Wednesday, March 4, 2026

Sharing Some Photos of My Peace Corps Service For Peace Corp's 65th Anniversary- And 'Peace Corps Week'

Message in email from Peacecorps.gov:


Happy Peace Corps Week, Returned Volunteers!

 

This week kicks off the 65th anniversary year of the Peace Corps, and we’re celebrating the incredible impact Volunteers have made around the world and back home in the U.S.

 

You are an integral part of the Peace Corps’ legacy as one of close to 250,000 RPCVs who have served in 144 countries. Since 1961, Volunteers have been building relationships, advancing locally prioritized projects, and modeling values of partnership and respect. Your service, from strengthening food security and leading health campaigns to teaching English and supporting entrepreneurs, has left a lasting impact both abroad and at home.

 

Currently, around 3,000 Volunteers are serving in 60+ countries. Meet currently serving Volunteers and learn more about their work:

-------------------------

As per the above email, Peace Corps this week celebrates its 65th anniversary, e.g. 

Peace Corps - Peace Corps celebrates 65th Anniversary with launch of new nostalgia-themed recruitment campaign

 For those of us who served in the Eastern Caribbean it is a similar special week for our own service.  My own service in Barbados was briefly described originally in a Dec. 7, 2010 post wherein I outlined my reasons for joining. 


The four years spent mainly on the island nation were varied in terms of contributions, experiences and challenges - and also included training new PCVs on the nearby island of St. Lucia.  What follows below are photos gathered through the years starting with the PC training in Philadelphia and Lincoln Univ. in Amish country, then on to Barbados. 

                                                   July 2, 1971 - In Philly for PC training

                                                   Side visit to Liberty Bell on July 4th
                                       Barbados display in Sylvania Hotel lobby

 Lining up for 1st barrage of vaccines

This was at Lincoln University where we had the most intense PC training. Shots included those for tetanus, typhoid, diphtheria, Yellow fever, Immuno-globulin, Hepatitis A, B.


        Soon after arrival in Barbados, a Rhode Island volunteer and me in Bridgetown for supplies.
                        Broad Street, Bridgetown from Pelican Restaurant.
                                          Bridgetown Careenage - where supply ships dock

Woman carries sack of rice down a Bridgetown street.
Poorer homes in the neighborhood I lived
My aunt & cousin visit me in May, 1972 - stay at my place
St Lucy Secondary where I taught 1st 3 yrs.
Teaching a class in General Science
Original Hilton Hotel and Pebble Beach - where we chilled out
Me at Pebble Beach - 3 days after arrival in Bim
Independence Day parade down Dalkeith Rd.
Castries, St. Lucia - where I helped train new PCVs
The majestic Pitons in St. Lucia - 5 hrs. from Castries
Me, with rainforest waterfall on way to Pitons
Woman washes clothes in river near Pitons
Visit to Soufriere Volcano in St. Lucia


Tuesday, March 3, 2026

Kudos To Ali Velshi For Advancing The Most Coherent Explanation For Why U.S. And Iran Can Never Be At Peace

 

Ali Velshi - tells it like it is on MSNOW Saturday
                                      U.S. jet downed by friendly fire from Kuwait.

Ali Velshi on Saturday posited that the current conflict between the U.S. and Iran is driven by "incompatible origins of war"— which I suspect is one hundred percent spot on. According to Velshi, the U.S. and Iran hold deeply incompatible, historically rooted views on the origins of their conflict, making it difficult to reach a resolution. The core issue is that both sides remember and interpret the same history in vastly different ways. 

Thus, the U.S. is convinced the prolonged conflict began with the hostage crisis in 1979 when American hostages suffered 444 days of confinement by radical Islamists under the Ayatollah Khomeini. However,  as Velshi observed Iran points back to the 1953 CIA-backed coup that overthrew the democratically- elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.  Since then, Iran has justifiably seen the U.S. as an "oppressive exploiter”   Especially of its oil, given the CIA was given the go-ahead after Mossadegh nationalized the country’s oil reserves.

