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.
Yep. It is mounted like this oneI 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? ???
(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. ::)
Thork's post at https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51208.msg1254456#msg1254456Yep. It is mounted like this oneI 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? ???
(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. ::)
Quote from: Wikipedia Offset dish antenna | (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Parabolic_antenna_types2.svg) Main types of parabolic antennas |
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
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"
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.
Do the satellite dishes in his Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology? (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5337.msg103453#msg103453) go on the heap?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.
Have a look at
Quote from: WikipediaOffset 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.
Have a look at
Quote from: WikipediaOffset 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)
Have a look at
Quote from: WikipediaOffset 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)
(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. |
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.
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.
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.
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/pbdCy7B.png)
http://i68.tinypic.com/2hprw95.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.
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.pdfQuoteIn 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.QuoteDo 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.QuoteAntennas 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?
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.
Some notes from this article on Troposcatter transmissions:
http://www.comtechsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Troposcatter-Introduction-Nov-2013.pdfQuoteToday, 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)
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.
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.
QuoteAgain 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/QuoteA 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.
QuoteAgain 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/QuoteA 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.
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
QuoteAgain 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/QuoteA 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.htmQuoteGreater 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
Quote from: woodyAgain 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/QuoteA 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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.QuoteIt 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.QuoteYou 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.... :)
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.... :)
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]
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 |
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).
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.
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 andSure, 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.QuoteAs 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/QuoteHowever, 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/QuoteMost 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.
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.
You bandwidth requirements are for one channel. Modern satellites have around 32 transponders andQuoteA 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.
The alignmant of satellites dishes at different locations proves the earth is a globe and the use of satellites.QuoteYou bandwidth requirements are for one channel. Modern satellites have around 32 transponders andQuoteA 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.QuoteThen 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.
It is used every day by millions. Also see websites that give details for setting up a dish, none shown to be incorrect.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.
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.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.
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.QuoteYou bandwidth requirements are for one channel. Modern satellites have around 32 transponders andQuoteA 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.
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.QuoteThen 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.
Sir Edward Victor AppletonNot 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].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, seeQuoteSir Edward Victor AppletonNot 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].
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.
But, of course your diversion about the ionosphere is quite irrelevant anyway.
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.
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?
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.
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.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.
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 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.
I don't think it's a good experiment, so I'm not inclined to do it.Choose a satellite with a large footprint like all of the US.
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.
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.
Troposphereand
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.
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.
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.
- Obligatory 9/11 conspiracy tie-in at the end.Did the video mention chemtrails?
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 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.
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.
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.
'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.
I don't think it's a good experiment, so I'm not inclined to do it.Back to stratellites so soon, Tom?
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.
What do you mean, the calculated angles are used by installers every day across the earth. As well as by earth stations for uplinks.'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?
Still no response from Tom. He must now accept the published and verified information is correct, geosynchronous satellite are used for communication.What do you mean, the calculated angles are used by installers every day across the earth. As well as by earth stations for uplinks.'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?
I hear that chemtrails can enhance troposcatter.- Obligatory 9/11 conspiracy tie-in at the end.Did the video mention chemtrails?
What do you mean, the calculated angles are used by installers every day across the earth. As well as by earth stations for uplinks.'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?
Tom, why do you suppose that satellite dishes need to be pointed at very specific angles?What do you mean, the calculated angles are used by installers every day across the earth. As well as by earth stations for uplinks.'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?
How do you know what the angles show or do not show?
How do you know what the angles show or do not show?
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.
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.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.