The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on September 12, 2016, 07:41:33 AM

Title: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 12, 2016, 07:41:33 AM
I was watching an interesting video which provides some elements of discussion.

- In Lone Survivor, a true story, a major plot point is that the team's Satellite Phone got zero signal on the top of a mountain in Afganistan.

- There is an interesting idea posed that Satellite TV could be using Troposcatter technology, and that other satellite technologies may be land-based Troposcatter broadcasting devices.

- Brought up a point that Thork once made that many satellite dishes are often seen pointed in the general direction of the horizon, rarely "up".

- Obligatory 9/11 conspiracy tie-in at the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPFUNx8KWeQ&t=0s
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 12, 2016, 07:47:39 AM
From tpub.com on Tropospheric Scatter:

http://www.tpub.com/neets/book10/40k.htm

Quote
TROPOSPHERIC PROPAGATION

As the lowest region of the Earth's atmosphere, the troposphere extends from the Earth's surface to a height of slightly over 7 miles. Virtually all weather phenomena occur in this region. Generally, the troposphere is characterized by a steady decrease in both temperature and pressure as height is increased. However, the many changes in weather phenomena cause variations in humidity and an uneven heating of the Earth's surface. As a result, the air in the troposphere is in constant motion. This motion causes small turbulences, or eddies, to be formed, as shown by the bouncing of aircraft entering turbulent areas of the atmosphere. These turbulences are most intense near the Earth's surface and gradually diminish with height. They have a refractive quality that permits the refracting or scattering of radio waves with short wavelengths. This scattering provides enhanced communications at higher frequencies.

Recall that in the relationship between frequency and wavelength, wavelength decreases as frequency increases and vice versa. Radio waves of frequencies below 30 megahertz normally have wavelengths longer than the size of weather turbulences. These radio waves are, therefore, affected very little by the turbulences. On the other hand, as the frequency increases into the vhf range and above, the wavelengths decrease in size, to the point that they become subject to tropospheric scattering. The usable frequency range for tropospheric scattering is from about 100 megahertz to 10 gigahertz.

An image:

(http://www.tpub.com/neets/book10/NTX2-26.GIF)
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 12, 2016, 08:21:05 AM
Thork's post at https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51208.msg1254456#msg1254456

I have a satellite dish on my house. It points South East, not up. Proof in itself the 'satellite' must be in Slough and not in space.

Your satellite dish points parallel to the surface of the earth?  ???
Yep. It is mounted like this one
(http://legacy.ybsitecenter.com/multi-images/uk/legacy/var/al/23424/260365-RS14011_Satellite-Dish-on-House-03.png)

or this one
(http://www.wecanfit.co.uk/images/23.jpg)

or any of the ones in this street.
(http://www.constructionphotography.com/ImageThumbs/A088-02463/3/A088-02463_Terraced_houses_with_satellite_dishes_England_UK.jpg)

You'll be telling me they are all pointing up at satellites in the sky, and not parallel at ground based stations next. ::)
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: rabinoz on September 12, 2016, 09:03:12 AM
Thork's post at https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51208.msg1254456#msg1254456

I have a satellite dish on my house. It points South East, not up. Proof in itself the 'satellite' must be in Slough and not in space.

Your satellite dish points parallel to the surface of the earth?  ???
Yep. It is mounted like this one
(http://legacy.ybsitecenter.com/multi-images/uk/legacy/var/al/23424/260365-RS14011_Satellite-Dish-on-House-03.png)

or this one
(http://www.wecanfit.co.uk/images/23.jpg)

or any of the ones in this street.
(http://www.constructionphotography.com/ImageThumbs/A088-02463/3/A088-02463_Terraced_houses_with_satellite_dishes_England_UK.jpg)

You'll be telling me they are all pointing up at satellites in the sky, and not parallel at ground based stations next. ::)

You ask two simple questions "You'll be telling me they are all pointing up at satellites in the sky, and not parallel at ground based stations."

and I'll give you two direct answers:
                  Yes, they definitely are "pointing up at satellites in the sky"
and
                  No, they are definitely are not pointing "parallel at ground based stations".

I do wish you would learn a bit about the topic before posting this sort of thing. It would save us all so much time!

Have a look at

Quote from: Wikipedia
Offset dish antenna
Main types of parabolic antennas
An off-axis or offset dish antenna is a type of parabolic antenna. It is so called because the antenna feed is offset to the side of the reflector, in contrast to the common front-fed parabolic antenna where the feed is in front of the dish, on its axis. As in a front-fed parabolic dish, the feed is located at the focal point of the reflector, but the reflector is an asymmetric segment of a paraboloid, so the focus is located to the side.
The purpose of this design is to move the feed antenna and its supports out of the path of the incoming radio waves. In an ordinary front-fed dish antenna, the feed structure and its supports are located in the path of the incoming beam of radio waves, partially obstructing them, casting a "shadow" on the dish, reducing the radio power received. In technical terms this reduces the aperture efficiency of the antenna, reducing its gain. In the offset design, the feed is positioned outside the area of the beam, usually below it on a boom sticking out from the bottom edge of the dish. The beam axis of the antenna, the axis of the incoming or outgoing radio waves, is skewed at an angle to the plane of the dish mouth.
The design is most widely used for small parabolic antennas or "mini-dishes", such as common Ku band home satellite television dishes, where the feed structure is large enough in relation to the dish to block a significant proportion of the signal. Another application is on satellites, particularly the direct broadcast satellites which use parabolic dishes to beam television signals to homes on Earth. Because of the limited transmitter power provided by their solar cells, satellite antennas must function as efficiently as possible. The offset design is also widely used in radar antennas. These must collect as much signal as possible in order to detect faint return signals from faraway targets.
Offset dish antennas are more difficult to design than front-fed antennas because the dish is an asymmetric segment of a paraboloid with different curvatures in the two axes. Before the 1970s offset designs were mostly limited to radar antennas, which required asymmetric reflectors anyway to create shaped beams. The advent in the 1970s of computer design tools which could easily calculate the radiation pattern of offset dishes has removed this limitation, and efficient offset designs are being used more and more widely in recent years.
   
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Parabolic_antenna_types2.svg)
Main types of parabolic antennas
From: Offset dish antenna. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offset_dish_antenna)

Yes, those all seem to be "Offset dish antennae" like this one, with the feed horn well below the centre line of the dish:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Schotelantenne.jpg/330px-Schotelantenne.jpg)
Home satellite television dish

Tropospheric scatter is used, but is not suitable for TV signal distribution because there is no way it can reliably cover a whole continent!
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Rounder on September 12, 2016, 03:30:31 PM
- In Lone Survivor, a true story, a major plot point is that the team's Satellite Phone got zero signal on the top of a mountain in Afganistan.
While I have neither watched the movie nor read the book Lone Survivor, I do have Google.  A quick search of the internet does not back up your assertion of "zero signal" at the top of a mountain.  It actually contradicts you exactly (http://www.history.com/news/the-real-life-story-behind-lone-survivor): the ONLY place he had signal was the very exposed position on top of the mountain, where he successfully made the call (and received his fatal wounds in the process)
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 12, 2016, 03:44:51 PM
- In Lone Survivor, a true story, a major plot point is that the team's Satellite Phone got zero signal on the top of a mountain in Afganistan.
While I have neither watched the movie nor read the book Lone Survivor, I do have Google.  A quick search of the internet does not back up your assertion of "zero signal" at the top of a mountain.  It actually contradicts you exactly (http://www.history.com/news/the-real-life-story-behind-lone-survivor): the ONLY place he had signal was the very exposed position on top of the mountain, where he successfully made the call (and received his fatal wounds in the process)

Actually, if one searches for Satellite Phone on that page it says that he had to move to an "exposed position" to get a signal. It says nothing about it being on a mountain. From what I've read about it, I don't think the entire story takes place on the top of a mountain.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Rama Set on September 12, 2016, 04:21:52 PM
- In Lone Survivor, a true story, a major plot point is that the team's Satellite Phone got zero signal on the top of a mountain in Afganistan.
While I have neither watched the movie nor read the book Lone Survivor, I do have Google.  A quick search of the internet does not back up your assertion of "zero signal" at the top of a mountain.  It actually contradicts you exactly (http://www.history.com/news/the-real-life-story-behind-lone-survivor): the ONLY place he had signal was the very exposed position on top of the mountain, where he successfully made the call (and received his fatal wounds in the process)

Actually, if one searches for Satellite Phone on that page it says that he had to move to an "exposed position" to get a signal. It says nothing about it being on a mountain. From what I've read about it, I don't think the entire story takes place on the top of a mountain.

Where are you seeing that he got no satellite phone reception on a mountaintop?  Are you seriously basing it on a youtubers opinion on a Hollywood interpretation of a true story?  I hope you are, because that would be hilarious.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 13, 2016, 12:22:12 AM
Where are you seeing that he got no satellite phone reception on a mountaintop?  Are you seriously basing it on a youtubers opinion on a Hollywood interpretation of a true story?  I hope you are, because that would be hilarious.

I've read about the Lone Survivor story and the youtuber's point appears to be correct as far as I can tell. The events take place in multiple locations. I haven't picked up the book, but you are welcome to read the book and settle the matter.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Rounder on September 13, 2016, 03:12:19 AM
Actually, if one searches for Satellite Phone on that page it says that he had to move to an "exposed position" to get a signal.
Fine, "exposed position" then.  Why should that be unexpected?  Satellite communication requires line of sight, which you don't have while in thick cover.

It says nothing about it being on a mountain. From what I've read about it, I don't think the entire story takes place on the top of a mountain.
All the more reason to wonder why YOU made an unsupported claim (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5337.msg103451#msg103451) about getting "zero signal on the top of a mountain in Afghanistan."


you are welcome to read the book and settle the matter.
Sure, because you have a long history of acknowledging when we point out your mistakes and "settle the matter"
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Rama Set on September 13, 2016, 03:30:10 AM
Where are you seeing that he got no satellite phone reception on a mountaintop?  Are you seriously basing it on a youtubers opinion on a Hollywood interpretation of a true story?  I hope you are, because that would be hilarious.

I've read about the Lone Survivor story and the youtuber's point appears to be correct as far as I can tell. The events take place in multiple locations. I haven't picked up the book, but you are welcome to read the book and settle the matter.

No, I am pretty sure you are wrong.  If you were right, then you would show us.  This is just another Tom-fail.  We will add it to the pile.  The large, steaming pile.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: rabinoz on September 13, 2016, 07:03:03 AM
Where are you seeing that he got no satellite phone reception on a mountaintop?  Are you seriously basing it on a youtubers opinion on a Hollywood interpretation of a true story?  I hope you are, because that would be hilarious.

I've read about the Lone Survivor story and the youtuber's point appears to be correct as far as I can tell. The events take place in multiple locations. I haven't picked up the book, but you are welcome to read the book and settle the matter.

No, I am pretty sure you are wrong.  If you were right, then you would show us.  This is just another Tom-fail.  We will add it to the pile.  The large, steaming pile.
Do the satellite dishes in his Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology? (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5337.msg103453#msg103453) go on the heap?