Confirming the worst fears of many Iranians that the U.S. is the aggressor, on July 3, 1988, the U.S. Navy guided-missile cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655, a civilian Airbus A300, over the Persian Gulf. The incident resulted in the deaths of all 290 people on board, including 66 children.  The U.S. called it a “mistake”, Iran wasn’t buying.

Just as many of us in the U.S. now aren’t biting Trump’s bollocks that these attacks on Iran were warranted. Oh no, they were not. Trump agreed to them under Israeli and Saudi pressure, as well as providing further distraction from the Epstein files. Especially since Trump was named by one survivor – in a 2019 FBI interview – as a perpetrator. Who sexually abused the woman when she was 13 and then struck her physically, see e.g.

DOJ removed, withheld Epstein files related to accusations about Trump : NPR

Velshi posits the idea that because the two nations cannot agree on how their animosity began, they cannot agree on how to end it.

Velshi lastly suggested that this war serves a "redemptive" purpose for the current administration, framing it more as an act of domestic consolidation and "power through spectacle" rather than a strategic necessity for national defense. He warns that while the U.S. can dismantle Iran’s conventional military capabilities, the internal political fracture within the U.S. remains the more consequential "battlefield


In summary, Velshi’s coherent proposal contains these key elements, regarding an ongoing U.S. -Iran conflict.

  • Incompatible Origins: Velshi highlights that when nations cannot agree on how a conflict began, they cannot agree on how it ends.
  • Iranian Perspective: Iran views the animosity as stemming from the "natural and unavoidable conflict" between its Islamic system and an "oppressive" United States, which it sees as a power seeking global dominance. This perspective is often framed around historical U.S. interventions, such as the 1953 coup, and continued economic/military pressure.
  • U.S. Perspective: The U.S. has historically framed the conflict around Iranian aggression, such as the 1979 hostage crisis, regional proxy actions, and nuclear ambitions, which it deems a threat to allies.
  • 2026 Context: Recent analysis by Velshi in February 2026 notes that this conflict has escalated into direct military actions (such as joint U.S.-Israel strikes on Iranian sites), fueled by a desire for "domestic consolidation" and "symbolic order" rather than traditional defense. 

Ultimately, Velshi suggests that this fundamental disagreement over the "starting point" of the war prevents a diplomatic solution, resulting in a persistent state of, or brink-of, war.

This could end IF the U.S. (certainly not under Trump) could finally admit it opened the path to permanent conflict by overturning a once vibrant democratic nation.  

 See Also:

A Nation Led By Warmongers- Will We Now Prove It (Again)After The Iran Missile 'Show' Attack?

And:

by Robert Reich | March 3, 2026 - 6:49am | permalink

— from Robert Reich's Substack

`


Trump said Monday that the United States would continue attacking Iran for “whatever it takes.”

But what’s the “it” in that sentence?

He also said: “We’re destroying Iran’s missile capability” and “annihilating their navy” and ensuring that “this sick and sinister regime” in Iran “can never obtain a nuclear weapon.”

But how will we know when we’ve achieved any of this?

American intelligence officials say Iran has not tried to rebuild its main nuclear sites since the U.S. attack in June. Iran’s stockpiles of enriched uranium are still buried deep under rubble. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency says his agency has found no evidence that Iran resumed enriching uranium since June.

» article continues...

And:

by Pierre Tristam | March 2, 2026 - 6:40am | permalink

— from Flagler Live

`

We are most of us in this city of plump and smug geezers not so old as to forget how in 1990, in 1999 and again in 2001, 2002 and 2003, every time our country wanted to rattle sabers and ejaculate buckets of brawn in Kuwait, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, Congress and our streets were in convulsions of should-we, should-we-not. We debated, we shouted and shrilled, and eventually Congress would vote—wrongly most of the time, illegally some of the time, brazenly defying international law and facts on the ground almost all of the time. Remember Colin Powell lying like Bush’s bitch at the UN about those imaginary WMDs, and the weasel of mass destruction himself declaring Mission Accomplished aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln months later, before causing 300,000 deaths in the losing war he unleashed?

