I suspect that isn't the true signal level, they probably have an amplifier in the LNB to deal with coax loss.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