I attempted to answer it in Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology? (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5337.msg103459#msg103459)
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Woody on September 14, 2016, 01:54:27 AM
Here you go Tom:

(https://media.giphy.com/media/xTiTnJZREDwfAZR02s/giphy.gif)

Every civilization has observed and recorded what they saw in the night sky to some extent.  Those stationary stars/lights were never recorded by any civilization or person in history.  Well at least not until we are told those satellites were launched. 

If you remember I also gave you some other methods to determine where radio signals are coming from. If I recall you determined that it was not worth doing because it would not be evidence if the Earth is flat or not.  Well it seems in this case it would be worth doing since you are questioning the existence of satellites and where the signals are coming from.

If you like I will list those methods again so you can gather evidence.

You really should research wave propagation.  When you do you will learn why different antennas and frequencies are used for different applications.  Like certain frequencies not bouncing off any layer of the atmosphere and punching through it.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2016, 03:20:43 AM
Have a look at

Quote from: Wikipedia
Offset dish antenna
Main types of parabolic antennas
An off-axis or offset dish antenna is a type of parabolic antenna. It is so called because the antenna feed is offset to the side of the reflector, in contrast to the common front-fed parabolic antenna where the feed is in front of the dish, on its axis. As in a front-fed parabolic dish, the feed is located at the focal point of the reflector, but the reflector is an asymmetric segment of a paraboloid, so the focus is located to the side.
The purpose of this design is to move the feed antenna and its supports out of the path of the incoming radio waves. In an ordinary front-fed dish antenna, the feed structure and its supports are located in the path of the incoming beam of radio waves, partially obstructing them, casting a "shadow" on the dish, reducing the radio power received. In technical terms this reduces the aperture efficiency of the antenna, reducing its gain. In the offset design, the feed is positioned outside the area of the beam, usually below it on a boom sticking out from the bottom edge of the dish. The beam axis of the antenna, the axis of the incoming or outgoing radio waves, is skewed at an angle to the plane of the dish mouth.
The design is most widely used for small parabolic antennas or "mini-dishes", such as common Ku band home satellite television dishes, where the feed structure is large enough in relation to the dish to block a significant proportion of the signal. Another application is on satellites, particularly the direct broadcast satellites which use parabolic dishes to beam television signals to homes on Earth. Because of the limited transmitter power provided by their solar cells, satellite antennas must function as efficiently as possible. The offset design is also widely used in radar antennas. These must collect as much signal as possible in order to detect faint return signals from faraway targets.
Offset dish antennas are more difficult to design than front-fed antennas because the dish is an asymmetric segment of a paraboloid with different curvatures in the two axes. Before the 1970s offset designs were mostly limited to radar antennas, which required asymmetric reflectors anyway to create shaped beams. The advent in the 1970s of computer design tools which could easily calculate the radiation pattern of offset dishes has removed this limitation, and efficient offset designs are being used more and more widely in recent years.
   

I don't know about that. Look at these troposphere dishes with off-center receivers:

From http://web.archive.org/web/20090528134258/http://www.gdsatcom.com/troposcatter.php

(http://i63.tinypic.com/rr3988.gif)

Caption: "SATCOM Technologies’ newest addition to the troposcatter product line is the Dual-mode, All-band, Relocatable, Tactical Terminal (DART-T). Using industry-first technologies, this complete troposcatter system outperforms previous generations with its higher data rates, field-adaptable all-band operation, low weight and reduced prime power usage. Its patent-pending dual beam Ku-band feed uses angle diversity to achieve very low bit error rate in a small footprint terminal, replacing previous generations of troposcatter systems which were forced to rely on dual antennas on each end of the tropo link to achieve the necessary signal diversity. As a result, the number of antennas required for successful troposcatter operation is halved, freeing up valuable manpower and resources in the field."

Then there's this one from a page titled "SATCOM Technologies Troposcatter Communications System"

http://www.gdsatcom.com/email/1-10-08.htm

(http://www.gdsatcom.com/email/images/1-10-08image.jpg)


Compared to one of Thork's Satellite Dish images:

(http://legacy.ybsitecenter.com/multi-images/uk/legacy/var/al/23424/260365-RS14011_Satellite-Dish-on-House-03.png)
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Woody on September 14, 2016, 06:33:53 AM
Have a look at

Quote from: Wikipedia
Offset dish antenna
Main types of parabolic antennas
An off-axis or offset dish antenna is a type of parabolic antenna. It is so called because the antenna feed is offset to the side of the reflector, in contrast to the common front-fed parabolic antenna where the feed is in front of the dish, on its axis. As in a front-fed parabolic dish, the feed is located at the focal point of the reflector, but the reflector is an asymmetric segment of a paraboloid, so the focus is located to the side.
The purpose of this design is to move the feed antenna and its supports out of the path of the incoming radio waves. In an ordinary front-fed dish antenna, the feed structure and its supports are located in the path of the incoming beam of radio waves, partially obstructing them, casting a "shadow" on the dish, reducing the radio power received. In technical terms this reduces the aperture efficiency of the antenna, reducing its gain. In the offset design, the feed is positioned outside the area of the beam, usually below it on a boom sticking out from the bottom edge of the dish. The beam axis of the antenna, the axis of the incoming or outgoing radio waves, is skewed at an angle to the plane of the dish mouth.
The design is most widely used for small parabolic antennas or "mini-dishes", such as common Ku band home satellite television dishes, where the feed structure is large enough in relation to the dish to block a significant proportion of the signal. Another application is on satellites, particularly the direct broadcast satellites which use parabolic dishes to beam television signals to homes on Earth. Because of the limited transmitter power provided by their solar cells, satellite antennas must function as efficiently as possible. The offset design is also widely used in radar antennas. These must collect as much signal as possible in order to detect faint return signals from faraway targets.
Offset dish antennas are more difficult to design than front-fed antennas because the dish is an asymmetric segment of a paraboloid with different curvatures in the two axes. Before the 1970s offset designs were mostly limited to radar antennas, which required asymmetric reflectors anyway to create shaped beams. The advent in the 1970s of computer design tools which could easily calculate the radiation pattern of offset dishes has removed this limitation, and efficient offset designs are being used more and more widely in recent years.
   

I don't know about that. Look at these troposphere dishes with off-center receivers:

From http://web.archive.org/web/20090528134258/http://www.gdsatcom.com/troposcatter.php

(http://i63.tinypic.com/rr3988.gif)

Caption: "SATCOM Technologies’ newest addition to the troposcatter product line is the Dual-mode, All-band, Relocatable, Tactical Terminal (DART-T). Using industry-first technologies, this complete troposcatter system outperforms previous generations with its higher data rates, field-adaptable all-band operation, low weight and reduced prime power usage. Its patent-pending dual beam Ku-band feed uses angle diversity to achieve very low bit error rate in a small footprint terminal, replacing previous generations of troposcatter systems which were forced to rely on dual antennas on each end of the tropo link to achieve the necessary signal diversity. As a result, the number of antennas required for successful troposcatter operation is halved, freeing up valuable manpower and resources in the field."

Then there's this one from a page titled "SATCOM Technologies Troposcatter Communications System"

http://www.gdsatcom.com/email/1-10-08.htm

(http://www.gdsatcom.com/email/images/1-10-08image.jpg)


Compared to one of Thork's Satellite Dish images:

(http://legacy.ybsitecenter.com/multi-images/uk/legacy/var/al/23424/260365-RS14011_Satellite-Dish-on-House-03.png)

Did you notice the size difference between Thork's picture and yours?

Did you research the advancement of the technology and time line?

As technology and techniques improved/improves the size of the receiving dishes decreased/will decrease and data rates have/will increase.

Looking closer you should realize the antennas currently used for troposcatter are much larger so they can receive the signal than the antennas used for satellite TV. They used to need to be

Militaries are interested in troposcatter because of the narrow transmission beam.  It allows for more security because the signal can be directed and have a very narrow range where it can be intercepted.  Compare that to satellite transmissions which can be received over a very large area.

(http://www.engineeringradio.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/SEVER-antenna.jpg)
The above is a antenna built in 1965 using troposcatter

(http://res.cloudinary.com/tedium/image/upload/v1440731265/kchptngvcsakutsqu056.jpg)
The above is an early satellite dish.

Do you notice the size difference? Do you notice the troposcatter antenna is actually two antennas since it increased the reliability?
As I pointed out we now live in a time where they reduced the sizes, increased data rate and reliability.  This did not happen when satellite transmissions where first used to send signals to people's homes. Antennas used for troposcatter still need to be larger than the ones used for satellite transmissions since the signal is still weaker and atmospheric conditions have a greater influence on them.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: rabinoz on September 14, 2016, 07:17:30 AM
Have a look at

Quote from: Wikipedia
Offset dish antenna
Main types of parabolic antennas
An off-axis or offset dish antenna is a type of parabolic antenna. It is so called because the antenna feed is offset to the side of the reflector, in contrast to the common front-fed parabolic antenna where the feed is in front of the dish, on its axis. As in a front-fed parabolic dish, the feed is located at the focal point of the reflector, but the reflector is an asymmetric segment of a paraboloid, so the focus is located to the side.
The purpose of this design is to move the feed antenna and its supports out of the path of the incoming radio waves. In an ordinary front-fed dish antenna, the feed structure and its supports are located in the path of the incoming beam of radio waves, partially obstructing them, casting a "shadow" on the dish, reducing the radio power received. In technical terms this reduces the aperture efficiency of the antenna, reducing its gain. In the offset design, the feed is positioned outside the area of the beam, usually below it on a boom sticking out from the bottom edge of the dish. The beam axis of the antenna, the axis of the incoming or outgoing radio waves, is skewed at an angle to the plane of the dish mouth.
The design is most widely used for small parabolic antennas or "mini-dishes", such as common Ku band home satellite television dishes, where the feed structure is large enough in relation to the dish to block a significant proportion of the signal. Another application is on satellites, particularly the direct broadcast satellites which use parabolic dishes to beam television signals to homes on Earth. Because of the limited transmitter power provided by their solar cells, satellite antennas must function as efficiently as possible. The offset design is also widely used in radar antennas. These must collect as much signal as possible in order to detect faint return signals from faraway targets.
Offset dish antennas are more difficult to design than front-fed antennas because the dish is an asymmetric segment of a paraboloid with different curvatures in the two axes. Before the 1970s offset designs were mostly limited to radar antennas, which required asymmetric reflectors anyway to create shaped beams. The advent in the 1970s of computer design tools which could easily calculate the radiation pattern of offset dishes has removed this limitation, and efficient offset designs are being used more and more widely in recent years.
   