But at least we went through the motions. At least we debated. At least the president had to make his case, not just to the American people but to the world. At least Congress voted after going through the pretenses of deliberations, the way the Roman Senate pretended to an illusion of democracy even as Caesar and the moribund Republic he put out of its misery bled to death. At least we got a cool play and a few good quotes out of it.

» article continues...

And:

by Alex Henderson | March 2, 2026 - 6:32am | permalink

— from Alternet

`

When former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) announced that she was resigning from Congress, she wasn't shy about expressing her disappointment with President Donald Trump — who, in her view, has betrayed his America First agenda with an aggressively interventionist foreign policy. Now, the MAGA Republican and former Trump ally is vehemently criticizing Trump's military strikes against Iran. And she isn't the only person in the MAGA movement who wants Trump to stay out of that country.

Washington Post reporters Emily Davies and Hannah Knowles, in an article published on March 1, explain, "President Donald Trump's major attack on Iran has rattled parts of the coalition that twice delivered him the White House, a fracture that could spell trouble for a divided GOP as the midterm elections approach. The strikes, which killed Iran's supreme leader, followed a visible buildup of U.S. forces in the Middle East. But Trump's decision to carry them out nonetheless surprised some of his supporters, who had expected the self-described anti-interventionist president to stop short of a direct attack."

» article continues...

And:

by Trita Parsi | March 2, 2026 - 6:22am | permalink

— from Responsible Statecraft

`

Now that President Trump has launched an illegal, unprovoked war of choice on Iran, the next question inevitably becomes: how does this end? Or, what are some off-ramps Trump can take to end it before the situation turns out of control?

There are three broad scenarios; the first and most likely is that Trump continues this until he gets some sort of regime implosion and then declares victory, while also washing his hands of whatever follows.

This has been very clear in internal conversations: no one wants to take responsibility for the aftermath. This is essentially the difference between regime change and regime collapse.

That’s why they didn’t want to do an Iraq War-style regime change where you are actively trying to install a new government. If you do that, its track record becomes your track record.

» article continues...

And:

by Harvey Wasserman | March 2, 2026 - 5:45am | permalink

`

Trump’s latest attack on Iran primarily means to shred the last lines of American democracy and enthrone Trump as forever warlord/dictator.

Formally known as “Operation Epic Fury,” it’s really “Operation Epstein Desperation.”

Here are a baker’s dozen of its many pillars:

1. THE EPSTEIN BOMB: The Epstein/FBI files may definitively confirm that Trump has indeed abused underage women. At least one Trump victim may be set to testify. Bill Clinton’s appearance before Congress erased any alleged barrier against ex-Presidents testifying in a public hearing.

» article conti

Monday, March 2, 2026

Yes, I Am Now Convinced The Brain Ages In Stages

 

                Tracking how brain connections change using MRT imagery

The notion that our brains age in distinct stages is one I have seriously considered, especially over the past quarter century as I've found my own mental agility and processing rate diminish. (Of course, a lot of the recent decline can be attributed to having to start androgen deprivation therapy to try to contain metastatic prostate cancer.)  But even before commencing ADT with Firmagon I have noted brain changes over decades  - especially in the time since graduating with my M.Phil. in Physics. To wit, my most recent attendance at a scientific conference last year:

Looking Back On Last Week's Solar Dynamics Workshop - One Of The Best Meetings I've Ever Attended

Showed me clearly that the time for delivering scientific papers, far less attending conferences, is basically over. It was all I could do to basically keep up and absorb the material and research presented in the SDO 2025 workshop. (And there was no way in hell I was staying for the final day's Python coding workshop!)

