Talk:Line-of-sight propagation

message: Hello. I've edited the phrase "Commercial FM" to "Broadcast FM" - not all radio stations are commercially owned stations. Broadcast FM suits the description better. - A. N. Onymous.
:Good choice. Splash - tk 16:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadcast rather than Commercial 

message: Why was a reference to audio broadcasting added? I think it is out of place and should probably be deleted --Fpoto (talk) 10:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio broadcasting 

message: I don`t agree with said merging. It`s to fundamentally misunderstand what Line of Sight actually means, which is, basically, is there anything in the way. 
Certainly for UHF, and even, to a certain extent, VHF, it`s not really got that much to do with curvature of the earth.
This table of TV signal strengths explains it quite well, and critically, objectively.--JustinSmith (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you can see it doesn't mean its in a geometric straight line. Light (also being electromagnetic radiation propagating in a non-uniform atmosphere) bends, too. It's got everything to do with the curvature of the Earth; that's why you can't see Rome (probably) from where you're sitting, even if you have a good telescope. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The linked table is virtually useless, or at least requires more scrutiny than I care to give it to tease out its meaning. Curvature limits the range. Or do British TVs work through miles of dirt? I notice the 351 metre high Belmont transmitter is given an extreme range of 55 miles (mixed units!) on its page, which correlates well to the 48 miles I get from square root of twice the height - an extra few miles can easily be due to the receiving antenna height (25 feet would do), transmitting antenna pattern, and England isn't nearly as flat as the countryside out my window right now.  --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course transmit antenna pattern doesn't help the range much beyond line of sight...once you can't see the antenna, you are relying on diffraction and other propation effects, which is out of the world of commercial broadcasting or taxi dispatching. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Check out Radio horizon. This is getting tedious.  You're at the line of sight distance from the tower.  You keep walking with your back to the tower.  What has gotten between you and the tower? If it's not trees or hills or buildings...it's the ground itself. That's what the ultimate limit on the range of terrestrial TV is - the ground gets between you and the antenna, and the only way you can get over that hill is by scattering or diffraction because you no longer have a line of sight. This exactly illustrates why the articles need to be combined, because evidently some people may think they live on a flat Earth and that everywhere has a line of sight to everywhere else. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

text: If you can hit an antenna 50 miles away, why can't you hit an antenna 100 miles away? 200 miles? 1000 miles? (For that matter, why does it get dark at night?)  Why do broadcasters spend so much effort making antenna towers higher? Yes, if you have a building or hill between you and the antenna, you don't have line of sight (though small objects may have enough diffraction around them to provide a useful signal). But ultimately, the Earth itself is between you and the antenna. There's a more general sense to "line of sight" than your TV installer Web site is mentioning. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger of Radio Horizon with Line of Sight 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Line-of-sight propagation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100921070856/http://techsonar.com/license_4.html to http://techsonar.com/license_4.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Suggest merge from any unique content that might exist at Earth bulge, to avoid fragmentary and inconsistent presentation of the same facts. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oppose: The article earth bulge is about the vitual change in earth radius. To be sure it is related to the line of sight. But deals with the mathematics. The article had been created on 11 Nov.2009. Then on 5 March 2011, the user Wtshymanski copied the contents to Line-of-sight propagation. The same user now proposes merging. Since the content has already been copied to Line-of-sight propagation, it is in fact a deletion proposal, not a fair proposal. It is best to keep two articles. (By the way  deleting the copied material from this article may be a good idea.) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: April 2021

message: Part 1 of 2
 <qoute>If the Earth were a perfect sphere without an atmosphere, the radio horizon would be a circle.</quote>
Is it not a circle? viewed from above anyway, under any circumstance, assuming the antenna is balanced. Excluding atmospheric condition, which is in flux, the RH is still a circle theoretically, if not in practice, at any specific time.
or do we need to add "...without an atmosphere, mountains, buildings, competing frequency generating sources etc, the radio horizon...", maybe a bit clunky? maybe "...discounting variable atmosphere conditions, the radio horizon..."
and do we need to clarify "...would be a perfect circle."
Part 2 of 2, guys please view Very_high_frequency#Line-of-sight_calculation "...bent back toward the Earth by the atmosphere."?? CN gravity could be a candidate I feel, I want some refs and then some proof, any part help appreciated though.CheersThe Original Filfi (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A perfect sphere implies no air or buildings.  They keep them in the physics department lecture hall, right between the frictionless planes and the massless ropes and pulleys. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio horizon comments please 

message: The redirect Direct wave has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 07:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Direct wave]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]