I don't know about that. Look at these troposphere dishes with off-center receivers:

From http://web.archive.org/web/20090528134258/http://www.gdsatcom.com/troposcatter.php

(http://i63.tinypic.com/rr3988.gif)

Caption: "SATCOM Technologies’ newest addition to the troposcatter product line is the Dual-mode, All-band, Relocatable, Tactical Terminal (DART-T). Using industry-first technologies, this complete troposcatter system outperforms previous generations with its higher data rates, field-adaptable all-band operation, low weight and reduced prime power usage. Its patent-pending dual beam Ku-band feed uses angle diversity to achieve very low bit error rate in a small footprint terminal, replacing previous generations of troposcatter systems which were forced to rely on dual antennas on each end of the tropo link to achieve the necessary signal diversity. As a result, the number of antennas required for successful troposcatter operation is halved, freeing up valuable manpower and resources in the field."

Then there's this one from a page titled "SATCOM Technologies Troposcatter Communications System"

http://www.gdsatcom.com/email/1-10-08.htm

(http://www.gdsatcom.com/email/images/1-10-08image.jpg)

Compared to one of Thork's Satellite Dish images:

(http://legacy.ybsitecenter.com/multi-images/uk/legacy/var/al/23424/260365-RS14011_Satellite-Dish-on-House-03.png)

The elevation angle of the satellite dish can vary greatly, depending mainly on the latitude. Here are some in Indonesia, quite close to the equator:
(http://www.weltrekordreise.ch/bilder%20id/359-P1130587.jpg)
Satellite TV Dishes in Indonesia, pointing up at almost 90°.
     
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Astro_satellite_dishes.jpg/240px-Astro_satellite_dishes.jpg)
Satellite television dishes in Malaysia.
They don't look like tropospheric scatter antennae.

But, as I stated before tropospheric scatter is useful for point-to-point communication, but is quite unsuitable for a continent wide broadcasting as DBS TV.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2016, 08:48:02 AM

Did you notice the size difference between Thork's picture and yours?

Did you research the advancement of the technology and time line?

As technology and techniques improved/improves the size of the receiving dishes decreased/will decrease and data rates have/will increase.

Looking closer you should realize the antennas currently used for troposcatter are much larger so they can receive the signal than the antennas used for satellite TV. They used to need to be

Militaries are interested in troposcatter because of the narrow transmission beam.  It allows for more security because the signal can be directed and have a very narrow range where it can be intercepted.  Compare that to satellite transmissions which can be received over a very large area.

That would be a pretty dumb military application if any military operation which uses it has to be located in line with where the transmitter is pointing. How does that work? A lot of those military broadcasting antennas don't even look like they turn. And then in a combat situation how does it work when there are multiple teams spread across a large battle field trying to communicate with toposcatter tech?

I think it more likely operates like a spotlight in the sky that anyone can see.

The following article seems to suggest that Troposcatter was introduced because the military didn't like having their current communication setup using microwave transmitters which required multiple transmitters and the field teams to be in a line with the antenna. It appears that they were able to replace multiple microwave transmitters with one Troposcatter transmitter. That sounds to me like it's broadcasting a spotlight in the sky that anyone can see and communicate with.

From http://www.comtechsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Troposcatter-In-The-Modern-Military.pdf

Quote
In an attempt to free-up satellite bandwidth, ground forces increased the use of Line-Of-Sight
microwave equipment. While useful, the problem in many instances was that LOS required
multiple relays to maneuver around obstacles or to span distances greater than the limited range
of tactical LOS links. This in turn resulted in relays being installed in unsecured areas that
required force protection and had no supporting infrastructure, thus limiting the use of LOS as a
complete battlefield bandwidth solution.

As an alternative to LOS and satellite, the military deployed its aging fleet of AN/TRC-170
troposcatter systems to provide intra theater communications. These vehicle mounted systems
with trailer transported antennas were the main stays of tactical long haul communications from
the 1970s through the early 1990s. One of the largest deployed troposcatter networks was
established using the AN/TRC-170 during Operation Desert Storm, consisting of over 60 links.
The success of mobile troposcatter systems in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) substantiated the value of troposcatter communications on the
modern battlefield.

Quote from: woody
Do you notice the size difference? Do you notice the troposcatter antenna is actually two antennas since it increased the reliability?
As I pointed out we now live in a time where they reduced the sizes, increased data rate and reliability.  This did not happen when satellite transmissions where first used to send signals to people's homes.

Satellite dishes on people's homes also used to be a lot bigger. It looks like as Troposcatter antennas shrunk so did the dishes on people's homes.

Quote from: woody
Antennas used for troposcatter still need to be larger than the ones used for satellite transmissions since the signal is still weaker and atmospheric conditions have a greater influence on them.

Home satellite dish connections are also subject to atmospheric conditions. What are you trying to tell us?
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2016, 09:19:43 AM
Some notes from this article on Troposcatter transmissions:

http://www.comtechsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Troposcatter-Introduction-Nov-2013.pdf

It appears that high bandwidth applications are not a problem:

Quote
Today, using high speed modems with advanced signal processing, digital voice, data and video
can be streamed across high reliability links for military and commercial applications as part of a
complete communications network.

In section 4.3 we see that it is possible to have multiple receivers. This seems to suggest that it works more like a spotlight in the sky (but probably on a very high reflective layer) that anyone can receive a signal from:

Quote
(https://i.imgur.com/pbdCy7B.png)

http://i68.tinypic.com/2hprw95.png
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Woody on September 14, 2016, 09:25:03 AM

Did you notice the size difference between Thork's picture and yours?

Did you research the advancement of the technology and time line?

As technology and techniques improved/improves the size of the receiving dishes decreased/will decrease and data rates have/will increase.

Looking closer you should realize the antennas currently used for troposcatter are much larger so they can receive the signal than the antennas used for satellite TV. They used to need to be

Militaries are interested in troposcatter because of the narrow transmission beam.  It allows for more security because the signal can be directed and have a very narrow range where it can be intercepted.  Compare that to satellite transmissions which can be received over a very large area.

That would be a pretty dumb military application if any military operation which uses it has to be located in line with where the transmitter is pointing. How does that work? A lot of those military broadcasting antennas don't even look like they turn. And then in a combat situation how does it work when there are multiple teams spread across a large battle field trying to communicate with toposcatter tech?

I think it is more likely operates like a spotlight in the sky that anyone can see.

Look, I spent literally 2 minutes researching the matter and proved you wrong that Troposcatter tech worked only in a line like you described and is more like a spotlight in the sky that anyone can see:

http://www.comtechsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Troposcatter-In-The-Modern-Military.pdf

Quote
In an attempt to free-up satellite bandwidth, ground forces increased the use of Line-Of-Sight
microwave equipment. While useful, the problem in many instances was that LOS required
multiple relays to maneuver around obstacles or to span distances greater than the limited range
of tactical LOS links. This in turn resulted in relays being installed in unsecured areas that
required force protection and had no supporting infrastructure, thus limiting the use of LOS as a
complete battlefield bandwidth solution.

As an alternative to LOS and satellite, the military deployed its aging fleet of AN/TRC-170
troposcatter systems to provide intra theater communications.
These vehicle mounted systems
with trailer transported antennas were the main stays of tactical long haul communications from
the 1970s through the early 1990s. One of the largest deployed troposcatter networks was
established using the AN/TRC-170 during Operation Desert Storm, consisting of over 60 links.
The success of mobile troposcatter systems in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) substantiated the value of troposcatter communications on the
modern battlefield.

Quote
Do you notice the size difference? Do you notice the troposcatter antenna is actually two antennas since it increased the reliability?
As I pointed out we now live in a time where they reduced the sizes, increased data rate and reliability.  This did not happen when satellite transmissions where first used to send signals to people's homes.

Satellite dishes on people's homes also used to be a lot bigger. It looks like as Troposcatter antennas shrunk so did the dishes on people's homes.

Quote
Antennas used for troposcatter still need to be larger than the ones used for satellite transmissions since the signal is still weaker and atmospheric conditions have a greater influence on them.

Home satellite dish connections are also subject to atmospheric conditions. What are you trying to tell us?

Well having being in long range surveillance as the radio operator where I had to send transmissions with satellites and other radios across the globe I think differently and so does the military.  The most secure and hardest to detect was not the satellite radio I used.  It was a a radio using a directional antenna.  Proven in training when intelligence units where trying to detect and track my team.

It is harder to detect a signal sent only in one direction.  It does not work like a spot light in the sky, do more research.  It is a directional signal being sent.  I was in the military in intelligence units using this technology and trained how to use it.  If the antenna's direction and elevation is off by a rather small margin depending on weather no signal is received.

Here is the very important part.  The sat-com antenna I used fit in my rucksack.  The antenna for troposcatter was mounted on a truck. Again need a large antenna to increase reliability and because the signal strength is much weaker.

Troposcatter transmissions are effected more by atmospheric conditions than satellite signals.  Like how humid it is, where a satellite signal generally needs really bad weather and thick cloud cover to be effected.

I read your link where did it say I was wrong?  troposcatter communications is directional and harder to intercept.  It is one reason the military is interested in advancing the technology.

Again I pointed out like a lot of stuff size is decreasing, amount of data and reliability is increasing.  Troposcatter antenna are still not carried by soldiers, but on trucks and trailers.  Troposcatter antennas need to be larger than a satellite antenna with the current technology we have.

So I literally spent less than a minute reading what you said prove me wrong.  It does not.

Keep in mind I used this equipment in real world conditions.  Troposcatter is not sending satellite signals are being used for GPS. With current technology we would need to go back to the 80's size satellite dishes.  Not only that satellite dishes would not all be pointing in the same direction across some place like North America.  We would also be seeing a lot more dishes around since the effective range of troposcatter transmissions is around 250km.  It can be around 300km depending on amount of data needed to be transmitted, atmospheric conditions and terrain. Older systems like the one from 1963 had further ranges, but as you see those antennas where rather large and not mobile.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2016, 09:26:16 AM
Quote from: woody
It is harder to detect a signal sent only in one direction.  It does not work like a spot light in the sky, do more research.  It is a directional signal being sent.  I was in the military in intelligence units using this technology and trained how to use it.  If the antenna's direction and elevation is off by a rather small margin depending on weather no signal is received.

I did do research:

Some notes from this article on Troposcatter transmissions:

http://www.comtechsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Troposcatter-Introduction-Nov-2013.pdf

Quote
Today, using high speed modems with advanced signal processing, digital voice, data and video
can be streamed across high reliability links for military and commercial applications as part of a
complete communications network.

In section 4.3 we see that it is possible to have multiple receivers. This seems to suggest that it works more like a spotlight in the sky (but probably on a very high reflective layer) that anyone can receive a signal from:

Quote
(http://i68.tinypic.com/2hprw95.png)
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2016, 09:33:55 AM
Quote from: woody
Again I pointed out like a lot of stuff size is decreasing, amount of data and reliability is increasing.  Troposcatter antenna are still not carried by soldiers, but on trucks and trailers.  Troposcatter antennas need to be larger than a satellite antenna with the current technology we have.