But how and why do these distinct brain 'ages' occur and is there any evidence for them? It turns out there is, now finally,  as neuroscientists have been able too use advanced imagery to track brain connections, development. (See top graphic).  Basically, this research has shown different ages at which the connections in our brains shift. The average ages turn out to be: 9, 32, 66 and 83, Well I am now 13 years past 66 and only 3 1/2 to 83 - and it shows. (Including in the much longer time to write a blog post)

According to a December, 2025 WSJ article, ('Your Brain Changes In Distinct Stages Research Shows): 

 "The adolescence phase lasts until age 32. The brain then enters a period of stability until early aging begins at age 66."

I can vouch for this as when I hit 66 was when I first confronted my mortality after being given a prostate cancer diagnosis,

Verdict Is: Prostate CANCER......So Now What?

And basically, for all intents, things haven't been the same since. This is given each succeeding year has resulted in more tests, more treatments, and sped up aging especially after the radiation in Sept., 2012. Add in the effects of the ADT and I feel I aged 25 years in the actually elapsed 13. (And each forthcoming PSA test is looked on with dread.)

But let's bear in mind the WSJ report is based healthy aging for brains, and first published in November, 2025 in the journal, Nature Communications. We find therein that the study researchers examined results from about 4,000 brain scans taken from people in the U.S. and UK.  These scans ranged from those of a newborn baby to a nonagenarian.

They basically showed how white matter -  a fatty substance insulating nerve fibers connecting different brain regions - enabled the researchers to see the changing connections over time. (Using an MRI).  Such mapping also enabled them to create an "average brain" for each year of life.  Machine learning then helped to pinpoint phases of significant change defined by the data.

For example, during the period from birth to age 9, the brain undergoes massive pruning of connections which aren't used - given the amount of excess wiring we're born with. But during the period from age 9 to 32  the brain does more with less wiring, hence becoming more efficient.

When does the brain finally become 'mature'?  Likely when it becomes most efficient in terms of the wiring, at age 32.  There is then the blessed period of 'consistency' and 'stability' (age 32 to 66) as opposed to endless emotional upheavals, convulsions and petty neuroses. (75% of mental health conditions begin in the early 20s we are informed).  This period between ages 32-66 also aligns with a plateau in our intelligence.

But the bad news begins at just past 65 when brain shrinkage occurs - increasing year by year.  This diminishes the integrity of white matter and also begins the decline in cognitive function. Past the age of 83 the brain must "rely on a small  number of highly used interregional pathways."

Bottom line: If you want to keep that brain functioning then once you're past 66 you better use it - or risk losing it. Forget the Tik Tok and other smart phone obsession - stick to chess and reading adult books, like Jean-Paul Sartre's Being and Nothingness - or at least Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time'.


See Also:

Topological turning points across the human lifespan | Nature Communications

Solutions To Algebra II Simple Machine Application Problems

1) Show, with reasons, that the pulley system shown in Fig. 3(b) has a mechanical advantage of 2. If the weight w is lifted 1m, how much distance must the force F cover?

Solution:

This is a single moveable pulley as with 3(a) but with just a small modification: adding another fixed pulley. Since M.A. = s/d = 2 then F = wd/ s and the machine moves a distance d while the applied force moves a distance s. Then: F = ½w. Then if the weight w is lifted 1m, the force must be applied a distance 2d = 2(1m) = 2m.


2) An inclined plane has an angle of Θ = Ï€/6. The coefficient of static friction 
ms = 0.3.How much force, parallel to the incline, is needed to push a 100 N object up the incline at constant speed?

Solution:

Note: Θ = Ï€/6 = 30 degrees (e.g. 180 deg/ 6). We have w = mg = 100N and s  = 0.3. Then the force F' required is:  F' = mg(sin Θ + ms cos Θ).


