It's not a horrible write-up but it doesn't do much to simplify things. If I had to explain these concepts as close to an ELI5 as I could, I would use less words.
Photons have characteristics of both a wave and a particle. In many ways, it's easier to think of a photon as an interaction point. As a wave propagates, any collision point could be thought of as a photon. You shake some electrons in one antenna, they create a wave through the air, the wave propagates until it hits another antenna and the photons are where that wave starts to shake another bunch of electrons.
I am not quite sure what they were trying to explain about waveform collapse, TBH. There is just a probability curve about where a photon will "exist" at a specific time. You can't predict the location of a photon, but you can observe it. There isn't really a physical "collapse" of anything. The probability curve "collapses" into a single point once observed. There is no probability once something is observed. It's there or it isn't, so the math function has "collapsed": There isn't a need to calculate probability at that time.
This is far from perfect, but it's probably easier to digest. I don't even want to know how much physics I broke with my descriptions, but I do know it's easier to visualize.
Sorry, I couldn't quite get the feeling you described. It's partially because I have seen that before and partially because it still looks old and the sound quality was reminiscent of a cylinder phonograph.
I have been working through my "must watch" list with my teenage daughter recently. While all the movies are absolutely new to her, that hasn't stopped the occasional snickering about how "old" some of the stuff is. (And honestly, I can't disagree. I had a few "ah fuck I'm old" moments rewatching Predator and Blade Runner recently.)
So, in spirit, I 100% agree with you. In reality, nobody can quite escape how old some movies actually feel.
Denver on a slow day, which is rare, and only for the weird airport lore, gargoyles and also Blucifer, the demon mustang with big ole blue balls and a huge asshole. The trams are really good, but everything else kinda sucks.
Doesn't need to be in the same band due to harmonics and power. If you keep splitting the 11m band (CB) into "fractional-frequencies", you are going to get a cross-over somehow, especially if the fundamental is at super-high power.
Using a piano as an example, if you play a C2 at 62.41Hz it still expresses harmonics at C3 (130.81Hz), G3 (196.22Hz) and C4 (261.63Hz) and at least in theory, to infinity and beyond! Each harmonic away from the fundamental will be expressed in decreasing levels of power. (It's like 1/3 power per, I think. The proper math is out there though.)
It's also super inefficient. Comrade dipshit missed quite a few communities so it seems he can only ban based on communities I have commented in at one time or another.
You would think that the free speech leader of the world could write a better mechanism to erase dissent.
(sorry to add even more; I just made another comment about this and I am familiar with most of these concepts.)
Actually, that would be much easier. TV stations back then mostly received shows via satellite dish. Pointing a low power directional antenna directly at the dish's LNB would work great. Satellite transmissions weren't strong and were rarely encrypted back then so that would theoretically be super easy if you knew your RF and deep RF knowledge was much more common place +30 years ago.
I am not sure if they used point-to-point microwave antennas back then for TV, but it would be the same concept. (Microwave antennas are typically the round, cylindrical looking, covered antennas we see all over the place today.)
It would require as much, or more, power to drown out a TV broadcast signal at the source. I believe many of the old towers were 200kW-1000kW so it would have taken one hell of a pirate signal if interfering close to the main source. However, RF follows the same principle as light using the inverse square law so the further you get from the primary transmitter, the signal quickly becomes exponentially weaker for any receiver.
If you had a TV transmitter on a small hill that is a fair distance away from the target audience, like many were, splitting the distance with a directional antenna wouldn't require nearly as much power from the pirate signal to overtake the original transmission.
If I wanted, I could interfere with ham radio signals with as little as a watt of power (in my immediate local area) even though people might be communicating through a ham radio repeater that transmits at a couple of thousand watts that is many miles away. (It's actually a permitted emergency technique to "break into" active conversations. Actually, other ham radio operators are familiar with what interference sounds like, even for signals that can't fully overtake a transmission. It's customary to stop the conversation if detected and wait for the "break".)
Right-wing politics basically requires one or more sub-cultutes to demonize. It's hate and blame politics, pure and simple.
As long as the politicians have someone to wag a finger at and blame for all problems, it rallies their supporters. Nazis had the Jews, Republicans have everyone else that they declare different.
Just by looking at it, this model should scale easily in the slicer. (Scale up by 21.5% if my math is correct.) It may look odd, but even scaling up one axis (Y) may work too.
remotelove @ remotelove @lemmy.ca Posts 66Comments 1,908Joined 2 yr. ago
It's not a horrible write-up but it doesn't do much to simplify things. If I had to explain these concepts as close to an ELI5 as I could, I would use less words.
Photons have characteristics of both a wave and a particle. In many ways, it's easier to think of a photon as an interaction point. As a wave propagates, any collision point could be thought of as a photon. You shake some electrons in one antenna, they create a wave through the air, the wave propagates until it hits another antenna and the photons are where that wave starts to shake another bunch of electrons.
I am not quite sure what they were trying to explain about waveform collapse, TBH. There is just a probability curve about where a photon will "exist" at a specific time. You can't predict the location of a photon, but you can observe it. There isn't really a physical "collapse" of anything. The probability curve "collapses" into a single point once observed. There is no probability once something is observed. It's there or it isn't, so the math function has "collapsed": There isn't a need to calculate probability at that time.
This is far from perfect, but it's probably easier to digest. I don't even want to know how much physics I broke with my descriptions, but I do know it's easier to visualize.