This link says that a Troposcatter terminal can be as small as a "portable transit case system":

http://www.comtechsystems.com/industries-capabilities/troposcatter-overview/

Quote
A troposcatter system is a point-to-point link that requires a terminal on each end, with each terminal both transmitting and receiving. Terminals can range in size from a portable transit case system to a vehicle-mounted system or large fixed installation.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Woody on September 14, 2016, 09:42:55 AM
Quote
Again I pointed out like a lot of stuff size is decreasing, amount of data and reliability is increasing.  Troposcatter antenna are still not carried by soldiers, but on trucks and trailers.  Troposcatter antennas need to be larger than a satellite antenna with the current technology we have.

This link says that a Troposcatter terminal can be as small as a "portable transit case system":

http://www.comtechsystems.com/industries-capabilities/troposcatter-overview/

Quote
A troposcatter system is a point-to-point link that requires a terminal on each end, with each terminal both transmitting and receiving. Terminals can range in size from a portable transit case system to a vehicle-mounted system or large fixed installation.

The portable transit antennas are about 3 feet in diameter. A little over in my experience.  They are not cosidered man portable over long distances like the satellite antenna I carried that was 1 foot in diameter.  Usually deployed by being transported in a vehicle then set up when the vehicle arrives at a location.  It also has a decreased range, max being about 150km in good conditions.  Sometimes a little further in ideal conditions.

I am telling you I work with communications systems rather frequently and received a lot training.  You are wrong in assuming that troposcatter is used to send things like satellite tv signals and GPS.  It is highly directional and can not be used for wide spread coverage.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2016, 10:23:28 AM
Quote
Again I pointed out like a lot of stuff size is decreasing, amount of data and reliability is increasing.  Troposcatter antenna are still not carried by soldiers, but on trucks and trailers.  Troposcatter antennas need to be larger than a satellite antenna with the current technology we have.

This link says that a Troposcatter terminal can be as small as a "portable transit case system":

http://www.comtechsystems.com/industries-capabilities/troposcatter-overview/

Quote
A troposcatter system is a point-to-point link that requires a terminal on each end, with each terminal both transmitting and receiving. Terminals can range in size from a portable transit case system to a vehicle-mounted system or large fixed installation.

The portable transit antennas are about 3 feet in diameter. A little over in my experience.  They are not cosidered man portable over long distances like the satellite antenna I carried that was 1 foot in diameter.  Usually deployed by being transported in a vehicle then set up when the vehicle arrives at a location.  It also has a decreased range, max being about 150km in good conditions.  Sometimes a little further in ideal conditions.

I am telling you I work with communications systems rather frequently and received a lot training.  You are wrong in assuming that troposcatter is used to send things like satellite tv signals and GPS.  It is highly directional and can not be used for wide spread coverage.

This page is about hobbyist Troposcatter tech, and says that a 70 cm receiver is better for a greater range than a 2 meter receiver:

http://www.qsl.net/oz1rh/troposcatter99/troposcatter99.htm

Quote
Greater range on 70 cm than on 2 m

70 cm may have greater range than 2 m, because:

a.   lower noise level in the sky means you can take better advantage of a low-noise preamplifier in your 70 cm receiver

b.   greater path loss is compensated by a larger antenna gain, given the same physical dimensions of the antenna

c.   more frequent ducting because a smaller duct will do

Why do most amateurs then think that 70 cm has shorter range?

fewer other amateurs are active
greater antenna gain => smaller beam width
difficult to have the same transmitter power output
in the old days it was more difficult to make a low-noise preamplifier for 70 cm than for 2 m
greater cable loss
 
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Woody on September 14, 2016, 11:28:47 AM
Quote
Again I pointed out like a lot of stuff size is decreasing, amount of data and reliability is increasing.  Troposcatter antenna are still not carried by soldiers, but on trucks and trailers.  Troposcatter antennas need to be larger than a satellite antenna with the current technology we have.

This link says that a Troposcatter terminal can be as small as a "portable transit case system":

http://www.comtechsystems.com/industries-capabilities/troposcatter-overview/

Quote
A troposcatter system is a point-to-point link that requires a terminal on each end, with each terminal both transmitting and receiving. Terminals can range in size from a portable transit case system to a vehicle-mounted system or large fixed installation.

The portable transit antennas are about 3 feet in diameter. A little over in my experience.  They are not cosidered man portable over long distances like the satellite antenna I carried that was 1 foot in diameter.  Usually deployed by being transported in a vehicle then set up when the vehicle arrives at a location.  It also has a decreased range, max being about 150km in good conditions.  Sometimes a little further in ideal conditions.

I am telling you I work with communications systems rather frequently and received a lot training.  You are wrong in assuming that troposcatter is used to send things like satellite tv signals and GPS.  It is highly directional and can not be used for wide spread coverage.

This page is about hobbyist Troposcatter tech, and says that a 70 cm receiver is better for a greater range than a 2 meter receiver:

http://www.qsl.net/oz1rh/troposcatter99/troposcatter99.htm

Quote
Greater range on 70 cm than on 2 m

70 cm may have greater range than 2 m, because:

a.   lower noise level in the sky means you can take better advantage of a low-noise preamplifier in your 70 cm receiver

b.   greater path loss is compensated by a larger antenna gain, given the same physical dimensions of the antenna

c.   more frequent ducting because a smaller duct will do

Why do most amateurs then think that 70 cm has shorter range?

fewer other amateurs are active
greater antenna gain => smaller beam width
difficult to have the same transmitter power output
in the old days it was more difficult to make a low-noise preamplifier for 70 cm than for 2 m
greater cable loss
 

That is 2'4" and still could not send a signal from the Middle East to North Carolina like I could with sat-comm. Which used a dish about 1/2 that size. Not only was it 1/2 the size it was not solid but made of mesh material.  Which decrease the effectiveness at transmitting and receiving.  Even then it worked 100% of the time I used it.

It is still directional the size of the antenna is not going to change that and it still does not provide wide spread coverage like GPS or satellite TV.

You are missing one rather important thing.  The amount of data that needs to be transmitted effects the effective range.  The less data needed to transmit the further apart you can have the antennas.

In most applications the range is around 150km to 300km.  Depending on frequency, power, antenna size and environment.  If you have been researching you will notice that most modern set ups have less range than the earlier ones from the 1960's.  Partly due to the amount of data needed to transmit increased.  Methods and technology is starting to get to the point where that will likely not be the case.  More sensitive equipment and better data compression will start changing that.

I will point out again I have real world experience with the equipment and have successful and unsuccessfully sent data and transmissions using that equipment.  I have bounced HF radio waves across the globe from the Middle East to Germany and the US a couple of hundred times.  I have set up the equipment you posted pictures of and used it.  I have used satellite communication and had to set up antennas hundreds of times. 

Here is a relatively simple thing to do.  Go to a site that tells you the direction and elevation a satellite dish needs to be pointed to receive a signal from a satellite of your choosing.  Maybe even one that is in the time lapse photo I posted in this thread.  Then figure out the altitude and direction the signal source is.  This is one of the things I pointed out before.  You dismissed it becasue you said it would not prove the shape of the Earth.  Now since you are questioning the existence of satellites in this thread and you are seeking the truth I see no reason for you to dismiss it.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: rabinoz on September 14, 2016, 11:43:42 AM
Quote from: woody
Again I pointed out like a lot of stuff size is decreasing, amount of data and reliability is increasing.  Troposcatter antenna are still not carried by soldiers, but on trucks and trailers.  Troposcatter antennas need to be larger than a satellite antenna with the current technology we have.

This link says that a Troposcatter terminal can be as small as a "portable transit case system":

http://www.comtechsystems.com/industries-capabilities/troposcatter-overview/

Quote
A troposcatter system is a point-to-point link that requires a terminal on each end, with each terminal both transmitting and receiving. Terminals can range in size from a portable transit case system to a vehicle-mounted system or large fixed installation.

And what has any of this do with satellite TV systems? Nothing! Different animals altogether.

Tropospheric scatter is useful for point-to-point communication over a limited range (about 400 km max) and limited bandwidth (8 - 22 Mb/s).

See
Quote from: Dr Carlo Kopp, AFAIAA, SMIEEE, PEng, August, 2010, Updated April, 2012
In terms of achievable range performance, smaller troposcatter systems are able to repeatably achieve 100 - 150 km ranges between a pair of stations. Larger systems, with 10+ metre antenna diameters and kiloWatt class transmit powers levels, have been reported with ranges of up to 400 km between a pair of stations. It is this range performance which has underpinned the popularity of troposcatter technology for use in undeveloped or underdeveloped regions, as it permits operation of a microwave channel in terrain where the cost of both deploying and maintaining a conventional microwave relay would be prohibitive.
From APA Troposcatter Systems (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Troposcatter-Systems.html). This was updated in 2012, so higher performance tropospheric scatter systems may have been developed, but of course DBS TV has been in use for decades, see
Quote from: Wikipedia
The first commercial North American satellite to carry television transmissions was Canada's geostationary Anik 1, which was launched on 9 November 1972.[43] ATS-6, the world's first experimental educational and Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), was launched on 30 May 1974

Tropospheric scatter is very useful, but it cannot replace Direct Broadcast Satellite TV. The requirements are quite different.

One Direct Broadcast Satellite typicaly
Quote
has up to 32 Ku-band or 24 C-band transponders, or more for Ku/C hybrid satellites. Typical transponders each have a bandwidth between 27 and 50 MHz.
From Wikipedia.
And one satellite can cover an area such as Australia or the USA.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 16, 2016, 02:32:29 AM
That is 2'4" and still could not send a signal from the Middle East to North Carolina like I could with sat-comm. Which used a dish about 1/2 that size. Not only was it 1/2 the size it was not solid but made of mesh material.  Which decrease the effectiveness at transmitting and receiving.  Even then it worked 100% of the time I used it.

As we can see from my last post, a smaller Troposcatter receiver is arguably better than a larger Troposcatter receiver.

Quote
It is still directional the size of the antenna is not going to change that and it still does not provide wide spread coverage like GPS or satellite TV.

I've already provided a source showing that it is possible for multiple receivers in to point at the same spot in the sky and receive signal.

Quote
You are missing one rather important thing.  The amount of data that needs to be transmitted effects the effective range.  The less data needed to transmit the further apart you can have the antennas.

Compression and bandwidth is something Satellite TV also had to overcome. I've posted a source which stated that high bandwidth applications like video are possible with Troposcatter technology. It would follow that if Satellite TV was really Troposcatter TV, whoever is behind Troposcatter TV would have invested in Troposcatter compression and bandwidth tech rather than Satellite compression and bandwidth tech.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: rabinoz on September 16, 2016, 04:16:29 AM
That is 2'4" and still could not send a signal from the Middle East to North Carolina like I could with sat-comm. Which used a dish about 1/2 that size. Not only was it 1/2 the size it was not solid but made of mesh material.  Which decrease the effectiveness at transmitting and receiving.  Even then it worked 100% of the time I used it.

As we can see from my last post, a smaller Troposcatter receiver is arguably better than a larger Troposcatter receiver.

Quote
It is still directional the size of the antenna is not going to change that and it still does not provide wide spread coverage like GPS or satellite TV.