F' = (100 N) [sin 30 + 0.3 cos 30] = 100N[½ + 0.3(0.866)]

F' = 100N(0.50 + 0.25)= 100N (0.75) = 75N


3) The work done in sliding a 50 kg mass up an incline 1 m high and 5m long is 640 Joules. What is the frictional force in N? Compare the ideal and the actual mechanical advantage. (Take g = 10 N/kg)

Solution:

 W= mg = 50 kg (10 N/kg=    500 N

Work done against gravity (Useful work) = mgh =    500 N (1 m) = 500 J

The total work done is: WT   = 640 J

Work done against friction is the difference: 

W-  Wu   =  640 J - 500 J=  140 J

Work done by friction =  WF  = 140 J = frictional force x distance (5m)

So frictional force = F   =  140 N-m/ 5m = 28 N    (Rem: 1J = 1 N-m)

Ideal M.A. = L/h =  5m/ 1m = 5

Actual M.A. =  load/ effort =  total work output/ work input 

work in =  WT  / s =    640 N-m/ 5m  =   128 N

work out =  mg = 500 N-m/1m =500 N

Actual M.A. = 500 N/ 128 N = 3.9

4) In the wheel and axle device (Fig. 4 (A)) the radius r = 1 cm and R = 23 cm. Find the mechanical advantage and the applied force needed to lift a load of 80 N.

Solution:

We have r = 1 cm and R = 23 cm for the wheel and axle (Fig. 4A). The distance the load (w= mg) will move is just d = 2Ï€r. The distance the force moves will be s = 2Ï€R. If we take the mechanical advantage:

M.A. = s/d = (2Ï€R)/ (2Ï€r) = R/r = 23 cm/ 1 cm = 23

mg/ F = w/F = R/r and so: F = (r/R)w

Now, if w = 80N then F = (1/23) 80N = 3.4 N


5) In the grouped pulley system depicted in Fig. 4 (C) the force applied F will move 6 times as far as the load w. If the load has a mass of 40 kg, and assuming g = 9.80 m/s^2, find the applied force. Thence or otherwise, obtain the mechanical advantage of the system. If the force F is applied through 10 m what is the work done?

Solution:

If F will move 6 times as far as the load w, then the M.A. = 6. So: F = w/6. And w = 40 kg(9.8 m/s^2) = 39.2 N. Then: F = 39.2N/6 = 6.5 N.

The work done is: W = F s = (6.5N) (10m) = 65 N-m = 65J.


6)A man raises a uniform plank 12' long and of weight 40 lbs. until it is horizontal. His left hand is on one end of the plank and his right hand is 3' from the same end. Assuming both hands exert vertical forces, find the forces exerted by each hand to support the plank.

Solution:



The diagram for Problem. #6. is shown above..

For #6 we see where the man's right and left arms are. The point is that the combined vertical forces must balance a total clockwise torque or moment of 40 lbs. x 6 ft. = 240 lbs.-ft. (By the law of levers) The right arm exerts a counterclockwise torque at its position of 3' x F1 = 240 ft-lb. So that: F1 = (240 ft.-lbs.)/ 3 ft. = 80 lbs.


The left arm exerts a second counterclockwise moment at its position (6' from the load, at the center of gravity of the plank- since it's uniform) of 6' x F2. Therefore: F2 = (240 ft.-lbs.)/(6 ft.) = 40 lbs. is the upward force exerted by his left hand.

7) In the sample lever problem it is feasible to reduce the work done to only 125 J by re-arranging the lever distances (effort and load distance). Using a sketch show how could this could be done and give the new applied force in this scenario.

Solution:


The diagram for Problem. #7. is shown above.

This is done by lengthening the effort distance to 4 m (from 3.5 m) and shortening the load distance to 1 m (from 1.5m). Then the new force exerted needed to lift the block is found from the law of levers: F x 4m = 500N x (1m) = 500 N-m.

Or: F = 500 N-m/ 4m = 125 N. (Compared to the original force exerted of 214 N). The new work done is: Fs = (1/4) 500N x 1.0 m = 125 J.


