Johnny will now reply with "nonsense"....
Even when the facts are very clear.


"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message news:qtq5h.657$yE6.615@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com. ..
> "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:gbial2l5n3obv20987bu98je83edjegpbd@4ax.com...
>> On 10 Nov 2006 16:22:43 -0800, scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote in
>> <1163204563.543900.216750@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>:
>>
>>>Nessnet wrote:
>>>> #1 - you have shown NOTHING before... opinion yes, facts - no.
>>
>> I've actually posted authoritative citations.
>>
>>>> #2 number of towers IS a function of frequency used. Physics me boy...
>>
>> Physics has nothing to do with it. Try again.
>
> Physics says that RF path propagation loss consists of two components:
> Free Space Loss, and loss caused by absorption and scattering from
> buildings and vegetation (trees) in the path.
>
> Free Space loss is proportional to the operating frequency:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_loss
>
> Using one of the commonly available online calculators, it is evident that
> free space loss is increased approximately 7dB when changing the operating frequency from 850MHz to 1900MHz:
> http://www.terabeam.com/support/calc...space-loss.php
>
> Loss attributed to trees in the RF path is also proportional to
> operating frequency:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weissberger's_Model
>
> I haven't researched RF loss attributed to buildings in the path, but
> there is no reason to believe that it would be substantially different
> than losses from trees in the path.
>
> --
> John Richards (retired RF engineer)