I've already provided a source showing that it is possible for multiple receivers in to point at the same spot in the sky and receive signal.

Quote
You are missing one rather important thing.  The amount of data that needs to be transmitted effects the effective range.  The less data needed to transmit the further apart you can have the antennas.

Compression and bandwidth is something Satellite TV also had to overcome. I've posted a source which stated that high bandwidth applications like video are possible with Troposcatter technology. It would follow that if Satellite TV was really Troposcatter TV, whoever is behind Troposcatter TV would have invested in Troposcatter compression and bandwidth tech rather than Satellite compression and bandwidth tech.

Sure, but all these are quite modern developments. DBS TV has been around for over 40 years.

As I tried to point out before, but what I said before seems to have been completely ignored, so I will repeat it.

Tropospheric scatter is useful for point-to-point communication over a limited range (about 400 km max) and limited bandwidth (8 - 22 Mb/s).

See
Quote from: Dr Carlo Kopp, AFAIAA, SMIEEE, PEng, August, 2010, Updated April, 2012
In terms of achievable range performance, smaller troposcatter systems are able to repeatably achieve 100 - 150 km ranges between a pair of stations. Larger systems, with 10+ metre antenna diameters and kiloWatt class transmit powers levels, have been reported with ranges of up to 400 km between a pair of stations. It is this range performance which has underpinned the popularity of troposcatter technology for use in undeveloped or underdeveloped regions, as it permits operation of a microwave channel in terrain where the cost of both deploying and maintaining a conventional microwave relay would be prohibitive.
From APA Troposcatter Systems (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Troposcatter-Systems.html). This was updated in 2012, so higher performance tropospheric scatter systems may have been developed.

But, DBS TV has been in use for decades, see
Quote from: Wikipedia
The first commercial North American satellite to carry television transmissions was Canada's geostationary Anik 1, which was launched on 9 November 1972. ATS-6, the world's first experimental educational and Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), was launched on 30 May 1974

Tropospheric scatter is very useful, but it cannot replace Direct Broadcast Satellite TV. The requirements are quite different.

One Direct Broadcast Satellite typicaly
Quote
has up to 32 Ku-band or 24 C-band transponders, or more for Ku/C hybrid satellites. Typical transponders each have a bandwidth between 27 and 50 MHz.
From Wikipedia.

And one satellite can cover an area such as Australia or the USA, requiring thousands of kilometers range.

Yes, I know you will ignore these facts again and again, but they remain facts.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: inquisitive on September 21, 2016, 05:03:33 PM
Tom - we are discussing satellite broadcasting that millions use.  Troposcatter has nothing to do with this, completely different.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: geckothegeek on September 22, 2016, 02:28:41 AM
From what I have read on this website the problem is that most flat earthers tend to spout their own opinion of how things work which are often erroneous.
In this case, I think they generalize and do not realize that each piece of electronic equipment is designed for a different purpose and has its own frequency  and criteria of operation for that particular use. It is like tryimg to compare apples with oranges.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Woody on September 22, 2016, 09:59:20 AM
From what I have read on this website the problem is that most flat earthers tend to spout their own opinion of how things work which are often erroneous.
In this case, I think they generalize and do not realize that each piece of electronic equipment is designed for a different purpose and has its own frequency  and criteria of operation for that particular use. It is like tryimg to compare apples with oranges.

That is the problem I think Tom is having.  Different frequencies, antennas and other equipment are used for a reason.

Troposcatter is not a good method to use for something like broadcasting TV and GPS.  If it was that is what would be used.  It makes no sense to fake satellites since it is just extra cost and nobody would complain if "they" said it was cheaper to have a terrestrial based system.

Similar to GPS.  The only complaints and draw backs of LORAN was lack of world coverage and number of stations needed that had to be maintained.  GPS uses satellites because it provides better coverage and is more cost effective.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: cel on September 22, 2016, 10:38:03 AM
Just curious... how much does a satellite cost nowadays, if there is any? FEs say satellites are non-existent, and GEs say they do. But to think that they or NASA allotted huge budget for this, i think its true existence can be verified. Anyway, satellite, if it does exist, can really orbit around the GE as presently taught to us by NASA and textbook/schools, and likewise also revolves/orbits in a circular path over FE just like FE sun and moon. So in both cases, satellites can do orbit/revolves.... :)
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: geckothegeek on September 22, 2016, 04:10:35 PM
Just curious... how much does a satellite cost nowadays, if there is any? FEs say satellites are non-existent, and GEs say they do. But to think that they or NASA allotted huge budget for this, i think its true existence can be verified. Anyway, satellite, if it does exist, can really orbit around the GE as presently taught to us by NASA and textbook/schools, and likewise also revolves/orbits in a circular path over FE just like FE sun and moon. So in both cases, satellites can do orbit/revolves.... :)

As has been explained frequently , there are many satellites and they do exist and NASA is just one of many space agencies and they do exist, too.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: rabinoz on September 23, 2016, 01:04:05 AM
Just curious... how much does a satellite cost nowadays, if there is any? FEs say satellites are non-existent, and GEs say they do. But to think that they or NASA allotted huge budget for this, i think its true existence can be verified. Anyway, satellite, if it does exist, can really orbit around the GE as presently taught to us by NASA and textbook/schools, and likewise also revolves/orbits in a circular path over FE just like FE sun and moon. So in both cases, satellites can do orbit/revolves.... :)

Quote from: Wikipedia
It is estimated that a single satellite launch can range in cost from a low of about $50 million to a high of about $400 million. Launching a space shuttle mission can easily cost $500 million dollars, although one mission is capable of carrying multiple satellites and send them into orbit.[/size]

Just get this idea that NASA is at the centre of all this out of your head, many countries launch satellites, not just NASA!

Here is a list of first orbital launches by country or international organization with their own rockets.
Order   Country   Satellite   Rocket   Location   Date (UTC)
1   Soviet Union   Sputnik 1   Sputnik-PS   Baikonur, Soviet Union (today Kazakhstan)   4 October 1957
2   United States   Explorer 1   Juno I   Cape Canaveral, United States   1 February 1958
3   France   Astérix   Diamant A   Hammaguir, Algeria   26 November 1965
4   Japan   Ōsumi   Lambda-4S   Uchinoura, Japan   11 February 1970
5   China   Dong Fang Hong I   Long March 1   Jiuquan, China   24 April 1970
6   United Kingdom   Prospero   Black Arrow   Woomera, Australia   28 October 1971
   European Space Agency   CAT-1   Ariane 1   Kourou, French Guiana   24 December 1979
7   India   Rohini D1   SLV   Sriharikota, India   18 July 1980
8   Israel   Ofeq 1   Shavit   Palmachim, Israel   19 September 1988
   Ukraine   Strela-3 (x6, Russian)   Tsyklon-3   Plesetsk, Russia   28 September 1991
   Russia   Kosmos 2175   Soyuz-U   Plesetsk, Russia   21 January 1992
9   Iran   Omid   Safir-1A   Semnan, Iran   2 February 2009
10   North Korea   Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 Unit 2   Unha-3   Sohae, North Korea   12 December 2012

Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Woody on September 23, 2016, 01:42:34 AM
Just to add to rabinoz post satellites generally have a useful life expectancy of at least 10 years.

The US was spending $13 million a year for LORAN. Which only covered portions of the Pacific and Atlantic.

The US spends $15 million  to insure the GPS sats are in correct orbits and tracking them.  That cost does not include the procurement of new satellites.  Just like the cost I mentioned did not include new LORAN transmitters.

So for a maintenance cost of about $2M more the US gets world wide navigation coverage.

Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2016, 10:03:01 AM
Sure, but all these are quite modern developments. DBS TV has been around for over 40 years.

Yes, well, when Satellite TV first came out, the quality was quite bad, and required huge dishes to be installed.

Quote
As I tried to point out before, but what I said before seems to have been completely ignored, so I will repeat it.

Tropospheric scatter is useful for point-to-point communication over a limited range (about 400 km max) and limited bandwidth (8 - 22 Mb/s).

How many Mb/s does a satellite feed take up? 22 Megabits a second is pretty fast. I can stream Netflix pretty well on my home computer that gets about 8 Mb/s.

http://www.howtogeek.com/217627/htg-explains-should-you-pay-more-for-a-faster-internet-connection/

Quote
However, for streaming, you only require a certain amount of speed. For Netflix HD streaming, Netflix says it will take 5.0 Mbps (Megabits per second). Other services — from YouTube to HBO Go — should require a similar amount of bandwidth for their HD, 1080p streams. if you’re using Netflix’s 4K UHD stream — and you’re probably not — that will require 25 Mbps.

This one says that 4K broadcasts requires 15 - 25 Mbps. So still in the general range.

http://www.dish.com/dig/technology/4k-tv-everything-you-need-to-know-about-this-emerging-tv-technology/

Quote
Most of the 4K content available so far is via streaming (Netflix has started; Vudu and Amazon are on the way). For this, you need a very fast Internet connection (wired preferred) with speeds of 15 to 25 mbps second, and your ultra HDTV needs to also be a smart TV with the necessary built-in circuitry that can decode the signal.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: rabinoz on September 24, 2016, 10:18:11 AM
Sure, but all these are quite modern developments. DBS TV has been around for over 40 years.

Yes, well, when Satellite TV first came out, the quality was quite bad, and required huge dishes to be installed.

Quote
As I tried to point out before, but what I said before seems to have been completely ignored, so I will repeat it.

Tropospheric scatter is useful for point-to-point communication over a limited range (about 400 km max) and limited bandwidth (8 - 22 Mb/s).

How many Mb/s does a satellite feed take up? 22 Megabits a second is pretty fast. I can stream Netflix pretty well on my home computer that gets about 8 Mb/s.

http://www.howtogeek.com/217627/htg-explains-should-you-pay-more-for-a-faster-internet-connection/

Quote
However, for streaming, you only require a certain amount of speed. For Netflix HD streaming, Netflix says it will take 5.0 Mbps (Megabits per second). Other services — from YouTube to HBO Go — should require a similar amount of bandwidth for their HD, 1080p streams. if you’re using Netflix’s 4K UHD stream — and you’re probably not — that will require 25 Mbps.

This one says that 4K broadcasts requires 15 - 25 Mbps. So still in the general range.

http://www.dish.com/dig/technology/4k-tv-everything-you-need-to-know-about-this-emerging-tv-technology/

Quote
Most of the 4K content available so far is via streaming (Netflix has started; Vudu and Amazon are on the way). For this, you need a very fast Internet connection (wired preferred) with speeds of 15 to 25 mbps second, and your ultra HDTV needs to also be a smart TV with the necessary built-in circuitry that can decode the signal.
You bandwidth requirements are for one channel. Modern satellites have around 32 transponders and
Quote
A satellite used for TV or fixed telecommunications will have multiple "transponders", these are a chain of equipment that takes RF bandwidth in, transposes/shifts its frequency, amplifies it and sends it back to Earth. Because there is no processing the design can be simpler and the system doesn't need upgrading because all the smart stuff happens on the ground. Each transponder can handle 50 to 100MHz of bandwidth.
That's at least 1.6 GB/s.

