Email Detail

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/7MAA4GTWBKBHFDEQTQX54JONCZV3DGTG/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "7MAA4GTWBKBHFDEQTQX54JONCZV3DGTG",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/K3FBEBSJ53N53JYHROPKL2E6INODVWQ2/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "nx7u (a) arrl.net",
        "mailman_id": null,
        "emails": null
    },
    "sender_name": "Scott Townley",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: Eagle efficiencies",
    "date": "2006-09-10T05:25:25Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/7VHVB4IAX2KNBCZQMJHIDOOFWBUYMWP3/?format=api",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Certainly that's true.  But I would say \"for a given size\" is a quite valid \nmeans of comparison.  How many of us are truly unencumbered on antenna \nsize?  It all boils down to what you can squeeze out of your \"given size\".\n\nAt 21:25 2006-09-09, Gary \\\"Joe\\\" Mayfield wrote:\n>At some point (not that high in frequency) the beamwidths get so narrow \n>the antennas are hard to point. Both on the satellite and on the \n>ground.  I don't think a spot beam would be popular with those living \n>outside the spot. *for a given size* is a biased measurement.\n>\n>73,\n>Joe\n>\n>----- Original Message ----- From: \"Scott Townley\" <[email protected]>\n>To: \"Amsat BB\" <[email protected]>\n>Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 2:04 PM\n>Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Eagle efficiencies\n>\n>\n>>Clarification, or more fuel to the fire...\n>>For a *fixed overall physical size (aperture)*, antenna gain is\n>>proportional to f^2\n>>Pathloss is proportional to 1/f^2\n>>So then the total link budget actually *increases* with increasing\n>>frequency (f^2*f^2/f^2=f^2), since you have an antenna at both ends,\n>>subject to the assumption stated initially.\n>>There are several 2nd-order terms to consider overall, such as decreasing\n>>transmitter power as frequency increases, thermal/galactic noise variations\n>>with freq, etc., but *for a given size* higher is better.\n>>\n>>\n>>_______________________________________________\n>>Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.\n>>Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!\n>>Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb\n>\n\n\n",
    "attachments": []
}