12.2-12.7 AFAIK
On Dec 14, 2015 5:20 PM, "Bill Prince" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Wow. At 23,000 miles? What kind of EIRP are we talking about? Aren't they
> in the 12-15 GHz range?
>
> bp
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
>
> On 12/14/2015 3:03 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>
> I remember the guys telling me they easily get -20's at the LNB with the 1
> meter dishes. They will sometimes still have to add attenuators or it will
> overdrive the decoders.
>
> On 12/14/2015 2:26 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>
> That would be -92dbm on a 1 square meter antenna right?
> Sat TV signals are stronger than that I think....I want to say -80's.
>
> Does channel width matter in this formula? Seems like there would be more
> total watts if we're summing 30mhz worth of spectrum.
>
>
>
> On 12/14/2015 3:19 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
>
> Found this: “The solar microwave flux is nominally an *absolute* flux,
> one solar flux unit defined as [the *very small *amount of] 10 -22-22 Watt
> per square meter per Hertz.”
>
> So, 10^-22 would be 10^-19 mW times 6 x 10^9 HZ or 6x10-10mW
>
> 10 log 6x10^-10 = –92 dBm of solar radiation. Makes sense the satellites
> are probably about that weak too.
>
>
> *From:* Adam Moffett <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2015 1:07 PM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] RF exposure concerns
>
> Right. I was hoping some chart would show me w/m2 from the sun near 6ghz,
> which I could compare to exposure numbers published by the backhaul
> manufacturer. Then I could say (backed by primary sources) that it's 10x
> (or whatever) worse to stand in the sun than to be near this dish.
>
>
>
> On 12/14/2015 3:01 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
>
> Stronger than the satellite signal.
>
> *From:* Adam Moffett <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2015 12:50 PM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] RF exposure concerns
>
> What kind of intensity of microwave energy do we receive from the sun? I
> found several charts in nm, but I couldn't readily find one showing 5-6cm
> wavelengths.
>
> On 12/14/2015 2:39 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
>
> tell them 6ghz has been found to dissipate chemtrails, he will get behind
> you
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You'll also never convince the crazy ones. They made up their mind
>> before they opened their mouths.
>> You can only hope to minimize the fear and uncertainty they can spread.
>>
>>
>> On 12/14/2015 1:46 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
>>
>>> Tell them all that the cell phone in their pocket is exposing them to
>>> about 1 million times more RF than a rooftop installation.
>>> Moreover, the 6 GHz system will focus the energy to "pencil beam " that
>>> points away from the library.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, their wifi in that building will expose them to thousands
>>> of times more RF than the rooftop system.
>>> Does the Library have wifi now? Do they use cell phones now? If so
>>> they are hypocrites.
>>>
>>> You can get into dBM and antenna patterns but I find it best to keep it
>>> dumbed down as much as practical.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Craig Baird
>>> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 11:19 AM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: [AFMUG] RF exposure concerns
>>>
>>> We have been working with a nearby city to bring Internet service into
>>> their area. The city government has been very cooperative because the
>>> existing service in the area is exceptionally poor. Our plan is to
>>> feed the city with a 6 GHz licensed link to the rooftop of the city
>>> library. From there we plan to redistribute via unlicensed. We are
>>> on the agenda to present our plan for use of the library roof to the
>>> city council this week. I just got an e-mail from the City saying
>>> that a "concerned citizen" has contacted them saying he felt there
>>> were FCC issues and regulations with placing equipment on the library
>>> due to potential RF Exposure to "children and customers of the
>>> library". Anyway, this guy is preparing an informational packet to
>>> give to the City Council at the meeting. Obviously, I'm not sure what
>>> this informational packet will contain, but I'm pretty certain it will
>>> largely amount to fear-mongering, and will likely imply that we will
>>> give cancer to anyone to enters the library.
>>>
>>> I'd like to be prepared with some solid data on RF exposure from 6 GHz
>>> licensed microwave. Can anyone point me to something that would be
>>> helpful?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