Then there is point that you refuse to address: One DB Satellite can cover an area larger than Australia, the range of troposcatter seems to be a few hundred kilometres at most.

So, no troposcatter does not go anywhere near explaining TV DBS Satellites. Carry on with the digging, you must be getting close to the bottom of the barrel by now.

Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2016, 10:35:35 AM
Quote
You bandwidth requirements are for one channel. Modern satellites have around 32 transponders and
Quote
A satellite used for TV or fixed telecommunications will have multiple "transponders", these are a chain of equipment that takes RF bandwidth in, transposes/shifts its frequency, amplifies it and sends it back to Earth. Because there is no processing the design can be simpler and the system doesn't need upgrading because all the smart stuff happens on the ground. Each transponder can handle 50 to 100MHz of bandwidth.
That's at least 1.6 GB/s.

Now you're just adding up the bandwidth of multiple channel transmissions.

Quote
Then there is point that you refuse to address: One DB Satellite can cover an area larger than Australia, the range of troposcatter seems to be a few hundred kilometres at most.

Firstly, you are assuming that what they say about space and the height of the ionosphere is the same in FET. We are relying on NASA for that.

Secondly, your argument for limited distance relies on the assumption that the earth is a globe. It is not.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: inquisitive on September 24, 2016, 10:48:28 AM
Quote
You bandwidth requirements are for one channel. Modern satellites have around 32 transponders and
Quote
A satellite used for TV or fixed telecommunications will have multiple "transponders", these are a chain of equipment that takes RF bandwidth in, transposes/shifts its frequency, amplifies it and sends it back to Earth. Because there is no processing the design can be simpler and the system doesn't need upgrading because all the smart stuff happens on the ground. Each transponder can handle 50 to 100MHz of bandwidth.
That's at least 1.6 GB/s.

Now you're just adding up the bandwidth of multiple channel transmissions.

Quote
Then there is point that you refuse to address: One DB Satellite can cover an area larger than Australia, the range of troposcatter seems to be a few hundred kilometres at most.

Firstly, you are assuming that what they say about space and the height of the ionosphere is the same in FET. We are relying on NASA for that.

Secondly, your argument for limited distance relies on the assumption that the earth is a globe. It is not.
The alignmant of satellites dishes at different locations proves the earth is a globe and the use of satellites.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2016, 10:50:55 AM
The alignmant of satellites dishes at different locations proves the earth is a globe and the use of satellites.

This has yet to be demonstrated.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: inquisitive on September 24, 2016, 11:02:43 AM
The alignmant of satellites dishes at different locations proves the earth is a globe and the use of satellites.

This has yet to be demonstrated.
It is used every day by millions.  Also see websites that give details for setting up a dish, none shown to be incorrect.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2016, 11:13:46 AM
It is used every day by millions.  Also see websites that give details for setting up a dish, none shown to be incorrect.

Millions of people drive cars, yet cannot really explain how they work. What does "millions" have to do with it?

It has not been demonstrated that the signals can only come from satellites in orbit around a globe earth. You will have to present something other than fallacies to further your argument.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: inquisitive on September 24, 2016, 11:59:08 AM
It is used every day by millions.  Also see websites that give details for setting up a dish, none shown to be incorrect.

Millions of people drive cars, yet cannot really explain how they work. What does "millions" have to do with it?

It has not been demonstrated that the signals can only come from satellites in orbit around a globe earth. You will have to present something other than fallacies to further your argument.
It is a proven technology.  The proof is the angle of dishes, you should check some to then calculate the transmitter locations.  And discuss with those in the satellite and broadcast industry.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2016, 12:02:53 PM
Please present some evidence for these dish angles. We do not have the budget to travel the world and prove this or that for everyone that comes along.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: rabinoz on September 24, 2016, 12:10:10 PM
Quote
You bandwidth requirements are for one channel. Modern satellites have around 32 transponders and
Quote
A satellite used for TV or fixed telecommunications will have multiple "transponders", these are a chain of equipment that takes RF bandwidth in, transposes/shifts its frequency, amplifies it and sends it back to Earth. Because there is no processing the design can be simpler and the system doesn't need upgrading because all the smart stuff happens on the ground. Each transponder can handle 50 to 100MHz of bandwidth.
That's at least 1.6 GB/s.

Now you're just adding up the bandwidth of multiple channel transmissions.
Firstly, all that bandwidth is from one satellite, and in any case the bandwidth of one transponder is more than any troposcatter system we have seen.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote
Then there is point that you refuse to address: One DB Satellite can cover an area larger than Australia, the range of troposcatter seems to be a few hundred kilometres at most.

Firstly, you are assuming that what they say about space and the height of the ionosphere is the same in FET. We are relying on NASA for that.
No we are not relying on NASA for any of this, the range of troposcatter has been determined by experiment, on the only earth we have.
You have quoted many of these to justify your own claims,
and
not on any assumed height of the ionosphere. Here we are discussing tropospheric scattering and not ionospheric reflections. The ionosphere is a very poor reflector of the frequency range use for satellite TV. This is a good thing as geostationary satellites are well above the ionosphere. 

And, no we do not rely on NASA even for that, but on much earlier work, an important part being by Sir Edward Victor Appleton, see
Quote
Sir Edward Victor Appleton
Academic advisors: J. J. Thomson, Ernest Rutherford
Known for Ionospheric Physics Appleton layer, Demonstrating existence of Kennelly–Heaviside layer
Notable awards:
Nobel Prize in Physics (1947), Fellow of the Royal Society (1927), Hughes Medal (1933), Faraday Medal (1946), Chree Medal (1947), Royal Medal (1950), Albert Medal (1950), IEEE Medal of Honor (1962)
Sir Edward Victor Appleton GBE KCB FRS[3] (6 September 1892 – 21 April 1965) was an English physicist. Nobel Prize winner and pioneer in radio physics, Sir Edward Appleton, studied and was also employed as a Lab Technician at Bradford Technical College from 1909 to 1911.
He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1947 for his seminal work proving the existence of the ionosphere during experiments carried out in 1924.
Not only does 1924 predate NASA by a good margin, but I had an uncle Norman Victor Appleton and a grandfather Alfred Edward Appleton (both long deceased). So, relative or not (no I'm not sure), I do remember a bit about Sir Edward Victor Appleton! [1].

But, of course your diversion about the ionosphere is quite irrelevant anyway.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Secondly, your argument for limited distance relies on the assumption that the earth is a globe. It is not.
Nothe at all, I repeat, the range of troposcatter has been determined by experiment, on the only earth we have.

[1]  ;) What's the point of having a few connections if I can't drop names occasionally.  ;)
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: inquisitive on September 24, 2016, 12:22:23 PM
Please present some evidence for these dish angles. We do not have the budget to travel the world and prove this or that for everyone that comes along.
You should do some research for yourself, it is basic stuff.  Now you are saying it may be true that the angles prove the locations of satellites.  Do some measurements around you and ask others to help.  I look forward to seeing the results.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2016, 01:54:40 PM
No we are not relying on NASA for any of this, the range of troposcatter has been determined by experiment, on the only earth we have.

What experiment?

Quote
And, no we do not rely on NASA even for that, but on much earlier work, an important part being by Sir Edward Victor Appleton, see
Quote
Sir Edward Victor Appleton
Academic advisors: J. J. Thomson, Ernest Rutherford
Known for Ionospheric Physics Appleton layer, Demonstrating existence of Kennelly–Heaviside layer
Notable awards:
Nobel Prize in Physics (1947), Fellow of the Royal Society (1927), Hughes Medal (1933), Faraday Medal (1946), Chree Medal (1947), Royal Medal (1950), Albert Medal (1950), IEEE Medal of Honor (1962)
Sir Edward Victor Appleton GBE KCB FRS[3] (6 September 1892 – 21 April 1965) was an English physicist. Nobel Prize winner and pioneer in radio physics, Sir Edward Appleton, studied and was also employed as a Lab Technician at Bradford Technical College from 1909 to 1911.
He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1947 for his seminal work proving the existence of the ionosphere during experiments carried out in 1924.
Not only does 1924 predate NASA by a good margin, but I had an uncle Norman Victor Appleton and a grandfather Alfred Edward Appleton (both long deceased). So, relative or not (no I'm not sure), I do remember a bit about Sir Edward Victor Appleton! [1].

But, of course your diversion about the ionosphere is quite irrelevant anyway.

What you quoted just says that he showed that it exists using 1924 experiments. Where does he map its height and extent?
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Woody on September 24, 2016, 05:42:55 PM
Tom for dish angles you can simply find it on line.  If you think that is incorrect information presented to mislead people call someone like Dish Network's customer service and ask what angle and direction the dish needs to be pointed. You can have several people calling saying they are from different locations across North America.  They certainly can not lie to their customers or they would get a lot of complaints about people not being able to watch their favorite shows.

A problem arises for you to determine the position using this method.  The distances involved are greater than 2-12 miles. If I understand you correctly math fails at distances beyond that.

Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2016, 05:50:16 PM
If you or the other guy think it will provide support for your round world model, have at it. We can look at the numbers and see if it makes sense. I'm not your errand boy to prove your model for you.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Woody on September 24, 2016, 06:07:44 PM
If you or the other guy think it will provide support for your round world model, have at it. We can look at the numbers and see if it makes sense. I'm not your errand boy to prove your model for you.

You not only need to look at what proves you right, but what proves you wrong.  If you do not you can never advance your model or refine it. 

The reason you or another FE should do it is it will allow you to refine a FE model.  Something like the upper limit man and machine can go.

Myself and other RE's accept the world is round.  We believe that Kepler's and Newton's Laws are right so have no need or desire to do this.  I actually thought about doing it and may some day. I also think about how the results will be just dismissed by FE's. 

If I do do it it will not be for someone like you, but a young person who may have wondered by here, has little to no understanding of the subject matters. It will be in the hope that they to do not end up going down the same path as anyone truly believing the Earth is flat.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: inquisitive on September 24, 2016, 06:20:39 PM
If you or the other guy think it will provide support for your round world model, have at it. We can look at the numbers and see if it makes sense. I'm not your errand boy to prove your model for you.
So you have no interest in showing that the angle of satellite dishes does not prove a round earth with a geosynchronous satellite in orbit?

You can get some numbers to verify at http://www.dishpointer.com/
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2016, 07:54:30 PM
If you or the other guy think it will provide support for your round world model, have at it. We can look at the numbers and see if it makes sense. I'm not your errand boy to prove your model for you.

You not only need to look at what proves you right, but what proves you wrong.  If you do not you can never advance your model or refine it. 

The reason you or another FE should do it is it will allow you to refine a FE model.  Something like the upper limit man and machine can go.

Myself and other RE's accept the world is round.  We believe that Kepler's and Newton's Laws are right so have no need or desire to do this.  I actually thought about doing it and may some day. I also think about how the results will be just dismissed by FE's. 

