explained" anything.

No: you haven't understood anything.

You're children grasping at straws

No: you are a child with his fingers in his ears shouting "Na! Na! Na! Na! Na! I can't hear you!"

If you knew how HAM and AM actually worked you wouldn't be mumbling on about this deluding "directional antenna" nonsense.

Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #265 on: July 09, 2009, 08:17:19 AM »
Tom, for the sake of argument, let's take a step backwards from all this talk of photons hitting metal, and the mechanics of RF antennas.

The point is, it's been demonstrated time and time again, in the real world that it works.  By millions of people.  When the location of a transmitter is known, let's say, a television transmitter, it's well known that adding a rooftop antenna if you're in a fringe reception area along with a motor for rotating the antenna, will allow you to improve your reception by "aiming" the antenna in the direction of the transmitter.  I have experienced this myself, while attempting to receive broadcasts of football games that used to be 'blacked out' locally, but I could often receive them from distant cities not affected by blackout rules by aiming my directional antenna towards a distant transmitter.  The difference in signal was more than just a little noticable, it was the difference between a viewable braodcast, or none at all.

If, as you say, these types of antenna are not in the least directional, what then accounts for this observed behavior?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42319
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #266 on: July 09, 2009, 08:18:09 AM »
If you knew how HAM and AM actually worked you wouldn't be mumbling on about this deluding "directional antenna" nonsense.

Tom, are you a HAM radio operator?  Do you have any personal experience in the field of radio broadcasting?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #267 on: July 09, 2009, 01:16:31 PM »

Ever heard of the number stations? It's an AM broadcast of women repeating seemingly numbers in monotone for hours on end (thought to be spy communications). They've been broadcasted on regular intervals for over forty years. They're of great interest and are widely studied. However, as much as hobbiests and researchers try, no one can find the location of the number signals because it's impossible to locate the source of an AM signal. AM is a field which bounces between the ionosphere and the ground in many many directions.

Another case of Tom not telling the whole story.  Numbers stations have been located, and by the very same methods we've been talking about.  Some come from inside the US, others from around the world including Cuba and the former USSR.  They're generally thought to be coded transmissions meant for government agents, or spies if you prefer.  They're not illegal, and finding the source is not very useful, so countries don't generally bother.  Anyone with the proper equipment can find the location of the transmitters, as they're quite powerful, but then what?  What would any of us gain by knowing the transmission is coming from say, Cuba, China, Germany, or the US?  It's not like anyone's going to go into China and drop bombs on a transmitter.  It's common knowledge among governments that these transmitters and their encoded broadcasts exist.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #268 on: July 09, 2009, 01:18:26 PM »
I can't believe this directional antenna argument is still going.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

Re: Ham Radio and Moonbounce
« Reply #269 on: July 09, 2009, 04:41:13 PM »
Tom, for the sake of argument, let's take a step backwards from all this talk of photons hitting metal, and the mechanics of RF antennas.

The point is, it's been demonstrated time and time again, in the real world that it works.  By millions of people.  When the location of a transmitter is known, let's say, a television transmitter, it's well known that adding a rooftop antenna if you're in a fringe reception area along with a motor for rotating the antenna, will allow you to improve your reception by "aiming" the antenna in the direction of the transmitter.  I have experienced this myself, while attempting to receive broadcasts of football games that used to be 'blacked out' locally, but I could often receive them from distant cities not affected by blackout rules by aiming my directional antenna towards a distant transmitter.  The difference in signal was more than just a little noticable, it was the difference between a viewable braodcast, or none at all.

If, as you say, these types of antenna are not in the least directional, what then accounts for this observed behavior?


Equinox is certainly correct about this, Tom.  And it doesn't even require a rooftop antenna to demonstrate that.  If you are a true zetetic as you claim, you would actually try it out for yourself instead of merely flatly denying what can be easily demonstrated with even some simple indoor antennas, as I and many others have.  The direction you aim the antenna can indeed make the difference between getting good reception and poor reception or even none at all.  For you to continue to stubbornly deny this, only casts serious doubt on your rationality or honesty or both.  The truth is that it is actually quite difficult to design a high gain antenna that is is not at least somewhat directional.  If my understanding is correct, the only truly omnidirectional antenna design is a simple, vertically oriented, monopole antenna, like those commonly used for car radios (you ham radio enthusiasts such as JulianMartin, please correct me if I am wrong about that).  And even a monopole antenna like that would get very poor or no reception at all from a broadcast signal coming from directly above or below it.

I'm sure that the only reason you are so stubborn about conceding this point is that such a concession seriously, if not fatally, damages the credibility of FET, to which you have such a high, purely emotional commitment.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2009, 08:17:10 PM by Rational U.S. Viking »