Sorry to budge in but Quickie you might want to revisit what you’ve mistakenly / misleadingly stated.
You first stated that there is “less energy” transmitted if a bigger dish is used:
Then you went on to say (and I paraphrase) that actually a larger dish would gather more reflected signal from the target, which is correct but goes against your statement above that it’s too large to be optimal:
You went on to basically regurgitate exactly what silentlurker said about the inverse square law whilst insisting you’re helping him understand:
Then finally you admitted that the total energy transmitted is going to be the same, which is correct but contradicts your first statement quoted above:
Sometimes fudging things work, sometimes it doesn’t. Let’s just do the respectable thing, own it up like many other senior members here who openly admits their mistakes, and move on to more news about Tianwen or something.
My exact words was this: "The transmitting radio signal will just spread thinner (less energy) the bigger the dish is for a certain maximum transmitting signal power source that can be possibly built."
I did say the signal spreading thinner which basically means less signal intensity.
I could have been more specific and said less energy per m^2 (i.e. less intensity). If this is indeed his problem, he should have been more direct on my too general a statement and I would have clarified right away. In any way, I think my further discussion on the subject should have clarified that already.
Then you went on to say (and I paraphrase) that actually a larger dish would gather more reflected signal from the target, which is correct but goes against your statement above that it’s too large to be optimal.
The Arecibo antenna platform crashed down partly because of the transmitter/receiver being too big and heavy. For the size of the dish of FAST telescope, to build a comparable size of the transmitter/receiver platform (to achieve a reasonable signal to noise ratio), it would have been too heavy to be built in a practical, reliable and safe manner. That's what I meant by not being the optimal size at the diameter of 500m.
You went on to basically regurgitate exactly what silentlurker said about the inverse square law whilst insisting you’re helping him understand:
Then finally you admitted that the total energy transmitted is going to be the same, which is correct but contradicts your first statement quoted above:
It's not regurgitating and admitting stuff! I was just trying to explain the subject at hand as clearly as I can! I have known these most basic of the subject like for ages. I don't need to regurgitate and admit those things.
Sometimes fudging things work, sometimes it doesn’t. Let’s just do the respectable thing, own it up like many other senior members here who openly admits their mistakes, and move on to more news about Tianwen or something.
Now you accuse me of intentionally fudging things, which I can honestly say I did not since I was not even aware of what the fuss was all about.
