Take a look at the following Thread

[Channel Hopper]

http://www.cb3rob.net/~satdudez/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4477

Yes I know its a lower grade forum but hey almost everyone here uses it

Tell me that George and Professor Camel are right in their arguments

70cm guy could be swayed if enough people give the right description, Dean Sat is well Deansat is just stuck in his ways after 15 years

 

[p]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 11-Apr-02 AT 08:51 PM (GMT)]He he, well im more confused that ever, I would say the mono block won't work on dish's 1.2Ms and larger. But hey iv'e got one Lnb and a motor so it don't mater.

George and Professor Camel get my vote though.

Still the best argument iv'e ever seen on a sat forum, that didn't get into silly or stupid name calling.

Phil.

 

[rolfw]

Nothing wrong with that forum, I use it regularly as you know, horses for courses I guess.

With regard to the discussion, I'm not sure about the figures and theories being argued. Common sense tells me that it shouldn't work properly due to the distance the LNB is away from the dish and the tighter beam characteristics of the dish. Given a dish with identical geometry but greater size it should work perfectly, but the CM 1.2 does not have as far as I know identical geometry to the 80cm.

Rolf

 

[Channel Hopper]

P

Your right , sensible people would go get a motor than stick with a monoblock

Rolf

You really did sit on the fence with your last comment !

 

[rolfw]

Far too technical for me CH , without going into the maths behind the dish design I can't see how to settle the argument and as I have no real ability nor inclination to do those calculations, the fence is where it'll have to be for me . I also agree with P, why muck about with a monoblock anyway, when a steerable option is not much more expensive?

Rolf