Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on February 04, 2014, 11:24:18 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on February 04, 2014, 10:09:08 PM

And this is a full sized sat runing on much higher power levels. And neither of them use the B/G wifi band, which as I have alrady noted, is heavily attenutated by water and hydrocarbons in a way that the rest of the S band is not, and is the primary reason that said band is unlicesned to start with.

Come on now, you can't be serious. Yes water and hydrocarbons do attenuate all signals (to a different degree), but physics is physics and there isn't a magical attenuation window right at 2.4 Ghz.

Hmm, I was going off of memory, but upon checking it seems that 2.45 Ghz isn't the resonate frequency of hydrogen. Apparently that's actually 1.42 Ghz, or more precisely 1,420,405,751.786 hertz. And checking oxygen it's 5.85 Ghz. So apparently I was wrong about 2.45 Ghz having a high attenuation point. I just got called out, and failed to perform. Well done, Death.

According to this page, 2.45 is a "good average" between those two, with the goal of permitting the radio signal some degree of penetration into the food, which (according to them) wouldn't be possible with a precise resonate frequency because the signal would dump all it's energy into the first couple of millimeters of the surface.

http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/age16-19/Wave%20properties/Wave%20properties/text/Microwave_ovens/index.html

In my defense, there does exist a "magical attenuation window" in the microwave spectrum, it's just not at 2.45 Ghz. So my complaints about high attenution in teh wifi spectrum are without merit.