|
Posted by Eigenvector on June 4, 2007, 7:40 pm
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 22:12:56 -0700, Tim Smith
>
>>> >> Rabbit ears work, and I thought the satellite frequencies were higher
>>> >> than UHF.
>>> >
>>> >They are, but consider that visible light is much* higher yet. It
>>> >gets scattered pretty well by trees.
>>>
>>> OK. Good point. I guess his neighbor should put in transparent trees.
>>
>>This reminds me of a conversation I sat in on once. Some people were
>>wondering what to do with an old junk PDP-8 computer.
>>
>> Person #1: We could throw it into the pond.
>>
>> Person #2: I wonder if it would float?
>>
>> ...silence for a moment, as people think about that...
>>
>> Someone: Well, it's smaller than a Volkswagen, and those float.
>>
>> Everyone: Ooh...good point!
>>
>> ...silence for a while....
>>
>> Someone Else: A rock is smaller than a Volkswagen.
>>
>>What's scary about that conversation was it took place at Caltech, among
>>people who went on to be chip designers, or build systems used by the
>>NSA, or design air bag trigger sensors for the auto industry, and things
>>like that.
>>
>>(To be fair, some of that conversation was influenced by alcohol and/or
>>marijuana and/or a very hot, humid, Pasadena summer evening making
>>everyone loopy).
>
> I am often stupid but to be fair to me, not in this case. I was
> relying on his answer to my first question, can signals go through
> trees? to which he said No.
>
> Also I've already read lots of threads where people were trying to
> avoid trees in front of their dishes.
>
> And I didn't rely on frequencies of light being higher than UHF to
> show that satellite signals wouldn't go through trees, only to show
> that my "logic" that they would, that higher would go through more
> stuff was faulty. Without that I had nothing.
>
>
It's not an unfair question to ask. Radio waves go through trees just fine.
TV reception goes through trees,
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap