Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

154 Excellent

About Pippy

  • Rank
    Star Forming
  1. It's OK Jim Everyone is naive about most things (I know I am). Normally the only things we tend not to be naive about are the things that directly interest us, the rest we normally simply have to rely upon others to let us know about.
  2. You have an LNA at the antenna .. you didn't mention that in your original post so thought it best to ask. Wonderful ! I think graves transmits using circular polarization (not sure if it's right hand or left hand), which normally means it won't really matter what the polarization of your reception antenna is (assuming your antenna is linear polarization - vertical, horizontal or slanted). How the reflections arrive back at your antenna is another matter though, but in general, being as your yagi is linearly polarized (ie not circular), it shouldn't really matter how you orientate your yagi. So just go with what you've got. I know their are others on the forum who are receiving graves (I currently don't), so hopefully they might pipe up and help you more than I currently can.
  3. I wonder what you're using the bias tee for ? .. normally they are for sending power up the coax to a mast head pre-amplifier. Where do you have your yagi pointing, and does it have a clear view of the horizon and sky in that direction ? Your 100'ish foot of RG-6 coax will have around 2dB loss, plus maybe a couple more for connectors and impedence mismatch (your yagi will be 50R and not 75R for one), which is managable. It maybe that a good low-noise mast head pre-amp is in need. If not meteors, you should give the odd reflection from satellites, although the doppler shift for low earth orbit satellites at around 143MHz will be up to around 3.5kHz when they are close to the horizon.
  4. Solar activity definately affects our climate. It would only take a few hours for the entire planet to realise this (in a very major way) if we were to find and use the suns off switch. The temperature difference alone that we experience as we go from day to night and back again tells us this. Plus the UK's winter was a bit extreme during the suns maunder low .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png As for gamma rays and cosmic rays, I'd have thought their effect would be fairly small (compared to our suns solar radiation), unless of cause the planet you're living on happens to be within a certain distance from say a neutron star, magnetar, pulsar etc - especially if you happen to live within a pulsars beam.
  5. I wouldn't consider a news paper media outlet as being a reliable source of scientific data. I'm not saying they're wrong or such like, just trying to highlight the obvious - for future reference.
  6. One could easily argue that all our teachings from before second one are THE cause for any and all our prejudices - "prejudices" meaning bias in all areas of thought
  7. To have such a required extremely fine balance like that in order for the universe as we know it to exist must surely mean that this has probably happened countless times before, and failed. Just that in this particular re-run of events, things turned out just right then. yes / no ? Either that, or having that extremely fine balance is somehow an inherent property of the cause of the universe ? Either that, or we just got soooo improbably lucky first time round ! How strange.
  8. I would argue that it's not the laws of physics that break down, EVER, ever ever ever. it's our interpretation of it all that must be wrong and / or incomplete in cases like that.
  9. Then what are the things we are calling "black holes" if we're already in one ? That would mean relativity still applies just as well deep within a black hole itself, would it not ?
  10. If the density of the universe was so great in the early seconds. weeks, months, years etc, then why didn't it all just collapse / develop into a mass of black holes ? What stopped it all doing so ?
  11. Rather than a super nova shedding its outer regions out into a lovely colourful pattern in the sky, it sometimes appears that the central black hole created at the moment of explosion pulls the entire mass / energy of the star / super nova into itself. Which means one second their's a massive star, the next it's gone, no sign (from our point of view) it ever was there in the first place. "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5Q2WoldNyo"
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.