If I do do it it will not be for someone like you, but a young person who may have wondered by here, has little to no understanding of the subject matters. It will be in the hope that they to do not end up going down the same path as anyone truly believing the Earth is flat.

I don't go around telling you that I have an idea for an experiment, but I don't want to bother and that you should do it. It's not even a good one. I have better things to do than gather some information which can be interpreted in any number of ways with multiple technologies, nothing being proven in the end either way.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: inquisitive on September 24, 2016, 08:36:51 PM
If you or the other guy think it will provide support for your round world model, have at it. We can look at the numbers and see if it makes sense. I'm not your errand boy to prove your model for you.

You not only need to look at what proves you right, but what proves you wrong.  If you do not you can never advance your model or refine it. 

The reason you or another FE should do it is it will allow you to refine a FE model.  Something like the upper limit man and machine can go.

Myself and other RE's accept the world is round.  We believe that Kepler's and Newton's Laws are right so have no need or desire to do this.  I actually thought about doing it and may some day. I also think about how the results will be just dismissed by FE's. 

If I do do it it will not be for someone like you, but a young person who may have wondered by here, has little to no understanding of the subject matters. It will be in the hope that they to do not end up going down the same path as anyone truly believing the Earth is flat.

I don't go around telling you that I have an idea for an experiment, but I don't want to bother and that you should do it. It's not even a good one. I have better things to do than gather some information which can be interpreted in any number of ways with multiple technologies, nothing being proven in the end either way.
If you were really interested in the shape of the earth measuring dish angles and the path of the sun would be something to easily carry out.  A reluctance to do this must show you are not serious in your belief.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 24, 2016, 10:13:14 PM
If you were really interested in the shape of the earth measuring dish angles and the path of the sun would be something to easily carry out.  A reluctance to do this must show you are not serious in your belief.

Stop being lazy and follow through with the experiment you proposed. I'm not going to contribute to this discussion for you.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Woody on September 24, 2016, 11:00:06 PM
If you were really interested in the shape of the earth measuring dish angles and the path of the sun would be something to easily carry out.  A reluctance to do this must show you are not serious in your belief.

Stop being lazy and follow through with the experiment you proposed. I'm not going to contribute to this discussion for you.

I believe the Earth is round and satellites exist. 

If you do not see the value of figuring out if all those dishes spread across a continent are pointing at the same thing I can only think to tell you this:

1.  You will be able to tell if they are pointing at the same thing

2. You can get an estimate of the altitude of the signal source.

3. If will be evidence for or against the existence of satellites.

4. It will help you determine the feasibility of using troposcatter.  If it is being used it will need to be transmitting signals at multiple locations in a pattern that would emulate what is expected for a geosynchronous satellite. That is if those dishes are all pointing towards the same thing.

I still wonder why no FE does this. 

You can also take advantage of the doppler effect in your quest for the truth.  You will be able to determine the trajectory of the thing sending the signal.

You can get some open source programs for a lot of GPS devices.  You will be able to review the calculations being used and install it on your device to see if it works properly.  Since the calculations involve knowing the satellites' locations. If the wrong position is transmitted the calculations will give you the wrong fix.

You can observe the ISS over a period of time.  You can estimate it's speed and altitude using a couple of different methods.  See if it matches with what Kepler's laws say it should be.

You dismissed these ideas for observations before because you claimed none would determine the shape of the Earth.  The topic now is about the existence of satellites.  The above are some other things can be done to gather evidence about their existence and where they are.

You can make claims all you want, until you can offer evidence all you have is just saying something is true.

I also do not have to do the experiments, because I have observed the ISS through binoculars and telescope.  I have an understanding of orbital mechanics and my observations match what I know about the subject.

Others have tracked satellites using the Doppler effect to determine their orbits.  I have seen the results and it done while I lived in Florida.  I have no reason to question the results or the conclusions.

Then there is the multitude of pictures taken by satellites and used daily by professionals in their careers across the globe.

The existence of these things orbiting the Earth is a huge hole in the FE hypothesis.  It should really be towards the top of the list of things FE's need to look into.

Are they really up there?

If so, how high? What causes the different orbits? 

If not, what are those stationary lights in the night sky that starting appearing around the 1970's?

What is causing the Irdium flares and why are they so predictable? How about the predictability of the other lights moving through the night sky?

Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 25, 2016, 12:16:43 AM
I don't think it's a good experiment, so I'm not inclined to do it.

Choosing random spots around the satellite assumes that they have customers in those locations, when a French satellite probably just has French customers who watch French TV. The only valid angles would be in France, unless it can be demonstrated that the satellite is detectable in other countries too.

Even if it was determined that some satellite dishes are pointing high it the sky, it could just be argued that the ionosphere stretches high in the sky.

It could also be argued that some satellites are actually high altitude pseudolite technologies.

So, really, it's a complete waste of time for me. It doesn't matter where the dish is pointing. Something can be argued to justify it. It's really up to you to come up with something incontrovertible, not for me to argue against myself.

Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Rounder on September 25, 2016, 05:53:47 AM
I don't go around telling you that I have an idea for an experiment, but I don't want to bother and that you should do it. It's not even a good one. I have better things to do than gather some information which can be interpreted in any number of ways with multiple technologies, nothing being proven in the end either way.
Perhaps, but if someone on the RE side comes up with the idea, and performs it, and the results favor RE?  You are likely to claim either mistake or mischief on the RE side.  This is why we suggest that an FE such as yourself perform it, so we cannot create false data for you.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: inquisitive on September 25, 2016, 08:00:13 AM
I don't think it's a good experiment, so I'm not inclined to do it.

Choosing random spots around the satellite assumes that they have customers in those locations, when a French satellite probably just has French customers who watch French TV. The only valid angles would be in France, unless it can be demonstrated that the satellite is detectable in other countries too.

Even if it was determined that some satellite dishes are pointing high it the sky, it could just be argued that the ionosphere stretches high in the sky.

It could also be argued that some satellites are actually high altitude pseudolite technologies.

So, really, it's a complete waste of time for me. It doesn't matter where the dish is pointing. Something can be argued to justify it. It's really up to you to come up with something incontrovertible, not for me to argue against myself.
Choose a satellite with a large footprint like all of the US.

It 'can't be argued' that satellites do not exist.  The proof is there with evidence and documentation from users and industry.  After many years you have not come up with one bit of proof a satellite dish for home reception uses anything other than a satellite.

If you believe some satellites are another technology please provide a link to the company operating them.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: rabinoz on September 25, 2016, 08:25:22 AM
I don't think it's a good experiment, so I'm not inclined to do it.

Choosing random spots around the satellite assumes that they have customers in those locations, when a French satellite probably just has French customers who watch French TV. The only valid angles would be in France, unless it can be demonstrated that the satellite is detectable in other countries too.

Even if it was determined that some satellite dishes are pointing high it the sky, it could just be argued that the ionosphere stretches high in the sky.

It could also be argued that some satellites are actually high altitude pseudolite technologies.

So, really, it's a complete waste of time for me. It doesn't matter where the dish is pointing. Something can be argued to justify it. It's really up to you to come up with something incontrovertible, not for me to argue against myself.

Excuse me! You were vehemently arguing that satellite TV used "tropscatter", now you use the excuse "it could just be argued that the ionosphere stretches high in the sky."

You do know that the troposphere and the ionosphere are quite different things?
Quote from: Wikipedia
Troposphere
The troposphere is the lowest portion of Earth's atmosphere, and is also where all weather takes place. It contains approximately 75% of the atmosphere's mass and 99% of its water vapor and aerosols. The average depths of the troposphere are 20 km (12 mi) in the tropics, 17 km (11 mi) in the mid latitudes, and 7 km (4.3 mi) in the polar regions in winter.
and
Quote from: Wikipedia
Ionosphere
The ionosphere is a region of Earth's upper atmosphere, from about 60 km (37 mi) to 1,000 km (620 mi) altitude, and includes the thermosphere and parts of the mesosphere and exosphere. It is ionized by solar radiation, plays an important part in atmospheric electricity and forms the inner edge of the magnetosphere. It has practical importance because, among other functions, it influences radio propagation to distant places on the Earth.

Before you try to claim "ionospheric scatter" (whatever that is) or "ionospheric reflection", the ionosphere is almost transparent to the bands used for satellite TV.

Quote from: Wikipedia
Other considerations
VHF signals with frequencies above about 30 MHz usually penetrate the ionosphere and are not returned to the Earth's surface. E-skip is a notable exception, where VHF signals including FM broadcast and VHF TV signals are frequently reflected to the Earth during late Spring and early Summer. E-skip rarely affects UHF frequencies, except for very rare occurrences below 500 MHz.

Also ionospheric height measurements predate NASA by some 30 years! EARLY HISTORY OF IONOSPHERIC DISCOVERY. (http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/library/notes/earlyion.htm)

Tom, please just stop all this guessing!
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Charming Anarchist on September 25, 2016, 05:27:21 PM
- Obligatory 9/11 conspiracy tie-in at the end.
Did the video mention chemtrails? 
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: geckothegeek on September 26, 2016, 03:03:46 AM
Please present some evidence for these dish angles. We do not have the budget to travel the world and prove this or that for everyone that comes along.

Please.......Just do some research on antenna theory and practice if you really know as little as you seem to do . Yes ! "Stop guessing" !
I have worked in fields regardimg radio, radar , microwave repeater systems and computers. If I just "guessed"  I would have been in a world of hurt.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: rabinoz on September 26, 2016, 10:59:48 PM
Please present some evidence for these dish angles. We do not have the budget to travel the world and prove this or that for everyone that comes along.

I know this is from days back, but the facts are:
1) Dish angles are set up by installers[1] as specified in the many online installation guides eg Satellite Finder / Dish Alignment Calculator with Google Maps. (http://www.dishpointer.com/)

2) You can use this data to find the azimuth and elevation angles at any location in a satellite's service area.

3) You find  (bit of 3D trig here, unless you keep all points on the same longitude) where these dishes point on a Globe or on whichever Flat Earth model is de rigueur.

Then check which case points to a single location above the earth.

Easy, no not really,  but it needs no resources, just better maths than mine, though given time I guess I could manage.

So stop the excuses and find one more proof of your model (or not as the case may be).

[1]  Oops, sorry, I forgot, all the hundreds of thousands of satellite TV installers  (+ all motorhome owners, caravanners and campers) are all "in" on the comspiracy! ::)
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Woody on September 27, 2016, 05:09:17 AM
It just really amazes me that no what experiment someone suggest that Tom will shoot it down.  It seems to me it is either too expensive, too hard, or will not offer 100% proof of the shape of the Earth.

He will not observe the ISS of a period of time, will not try to figure out where satellite dishes are pointed, will not take a long exposure photo of a part of the night sky where geostationary satellites are said to be located.  Cost nothing but time except for the photograph since a camera will be needed.  A camera costing under $200 should be good enough.

