10 watts. That's the power it took to send pictures from Pluto to Earth.

[rdean]

Radio transmitters here on earth can be 50,000 watts or more. Yet a mere 10 watts was all it took to send pictures and collect data from Pluto.

Snapshot Of The Week Humanity s First Close-Up Glimpse Of Pluto

“The pictures showed ice mountains on Pluto about as high as the Rockies and chasms on its big moon Charon that appear six times deeper than the Grand Canyon,” wrote Marcia Dunn of the Associated Press. Additionally, Pluto turned out to be about 50 miles in diameter larger than estimated and seems to be geologically active.

How were scientists able to get this right, but are so stupid, they are fooled into believing climate change? And those that smear and mock scientists have nothing even close to show why they are smarter and know more than scientists.

 

[Pogo]

That's because it's line-of-sight, straight shot through space. Not to mention it's sent and received from parabolic dish antennas, the most efficient possible design.

That's exactly why FM and TV (higher frequency, ergo shorter wavelength) transmitters are located as high on a tower, building or mountain as they can get. The more you look down, the less power you need to penetrate obstacles. If you could float your transmitter in the sky you could reach everything you could see, with minimal power. And that's what satellites do.

Those communication satellites in space that send our TV/radio signals, telephone, internet around the planet? They're running typically 5 watts. When you don't have to overcome obstacles, that's all it takes.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Science and exploration increases my faith in humanity...Cutting off dick, cutting infrastructure and science does the opposite.

 

[mamooth]

GPS satellites output about 25 Watts on the L1 civilian channel, which is what all our common GPS devices use. They're solar powered, with batteries taking over when they go into earth's shadow.

 

[rdean]

That's because it's line-of-sight, straight shot through space. Not to mention it's sent and received from parabolic dish antennas, the most efficient possible design.

That's exactly why FM and TV (higher frequency, ergo shorter wavelength) transmitters are located as high on a tower, building or mountain as they can get. The more you look down, the less power you need to penetrate obstacles. If you could float your transmitter in the sky you could reach everything you could see, with minimal power. And that's what satellites do.

Those communication satellites in space that send our TV/radio signals, telephone, internet around the planet? They're running typically 5 watts. When you don't have to overcome obstacles, that's all it takes.

Oh wow, line of sight from what? 4 billion miles away? Forgot how easy it actually is.

 

[Moonglow]

Science and exploration increases my faith in humanity...Cutting off dick, cutting infrastructure and science does the opposite.

Cutting of dick, wtf?

 

[rdean]

Science and exploration increases my faith in humanity...Cutting off dick, cutting infrastructure and science does the opposite.

Cutting of dick, wtf?

How about cutting off nose to spite face?

 

[Moonglow]

Well I for one want Pluto to get it's planet status back ,or they can kiss Uranus..

 

[Pogo]

That's because it's line-of-sight, straight shot through space. Not to mention it's sent and received from parabolic dish antennas, the most efficient possible design.

That's exactly why FM and TV (higher frequency, ergo shorter wavelength) transmitters are located as high on a tower, building or mountain as they can get. The more you look down, the less power you need to penetrate obstacles. If you could float your transmitter in the sky you could reach everything you could see, with minimal power. And that's what satellites do.

Those communication satellites in space that send our TV/radio signals, telephone, internet around the planet? They're running typically 5 watts. When you don't have to overcome obstacles, that's all it takes.

Oh wow, line of sight from what? 4 billion miles away? Forgot how easy it actually is.

"Line of sight" meaning "without obstructions". A broadcast transmitter per the OP has to get around buildings, mountains, cars and trucks, and in the case of AM radio the resistance of the earth itself, plus bouncing around all of them, not to mention competition from other broadcast signals. A satellite in space has a straight shot.

If you took a light bulb and put it in a valley or a cave, few people would see it. Put it on top of the mountain and anybody who can see the mountain sees it. Put it up in the sky, and everybody sees it. Location, location, location.

 

[rdean]

That's because it's line-of-sight, straight shot through space. Not to mention it's sent and received from parabolic dish antennas, the most efficient possible design.

That's exactly why FM and TV (higher frequency, ergo shorter wavelength) transmitters are located as high on a tower, building or mountain as they can get. The more you look down, the less power you need to penetrate obstacles. If you could float your transmitter in the sky you could reach everything you could see, with minimal power. And that's what satellites do.

Those communication satellites in space that send our TV/radio signals, telephone, internet around the planet? They're running typically 5 watts. When you don't have to overcome obstacles, that's all it takes.

