Outside the earth's atmosphere (actually in SPACE), I see no reason why not - and microwave frequencies are the ones usually employed for space craft communications. On the earth itself, 100MHz will travel further (1GHz is absorbed more by the atmosphere), and also 'bend' slightly, which 1GHz won't.
Pyroandrew said:As you can see, as well as a distance componant, there is frequency componant in the equasion. As explained before this is because a high frequency signal needs more power to produce a signal of the same level.
zachtheterrible said:So let's say that I want to have a short whip antenna. Would I be better off doing low frequency, which would mean an antenna that would not be totally efficient, but have better range; or high frequency, which would mean an antenna that would be totally efficient, but have a smaller range? Or is there a happy medium somewhere?
I don't care about data rate.
How about mentioning what you have in mind?, there are VERY strict restrictions on what frequencies you can use, and what you can use them for.
Pyroandrew said:ω/2Pi = f
what is 'ω', it looks like a capital omega?.
zachtheterrible said:what is 'ω', it looks like a capital omega?.
Wavelength? Even though its the wrong character.
Pyroandrew said:The "ω" is indeed an Omega, it does not stand for wavelengh though.
It is, frequency, in radians per second.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?