4 ms·
To get a very broad idea: if you had perfectly efficient but isotropic antennas (you don't) this would be about the power level you'd get receiving a typical 3W
by NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
To get a very broad idea: if you had perfectly efficient but isotropic antennas (you don't) this would be about the power level you'd get receiving a typical 3W hand-held radio signal at 140MHz from 1,000 kilometers away. This is why you can talk to the International Space Station easily enough with vanilla ham radio equipment.
Or, taking a notoriously powerful FM radio station like KRUZ 103.3, it would be like hearing that station from perhaps 300,000 kilometers away.
Most loss is not free-space loss though - it's due to reflections from man made objects and absorption into the earth that results in line-of-sight effects at these frequencies.
- amatecha 3y agoHow did you come to that estimation? The strength of the RFI on the waterfall suggests received signal strength comparable to someone transmitting on a 5w HT within, say, 5-10 miles (aka not in the immediate neighbourhood, but pretty nearby). Someone transmitting 3w at 1000km distance will not register even the slightest on any amateur receiver, even with RF gain absolutely cranked to the max and with a massive antenna.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoI actually updated my post about the same time you wrote this response; I was just considering free-space path loss, which is not where most of the loss is in typical ham scenarios. Most of the 5W in the case you described is getting lost in a terrible compromise antenna, then due to line of sight effects (assuming that the user is not standing on a hill or something) and multipath.
- TylerE 3y agoThe ISS also orbits quite low. If you're relatively close to the path it's only a few hundred miles away. Small temporal window due to the speed, but still.