A Deeper Dive Into The Basic Principles Of Radio Astronomy

 

    Examining the basic principles of radio astronomy means first recognizing we are talking about a window of observation that involves the ionosphere as opposed to the atmosphere.  In the first case we have a terrestrial layer transparent to radio waves, in the second case we have a layer transparent to light waves  - for optical observation.   The basic electromagnetic (EM)  spectrum showing the relation of visible light to radio waves is shown below:


Note here that radio waves are at much longer wavelengths.  The earliest radio wave observations were made at kilohertz (kHz) frequencies and then gradually were able to also detect sources at megahertz and beyond.   All radio astronomy - at whatever frequency- begins with knowing the basic radiation characteristics.  To this end we wish to know:

i) The direction it comes from, 

ii) The emergent flux,  

iii) The polarization 

 In respect of the flux, consider a small element of surface ds: Then to find the amount of energy which flows per unit solid angle we use the graphic below:

From this we can obtain:

dE v  = I cos  q ds dw dt dv

Where:

I = f(u,f,q, x, y, z, t)

  is defined as the specific intensity or brightness.  The units we are making use of here are:

[ergs / cm 2   steradian sec  cps]  

Integrating the specific intensity over the solid angle:

FLUX/  F v  =    Ã² I v   (q,  fcos  q dw

And over the total solid angle:  

F v  =   Total flux  =  Ã² 4p  I (q, f) dwf

 F v   Units  [ergs / cm 2  sec  cps] 

  Note: The infinitesimal sold angle d is equivalent to:   sin q ddf

 Now we examine the specific situation for a radio telescope antenna. In the most basic kind of radio telescope system we will have:

Which shows a parabolic dish with the receiver at the prime focus.  Note that a parabolic dish has the property whereby radio waves reflected off it come to a focus at the same time.  This is critical given if the waves arrived at different times the telescope would be essentially useless.  The signal obtained would be incoherent which the reader might be able to deduce by the end of this post.  

Note that  the antenna is essentially some sort of conducting wire or metal rod which is the 'heart' of the telescope.  Its basic function is to capture incoming electromagnetic waves and convert them into an electric current in the wire.  For maximum efficiency the dimension of the antenna wire or probe should be one fourth the size of the radio wave it is intended to intercept.  Thus for the 21 cm line of hydrogen the probe should be 5 cm in length.   

There is still the matter of the parameters of the source in relation to the antenna and the solid angle formed. In the sketch below I show a radio source of area A, at a distance D from an antenna of dimension (C) and we wish to find the radio flux reaching the antenna from the source.

                     Comparison of solid angles, source & antenna

We have in the first instance:

dE v  = I v cos  q ds dw dE v  =   

Then the flux reaching C from the radio source is:

F v  =  dE v  /  C dv dt  = I v  A W  /  C  

 Now, if   b is the solid angle:  A/  D 2

And  is the solid angle     C/  D 2

  Then:  A/ C   =    b / W

The  flux then received becomes:  

F ' v  =    I v  b

We  must use:  F ' v   = P v    /  C D u

Since the radio telescope measures Power:  P v    = dE v  / dt 

The next important feature when considering the basic principles of radio astronomy is the polarization of the radio source. This is given that the information is considerable and every non-thermal process emits some random polarization which can be described by two components, and electric (E) vector and a magnetic (H) vector:

1) E(y, t) = E 0 sin 2 p (t – y/c )

2) H(x, t) = H 0 sin 2 p (t –x/c )

Electromagnetic waves with the above vectors are often represented as in the diagram below:



Where S denotes the Poynting vector: E X H.  The EM- waves are  polarized when their E- field  components are preferentially oriented in a particular direction.  Basically, the up and down motion of the EM radio waves is converted to the up and down motion of electrons in the antenna wire which gives rise to the current detected at the telescope.

Other forms of polarization include:


Linearly or horizontally polarized: I.e. the E- vector is confined to one  (horizontal) plane

---------à E


Vertically polarized: I.e. the E- vector is confined to one  (vertical) plane

E
!
!
!