Oh wow, line of sight from what? 4 billion miles away? Forgot how easy it actually is.

"Line of sight" meaning "without obstructions". A broadcast transmitter per the OP has to get around buildings, mountains, cars and trucks, and in the case of AM radio the resistance of the earth itself, plus bouncing around all of them, not to mention competition from other broadcast signals. A satellite in space has a straight shot.

If you took a light bulb and put it in a valley or a cave, few people would see it. Put it on top of the mountain and anybody who can see the mountain sees it. Put it up in the sky, and everybody sees it. Location, location, location.

It's easy to point a receiver at something you can see. Another thing to point it 4 billion miles away. And then you need to creates receivers sensitive enough to receive data from a 10 watt source 4 billion miles away.
Could you do that?

 

[Pogo]

That's because it's line-of-sight, straight shot through space. Not to mention it's sent and received from parabolic dish antennas, the most efficient possible design.

That's exactly why FM and TV (higher frequency, ergo shorter wavelength) transmitters are located as high on a tower, building or mountain as they can get. The more you look down, the less power you need to penetrate obstacles. If you could float your transmitter in the sky you could reach everything you could see, with minimal power. And that's what satellites do.

Those communication satellites in space that send our TV/radio signals, telephone, internet around the planet? They're running typically 5 watts. When you don't have to overcome obstacles, that's all it takes.

Oh wow, line of sight from what? 4 billion miles away? Forgot how easy it actually is.

"Line of sight" meaning "without obstructions". A broadcast transmitter per the OP has to get around buildings, mountains, cars and trucks, and in the case of AM radio the resistance of the earth itself, plus bouncing around all of them, not to mention competition from other broadcast signals. A satellite in space has a straight shot.

If you took a light bulb and put it in a valley or a cave, few people would see it. Put it on top of the mountain and anybody who can see the mountain sees it. Put it up in the sky, and everybody sees it. Location, location, location.

It's easy to point a receiver at something you can see. Another thing to point it 4 billion miles away. And then you need to creates receivers sensitive enough to receive data from a 10 watt source 4 billion miles away.
Could you do that?

I've been doing things like that since I could walk.

What we should understand about electromagnetic energy--- using it within the confines of Earth subjects it to all sorts of barriers of land, ionized atmosphere, man-made objects and a disadvantage of trajectory. Once you get out into space those barriers pretty much disappear. So using our earth experience as a comparator gives a false illusion.

 

[rdean]

That's because it's line-of-sight, straight shot through space. Not to mention it's sent and received from parabolic dish antennas, the most efficient possible design.

That's exactly why FM and TV (higher frequency, ergo shorter wavelength) transmitters are located as high on a tower, building or mountain as they can get. The more you look down, the less power you need to penetrate obstacles. If you could float your transmitter in the sky you could reach everything you could see, with minimal power. And that's what satellites do.

Those communication satellites in space that send our TV/radio signals, telephone, internet around the planet? They're running typically 5 watts. When you don't have to overcome obstacles, that's all it takes.

That's all it takes? That's all? Wow, so easy. You must have built one. Does that mean you send the signal out in every direction? You don't need to aim it? So how do you aim towards something that 4 billion miles away? Must not be hard if you can do it.

 

[rdean]

That's because it's line-of-sight, straight shot through space. Not to mention it's sent and received from parabolic dish antennas, the most efficient possible design.

That's exactly why FM and TV (higher frequency, ergo shorter wavelength) transmitters are located as high on a tower, building or mountain as they can get. The more you look down, the less power you need to penetrate obstacles. If you could float your transmitter in the sky you could reach everything you could see, with minimal power. And that's what satellites do.

Those communication satellites in space that send our TV/radio signals, telephone, internet around the planet? They're running typically 5 watts. When you don't have to overcome obstacles, that's all it takes.

Oh wow, line of sight from what? 4 billion miles away? Forgot how easy it actually is.

"Line of sight" meaning "without obstructions". A broadcast transmitter per the OP has to get around buildings, mountains, cars and trucks, and in the case of AM radio the resistance of the earth itself, plus bouncing around all of them, not to mention competition from other broadcast signals. A satellite in space has a straight shot.

If you took a light bulb and put it in a valley or a cave, few people would see it. Put it on top of the mountain and anybody who can see the mountain sees it. Put it up in the sky, and everybody sees it. Location, location, location.

It's easy to point a receiver at something you can see. Another thing to point it 4 billion miles away. And then you need to creates receivers sensitive enough to receive data from a 10 watt source 4 billion miles away.
Could you do that?

