Reflections on RF - How did it happen?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rf
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around an observation of interference patterns affecting the reception of television signals, specifically how two TV sets could exhibit synchronized but out-of-phase signal loss. Participants explore potential explanations for this phenomenon, considering various aspects of wave interference, reflections, and signal propagation in the context of radio frequency (RF) signals.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a personal experience with two TV sets losing signal in unison but 180 degrees out of phase, raising the question of how this could occur given their separation and different antennas.
  • Another participant suggests that the interference could be due to direct waves and reflections from a passing plane, noting the separation distance relative to the wavelength.
  • A different participant challenges the likelihood of this explanation based on the period of oscillation and the wavelength being much less than thirty feet, expressing uncertainty about the reflection and interference scenarios.
  • Further elaboration is provided on the nature of interference fringes, clarifying that the distance between fringes is not half the wavelength but rather related to path differences, and discussing how the speed of these fringes can vary.
  • One participant proposes a detailed scenario involving a plane reflecting signals and how its elevation and motion could lead to the observed signal changes on the TV, emphasizing the complexity of the situation.
  • A later reply acknowledges the shifting fringe field explanation as plausible, although expressing skepticism about the clarity of the effect, while also appreciating the reasoning provided.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the explanation for the observed phenomenon. Multiple competing views remain, with some supporting the reflection theory and others questioning its validity based on the described conditions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their understanding of the interference patterns and the specific conditions under which the observations were made, including assumptions about signal propagation and environmental factors.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
Here is a real brain teaser that has always baffled me. Years ago, back in the bad old pre-cable days of cheesy TV antennas, I was watching something of interest and, since I was working around the house, I had both of our TV sets on the same channel for optimum viewing from any location. I happened to be in a position to see both sets when some kind of interference caused a loss of the signal intermittently. The picture to turn to snow, then back to the picture, back to snow, and back to a picture. This repeated for a total of about four or five cycles. The on and off times appeared to be about the same - about 1 second.

Now here is the really perplexing part: The two TV sets were oscillating in unison but 180 degrees out of phase. They were on separate antennas and separated by about 30 feet. How in the heck can this happen? At the time I was immediately and completely baffled and have remained so since. Am I missing something obvious?

The only guess I have ever managed is that the polarity of the power to the two sets was opposite and that this anomoly was due to some kind of power fluctuation. These sets could have predated the polarized power 110vac plugs used today.
 
Science news on Phys.org
Interference of direct wave and reflected from a passing plane. And your two sets were separated by about half wavelength path difference.
 
Condisering the period of the oscillation this doesn't seem very likely. Also, the wavelength was much less than thirty feet. I considered reflection and interference scenarios but couldn't imagine one that yields the observed effect.

Am I missing something obvious?
 
Last edited:
Yes. What you missing is that distance between interference FRINGES is NOT half wavelength. Path difference is. And the speed the fringes move over Earth surface is NOT c NOR v (plane speed). Fringes can move very slowly (say, few ft/sec) or even be stationary despite that one mirror (plane) is moving at high speed.

Say, imagine source and receiver separated by some distance L, say L=20 km. Now add one wavelength and ask yourself, say, at what elevation midway between receiver and transmitter shall plane be to reflect with 1 wavelength longer path (and let's say, wavelength is 2 m)? As you can easily calculate using Pithagorean theorem, it shall be at about 141 m elevation. For 2 wavelength - about 200 m, 3 wavelength - 244 m, 10 - 445 m, 11-468 m and so on. So, if a plane is at elevation ~450 m and ascending or descending at a rate ~10 m/sec, you'll see slowly (with period ~ 2-3 sec) changing signal on your TV from min to max and back. Horizontal motion of plane does not matter in this case (because surface of equal phase is ellipsoid with transmitter and receiver at focal points).

In reality it is rare that you get equal intencities of direct and reflected beams (although due to elevation and high reflectivity planes give quite strong signal) so usually picture does not disappear completely but goes up and down in quality. Also because planes are crossing ellipsoids of equal phase at arbitrary places, even going in and out of ellipsoid, then speed of change of picture may vary (like, say, from fast changing to slow and then to stop (when plane by chance moves tangent to ellipsoid at that moment) and then slow and fast again).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by Alexander
Yes. What you missing is that distance between interference FRINGES is NOT half wavelength. Path difference is. And the speed the fringes move over Earth surface is NOT c NOR v (plane speed). Fringes can move very slowly (say, few ft/sec) or even be stationary despite that one mirror (plane) is moving at high speed.

Say, imagine source and receiver separated by some distance L, say L=20 km. Now add one wavelength and ask yourself, say, at what elevation midway between receiver and transmitter shall plane be to reflect with 1 wavelength longer path (and let's say, wavelength is 2 m)? As you can easily calculate using Pithagorean theorem, it shall be at about 141 m elevation. For 2 wavelength - about 200 m, 3 wavelength - 244 m, 10 - 445 m, 11-468 m and so on. So, if a plane is at elevation ~450 m and ascending or descending at a rate ~10 m/sec, you'll see slowly (with period ~ 2-3 sec) changing signal on your TV from min to max and back. Horizontal motion of plane does not matter in this case (because surface of equal phase is ellipsoid with transmitter and receiver at focal points).

In reality it is rare that you get equal intencities of direct and reflected beams (although due to elevation and high reflectivity planes give quite strong signal) so usually picture does not disappear completely but goes up and down in quality. Also because planes are crossing ellipsoids of equal phase at arbitrary places, even going in and out of ellipsoid, then speed of change of picture may vary (like, say, from fast changing to slow and then to stop (when plane by chance moves tangent to ellipsoid at that moment) and then slow and fast again).

Yes you must be correct. I had not thought about a shifting fringe field but this does make sense. It seems highly unlikely to get such a clear effect, but considering nothing else has ever made sense, this seems to be the only reasonable explanation. Case closed. You get the golden peanut award for the week!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
15K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
10K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
9K