Circular: The E-vector rotates through 360 degrees

Elliptic: Any polarization not circular or plane, but note in most texts circular is regarded as a limiting case of elliptic polarization.


The equivalent circuit for a basic radio telescope system may be represented as shown below:

This contains a motor producing an oscillating potential difference (V)  and two resistors:

A  (Antenna resistance)   and

B       (transmission line and receiver resistance)

Further:  A   =  r    +   R â„“
  
Where R â„“  is the radiation loss resistance, and r   is the fictitious resistance due to oscillating electrons which radiate. Since there is an oscillating voltage there is an oscillating current, i.e.

I   =  V /  (  R r    +  R â„“    +  R B )
   
The Power is then:  P   =   I 2  R B 

The maximum power is obtained under the condition:

dP/ dRB  =  0   (N.B.  In general, R â„“    0,  and  R â„“ << R r 


dP/ dB  =   d/ dR B R B V2  /  (R r B) 2 

=  V2 { [(R r R B) 2  -   R B   2(R r R B)] /(R r R B)4   


dP/ dR B  =  R 2  R B 2 /(R r B) 4

Then the available power is: 

PA   = V2 /4R B   =  V2 /4R r 

The diffuse power is:  P r  =  I R 2

Let the total area of an antenna be A T  then the total power:

P T  =  A T  F

Where F is the energy flux of the incoming wave . 


The Gain of an antenna:

 For an isotropic lossless antenna the flux emitted is:

F  =  (1/4p )   1/ d 2

(Where P is the applied Power )

For an anisotropic antenna:

F  =  g (1/4p )   1/ d 2

 Where the gain  g is subject to the constraint:

  Ã² 4p  g  dw   =    4p

If:

r  =   Ã²   g  dw /4p    

For all secondary lobes then the beam efficiency of the antenna is:  1 -  r

The relation between the gain of the antenna and its effective aperture (A') such that:

g( (q ,  Ï† )  =   4p  A' (q ,  Ï†)/ l2 

Now, every radio telescope receives waves that come from fairly restricted areas of  the sky and this is defined by what's called the beam.  Every antenna - and by extension radio telescope- has a main lobe called the "main beam" and also side lobes off to the side.  The side lobes have different causes but most result from diffraction (Consult the astronomy archives for past answers pertaining to diffraction in optical telescopes).   The pattern of a radio telescope beam and typical side lobes are shown below:

                              Main lobe and directions for side lobes

Note the side lobes are weak but can still represent a significant fraction of the power a radio telescope receives. Generally 80-90 percent of the signal entering a receiver from a typical dish comes through the main beam, the other 10-20 percent through the side lobes.  In the case of the initial radio telescope diagram, try to imagine the wave fronts coming in at an oblique angle instead of directly., e.g.


Here, the arrival of the left side of the wave is later than the right, because it happens to travel an extra distance.  If one finds this distance d is such that:

 d sin  q     =     l/  2

Then we have the left -radio wave fully cancelling the right and no signal gets through. Obviously one wants to avoid this condition.  Ideally then, we need: 

 d sin  q     =  0.

Again, every radio telescope has maximum reception in location and this falls off according to the beam pattern.  A convenient way to specify this pattern is by using the beam width and one half the peak (power) height.   

From this one can deduce the optimum beam width in terms of the resolution. Thus, if two objects are closer than the beam width then they will blur into one, and the astronomer will be unable to distinguish the sources.  This conveys the importance of a narrow beam width, which just means the signal falls off rapidly as one shifts from one side of the source to the other.The narrower the beam width the better the resolution of the radio telescope. In general:

Beam width =  Resolution =   Wavelength /   diameter    =     l/  

Hence, if the wavelength is 21 cm (say for the hydrogen line) and the diameter  of the telescope is 10 m (1000 cm) we have:   21cm /  1000 cm  = 0.021 arcseconds


See Also:

Brane Space: All Experts Redux: Basics of Radio Telescopes