I've been doing things like that since I could walk.

What we should understand about electromagnetic energy--- using it within the confines of Earth subjects it to all sorts of barriers of land, ionized atmosphere, man-made objects and a disadvantage of trajectory. Once you get out into space those barriers pretty much disappear. So using our earth experience as a comparator gives a false illusion.

Oh, and what about the ship. Did you build that too? And guide it to Pluto? Did it take you ten years to get it there? Did you use two cans and a string?

 

[Pogo]

That's because it's line-of-sight, straight shot through space. Not to mention it's sent and received from parabolic dish antennas, the most efficient possible design.

That's exactly why FM and TV (higher frequency, ergo shorter wavelength) transmitters are located as high on a tower, building or mountain as they can get. The more you look down, the less power you need to penetrate obstacles. If you could float your transmitter in the sky you could reach everything you could see, with minimal power. And that's what satellites do.

Those communication satellites in space that send our TV/radio signals, telephone, internet around the planet? They're running typically 5 watts. When you don't have to overcome obstacles, that's all it takes.

That's all it takes? That's all? Wow, so easy. You must have built one. Does that mean you send the signal out in every direction? You don't need to aim it? So how do you aim towards something that 4 billion miles away? Must not be hard if you can do it.

Absolutely you aim it. That's what the parabolic dish does. Every signal hitting the surface of the dish reflects exactly to the center element, so that element gets a focus of all those signals combined. The transmitting antenna does the same thing. So you get a very narrow, focused, laser-like beam.

​

This gives you, in effect, a much more powerful signal than the simple amount of power used would give in a non-specialized antenna. The power tells only a part of the story, and not necessarily a significant part.

Our notion of "how much power" a broadcast station uses is derived from the earlier days of radio when broadcast meant AM radio, which, because it's medium wave (longer wavelengths) means pushing a ground wave along the surface of the earth-- and that really is a pretty much direct function of how much power you feed. But higher frequencies behave differently, so radiation patterns and clear lines of sight become more of a factor than simply how much power is put in. You're no longer pushing a wave along the ground, but radiating it from a high point. This applies to FM and TV signals. As well as the higher frequencies/shorter wavelengths NASA uses.

Where I grew up there was one particular FM station that had as much coverage area as the 12,000 and 20,000 and 50,000 watt stations, yet this particular station ran only three hundred watts. How'd they do it? They had their transmitting element way way up on a tower that was at least a thousand feet high. Location, location, location. In fact the FCC almost certainly limited them to no more than that, because if they ran ten thousand watts, from that height their signal would get out way too far and start interfering in other cities.

All broadcasters on VHF (FM and traditional TV) put their antennas as high as they can because not only do they get fewer 'shadows', they can also run less power and get the same signal efficiency that they would have at a lower location with more power. Height is everything, and if you're in space, you have the ultimate height advantage. The higher you are and the clearer your path --- the less power you need.

No, I can't build a parabolic dish. I suck at math and don't have the materials to do it. But NASA certainly can. I've got several other kinds of antennas that simply involve wiring in specific designs, but not dishes.


This is the largest parabolic dish in the world, the National Radiotelescope at Green Bank, West Virginia:

​

This thing is 485 feet high and has a surface area of over two acres. It's used to listen to deep, deep space. It's in the middle of the National Radio Quiet Zone, where radio signals are strictly limited and there are no cell towers, so as to minimize interference to this supersensitive monster. The staff there has a van that goes out to fix problem radiation in town, such as Aunt Zelda's leaky microwave oven, because the Green Bank Telescope will pick that up. They even run all-diesel vehicles, even their lawnmowers, so as not to generate spark plug sparks, which would also interfere.

 

[flacaltenn]

Radio transmitters here on earth can be 50,000 watts or more. Yet a mere 10 watts was all it took to send pictures and collect data from Pluto.

Snapshot Of The Week Humanity s First Close-Up Glimpse Of Pluto

“The pictures showed ice mountains on Pluto about as high as the Rockies and chasms on its big moon Charon that appear six times deeper than the Grand Canyon,” wrote Marcia Dunn of the Associated Press. Additionally, Pluto turned out to be about 50 miles in diameter larger than estimated and seems to be geologically active.

How were scientists able to get this right, but are so stupid, they are fooled into believing climate change? And those that smear and mock scientists have nothing even close to show why they are smarter and know more than scientists.

Amazing -- aint it RDean.. Science is supposed to give the public a sense of awe when it does something so apparently magical.. Unlike global warming -- the trick here is to send the data REPEATEDLY and with error correction and EXCRUCIATINGLY slowly. So that you can integrate that tiny amount of information over time.