For someone claiming to be trying to discover the truth about the world around us he certainly seems very reluctant to do anything beyond fudging some numbers on a experiment and posting a video of where it is really hard to tell what is going on.  Just a vid of people shooting a laser at a target over the water. Then offers no data, results or conclusions.

I guess one way to protect a belief is not to make any serious attempt of finding out if you are right.
I tried giving him something that cost nothing to do and would offer evidence if satellites exist. 
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 27, 2016, 02:53:12 PM
Why are you guys so lazy? If you think it's a good experiment, feel free to conduct it. I was not the one who suggested this experiment and thought it would prove something. I happen to think that it's not a good experiment. It is not my responsibility to conduct your research and do your experiments for you.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: inquisitive on September 27, 2016, 03:09:18 PM
Why are you guys so lazy? If you think it's a good experiment, feel free to conduct it. I was not the one who suggested this experiment and thought it would prove something. I happen to think that it's not a good experiment. It is not my responsibility to conduct your research and do your experiments for you.
As usual, you provide some very carefully thought out words that mislead, as intended.

'We' are confident the angles calculated for satellite dish alignment are correct based on geosynchronous satellites and a round earth.  There is no evidence that they are incorrect.

You dispute the fact of satellite locations so it is up to you to prove that location of satellites as shown by the elevation and azimuth required for a particular location is incorrect.  You are unable to provide any proof of a transmitter for a satellite dish receiver being anything else, no manufacturer, designer etc.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: geckothegeek on September 27, 2016, 07:39:08 PM
Why are you guys so lazy? If you think it's a good experiment, feel free to conduct it. I was not the one who suggested this experiment and thought it would prove something. I happen to think that it's not a good experiment. It is not my responsibility to conduct your research and do your experiments for you.
As usual, you provide some very carefully thought out words that mislead, as intended.

'We' are confident the angles calculated for satellite dish alignment are correct based on geosynchronous satellites and a round earth.  There is no evidence that they are incorrect.

You dispute the fact of satellite locations so it is up to you to prove that location of satellites as shown by the elevation and azimuth required for a particular location is incorrect.  You are unable to provide any proof of a transmitter for a satellite dish receiver being anything else, no manufacturer, designer etc.

It has been my observatiion (maybe it's  just an idea -  I make no  claims  for it being a theory or hypothesis or anything else).LOL
Tom Bishop and Samuel Birley Rowbotham have something in common. :
They are/were both skilled in " As usual , you provide some very carefully thought out words that mislead, as intended."

And I think it SHOULD be the responsibility of the FLAT EARTHERS to do the the research to either prove flat earth or disprove round earth.
Just  who is really the lazy one ?
For example I did a little research on the Amateur Radio Operator's "Moon Bounce"  to prove the distance from the earth to the moon was approximately 238,150 miles ("Round Earth") and disprove the distance was  3,000 miles  ("Flat Earth"). Same for some research on the astronomical observatory laser measurements.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 27, 2016, 11:08:05 PM
'We' are confident the angles calculated for satellite dish alignment are correct based on geosynchronous satellites and a round earth.  There is no evidence that they are incorrect.

How can you be confident of something that has yet to be demonstrated?
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: markjo on September 28, 2016, 12:26:53 AM
I don't think it's a good experiment, so I'm not inclined to do it.

Choosing random spots around the satellite assumes that they have customers in those locations, when a French satellite probably just has French customers who watch French TV. The only valid angles would be in France, unless it can be demonstrated that the satellite is detectable in other countries too.

Even if it was determined that some satellite dishes are pointing high it the sky, it could just be argued that the ionosphere stretches high in the sky.

It could also be argued that some satellites are actually high altitude pseudolite technologies.

So, really, it's a complete waste of time for me. It doesn't matter where the dish is pointing. Something can be argued to justify it. It's really up to you to come up with something incontrovertible, not for me to argue against myself.
Back to stratellites so soon, Tom? 

Tom, I'm not sure if you understand the implications of the distances and angles involved between 22,000 mile high satellites and (let's be generous and say) 100,000 foot high stratellites.  It's generally accepted that a satellite dish must be aimed to within 1 degree of the transmitter in order to receive a reliable signal.  Well, for a geostationary satellite, that means every dish within about a 390 mile radius would be pointing to within 1 degree of each other.  On the other hand, if those dishes were pointing at stratellites, then that 1 degree radius shrinks to about 3/10 of a mile.  If "satellite" companies were actually using stratellites, then the different angles required would be pretty obvious even within a small town.  That is, unless you're suggesting that the sky is littered with stratellites.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: inquisitive on September 28, 2016, 03:20:19 AM
'We' are confident the angles calculated for satellite dish alignment are correct based on geosynchronous satellites and a round earth.  There is no evidence that they are incorrect.

How can you be confident of something that has yet to be demonstrated?
What do you mean, the calculated angles are used by installers every day across the earth. As well as by earth stations for uplinks.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: inquisitive on September 29, 2016, 05:28:05 PM
'We' are confident the angles calculated for satellite dish alignment are correct based on geosynchronous satellites and a round earth.  There is no evidence that they are incorrect.

How can you be confident of something that has yet to be demonstrated?
What do you mean, the calculated angles are used by installers every day across the earth. As well as by earth stations for uplinks.
Still no response from Tom.  He must now accept the published and verified information is correct, geosynchronous satellite are used for communication.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: markjo on September 29, 2016, 06:51:18 PM
- Obligatory 9/11 conspiracy tie-in at the end.
Did the video mention chemtrails?
I hear that chemtrails can enhance troposcatter.
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2016, 03:09:46 AM
'We' are confident the angles calculated for satellite dish alignment are correct based on geosynchronous satellites and a round earth.  There is no evidence that they are incorrect.

How can you be confident of something that has yet to be demonstrated?
What do you mean, the calculated angles are used by installers every day across the earth. As well as by earth stations for uplinks.

How do you know what the angles show or do not show?
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: markjo on September 30, 2016, 03:20:27 AM
'We' are confident the angles calculated for satellite dish alignment are correct based on geosynchronous satellites and a round earth.  There is no evidence that they are incorrect.

How can you be confident of something that has yet to be demonstrated?
What do you mean, the calculated angles are used by installers every day across the earth. As well as by earth stations for uplinks.

How do you know what the angles show or do not show?
Tom, why do you suppose that satellite dishes need to be pointed at very specific angles?
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Rounder on September 30, 2016, 01:49:02 PM
How do you know what the angles show or do not show?

Well, you can go to your satellite TV provider's web site and get the numbers yourself.  Here is the DirecTV site (http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/customer/dishPointer.jsp?_requestid=1063518), for example.  There you can get the alt/az orientation required to point your dish at their satellite.  I think we can all agree that these numbers actually result in TV signals being received, because it would be quite foolish of a TV provider to give you ncorrect aiming coordinates.  Some day when I have some free time, I will compare several sets of aiming angles and figure out where they commonly point on RE vs on FE, much like we do with the sun and moon.

If I've understood troposcatter correctly, the transmit path angle is pretty much the same as the reflected path angle.  Maybe not exactly the same, as with optical reflection, but close.  Given that, we should be able to determine the location of Tom's proposed satellite-impersonating troposcatter transmitters, and go see if they're really there!
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Woody on October 02, 2016, 12:20:14 AM
Why are you guys so lazy? If you think it's a good experiment, feel free to conduct it. I was not the one who suggested this experiment and thought it would prove something. I happen to think that it's not a good experiment. It is not my responsibility to conduct your research and do your experiments for you.

Here you go.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67971.msg1827639#msg1827639

I am a bit lazy and figured some RE would eventually do something with the ISS or satellites to determine their altitudes/locations. My patience paid off in this case for the ISS.

I tackled this proposal once on the other forum.  I took a look at some projected ISS transits over the United States, looking for one for which I could pick two observers with simultaneous and directly opposite observing locations.  I found one on March 6, 2016 that fit the bill: it had a maximum apparent elevation at 5:00:40am Spokane WA time, and 5:59:39am El Paso TX time. 

Maximum elevation only 61 seconds apart, that's the best I could do for a simultaneous observation, and those observers in those two locations would have been looking pretty much directly at each other.  This is important, because it means the angles of elevation from each location can be used to calculate the elevation above ground of the object being observed. 

Spokane and El Paso are 1237 miles apart, according to Google Maps "Distance Measure" tool.  (I understand that an FE supporter might challenge that distance as being tainted by RE math, and I'll come back to that.)  According to the ISS Astroviewer page (links at the bottom) an observer in Spokane will see the ISS rise to a maximum elevation of 14° above the horizon to the South East, while the El Paso observer will see it at 21° to the North West.  Taking for the moment a flat-earth model, we thus have an obtuse triangle with a side and two angles known, we can calculate the rest. 

The angle formed at the vertex occupied by the object in the sky is 145°.  The Law Of Sines allows us to calculate the line-of-sight distances to the object to each observer.  The Spokane leg of the triangle is 772.9 miles, and the El Paso leg is 521.7 miles.  From there, we can calculate the height above ground of the object using the Law of Sine again, for each observer's angle.  The result is 186.97 miles high.  This is far, far higher than any known aircraft has ever flown, or ever could fly.

Possible objections:
1) Maybe the elevations are wrong?  I think we can take the projected elevation angles as accurate (instead of going out and observing it ourselves) because if they were not it would be very easy to expose the error, and should have been done by now.  Amateur astronomers use these online resources without reporting massive errors, after all.
2) Maybe the distance from Spokane to El Paso is wrong?  Perhaps it is, I'll grant you that.  Let's say we call it 1 'ground unit' of unknown distance and do the math that way.  We end up with the object being at an elevation of 0.15 ground units.  Or put another way, Spokane and El Paso are 6.5 times as far apart as the object's elevation.  Commercial aircraft typically operate with a ceiling of 42,000 feet, or 8 miles.  The aircraft with the highest known operating ceiling ever, the American SR-71 spy plane, could fly as high as 85,000 feet, or 16 miles.  Even if my ground unit measurement is less than 1237 miles, it is not off by enough to bring those cities close enough (104 miles) for an SR-71 to appear at 14° from one and 21° from the other.
3) One minute difference in observation time is huge when the object is visible for only four minutes.  Seems like it is, yes.  However, the object sweeps across the sky in a fairly flat curve, especially as viewed from Spokane.  It rises from 10° to 14° and falls back to 10° during the transit.  Doing the math again with Spokane's lowest elevation still yields an elevation of 149.46 miles, far too high to be any airplane we know about.

Spokane: http://iss.astroviewer.net/observation.php?lon=-117.4260466&lat=47.6587802&name=Spokane
El Paso: http://iss.astroviewer.net/observation.php?lon=-106.4850217&lat=31.7618778&name=El%20Paso
Title: Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
Post by: Rounder on October 02, 2016, 01:25:00 AM
If you think it's a good experiment, feel free to conduct it.
I am a bit lazy and figured some FE would eventually do something with the ISS or satellites to determine their altitudes/locations. My patience paid off in this case for the ISS.
And here is the thread on THIS board (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4724.msg91100#msg91100) from which I was quoting myself on THAT board.