That's why a tweet from Pluto would take YOU hours to read. Just like normal..

 

[rdean]

Radio transmitters here on earth can be 50,000 watts or more. Yet a mere 10 watts was all it took to send pictures and collect data from Pluto.

Snapshot Of The Week Humanity s First Close-Up Glimpse Of Pluto

“The pictures showed ice mountains on Pluto about as high as the Rockies and chasms on its big moon Charon that appear six times deeper than the Grand Canyon,” wrote Marcia Dunn of the Associated Press. Additionally, Pluto turned out to be about 50 miles in diameter larger than estimated and seems to be geologically active.

How were scientists able to get this right, but are so stupid, they are fooled into believing climate change? And those that smear and mock scientists have nothing even close to show why they are smarter and know more than scientists.

Amazing -- aint it RDean.. Science is supposed to give the public a sense of awe when it does something so apparently magical.. Unlike global warming -- the trick here is to send the data REPEATEDLY and with error correction and EXCRUCIATINGLY slowly. So that you can integrate that tiny amount of information over time.

That's why a tweet from Pluto would take YOU hours to read. Just like normal..

To right wingers, science is magical.

 

[flacaltenn]

Radio transmitters here on earth can be 50,000 watts or more. Yet a mere 10 watts was all it took to send pictures and collect data from Pluto.

Snapshot Of The Week Humanity s First Close-Up Glimpse Of Pluto

“The pictures showed ice mountains on Pluto about as high as the Rockies and chasms on its big moon Charon that appear six times deeper than the Grand Canyon,” wrote Marcia Dunn of the Associated Press. Additionally, Pluto turned out to be about 50 miles in diameter larger than estimated and seems to be geologically active.

How were scientists able to get this right, but are so stupid, they are fooled into believing climate change? And those that smear and mock scientists have nothing even close to show why they are smarter and know more than scientists.

Amazing -- aint it RDean.. Science is supposed to give the public a sense of awe when it does something so apparently magical.. Unlike global warming -- the trick here is to send the data REPEATEDLY and with error correction and EXCRUCIATINGLY slowly. So that you can integrate that tiny amount of information over time.

That's why a tweet from Pluto would take YOU hours to read. Just like normal..

To right wingers, science is magical.

To left wingers, trains and crystals are magical... Science IS magical. Even to scientists. Because like magicians, they KNOW how the trick works. But they often SELL it to an audience as an "illusion" that can't be known.. Much like Global Warming..

 

[Old Rocks]

Illusion, eh. So what we are communicating on is an illusion? The scientists have literally created our modern society. Yet our rightwingnut fruitloops insist they know nothing, and are all corrupt money grubbing parasites. Well, that kind of whacked out logic does impress the two digit IQ voter, of which we see many posting here.

 

[rdean]

Radio transmitters here on earth can be 50,000 watts or more. Yet a mere 10 watts was all it took to send pictures and collect data from Pluto.

Snapshot Of The Week Humanity s First Close-Up Glimpse Of Pluto

“The pictures showed ice mountains on Pluto about as high as the Rockies and chasms on its big moon Charon that appear six times deeper than the Grand Canyon,” wrote Marcia Dunn of the Associated Press. Additionally, Pluto turned out to be about 50 miles in diameter larger than estimated and seems to be geologically active.

How were scientists able to get this right, but are so stupid, they are fooled into believing climate change? And those that smear and mock scientists have nothing even close to show why they are smarter and know more than scientists.

Amazing -- aint it RDean.. Science is supposed to give the public a sense of awe when it does something so apparently magical.. Unlike global warming -- the trick here is to send the data REPEATEDLY and with error correction and EXCRUCIATINGLY slowly. So that you can integrate that tiny amount of information over time.

That's why a tweet from Pluto would take YOU hours to read. Just like normal..

To right wingers, science is magical.

To left wingers, trains and crystals are magical... Science IS magical. Even to scientists. Because like magicians, they KNOW how the trick works. But they often SELL it to an audience as an "illusion" that can't be known.. Much like Global Warming..

They build a spaceship, guide it to Pluto over 4 billion miles away. Take close up pictures. Send the pictures back to earth.
But they are so stupid they are taken in by "Global Warming". You would have to be a tard to believe something so idiotic.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Physics is a hard science and you never hear real physicists talking about "settled science". They have centuries of experiments, climate scientists don't even have one successful Experiment linking temperature to a wisp of CO2. Thanks for highlighting why climate scientists are a joke