*

Online AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6479
    • View Profile
Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2023, 09:55:55 AM »
From your second article:

Quote
LoRa’s range depends on “radio line-of-sight.” Radio waves in the 400- to 900-MHz range may pass through some obstructions, depending on their composition, but will be absorbed or reflected otherwise.  This means that the signal can potentially reach as far as the horizon, as long as there are no physical barriers to block it. Elevating LoRa devices—placing them on rooftops or mountaintops, for example—will maximize their range

Why would elevating them increase their range on a FE? That would just make them further away because Pythagorus.
This record was LoRaWAN, not LoRa. The headline says "New LoRa world record", but the article makes it clear it was via the LoRaWAN:

Quote
he new world record was set by installing LoRaWAN trackers on a fishing boat Estrela de Sesimbra and on its buoys on the Sesimbra coast, Portugal. The tracker was able to make contact with a gateway in the Canarian Islands

So it went via a gateway which one presumes was at some elevation - as the article you posted states, that increases range - and so could receive and relay the signal.

If the earth were flat this wouldn't be remarkable, this would be expected. The fact it's newsworthy tells you something...
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Dual1ty

Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2023, 08:07:48 PM »
Quote
he new world record was set by installing LoRaWAN trackers on a fishing boat Estrela de Sesimbra and on its buoys on the Sesimbra coast, Portugal. The tracker was able to make contact with a gateway in the Canarian Islands

So it went via a gateway which one presumes was at some elevation - as the article you posted states, that increases range - and so could receive and relay the signal.

One called AATW presumes that with no evidence. The company clearly states everything was done at sea level using line-of-sight.

Where's the mountain?
« Last Edit: September 28, 2023, 08:09:52 PM by Dual1ty »

Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2023, 08:30:14 PM »
One called AATW presumes that with no evidence. The company clearly states everything was done at sea level using line-of-sight.

Where's the mountain?

Masterful non-response, Duality. Baffled why you would even post that.

*

Online AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6479
    • View Profile
Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record
« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2023, 08:31:14 PM »
One called AATW presumes that with no evidence. The company clearly states everything was done at sea level using line-of-sight.
The evidence is in the articles you posted.

They state that the signal went via a gateway in the Canary Islands, not directly between the two end points. It was the LoRaWAN that broke the record, not LoRa.
So while yes those two end points were at sea level, the location of the gateway in the Canary Islands is not stated.
But why would the signal have to be relayed via anywhere if there was line of sight between the two sea level buoys? If the earth is flat why is this even news? And why does raising altitude of the nodes increase their range? That just makes them further away.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Dual1ty

Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record
« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2023, 10:53:06 AM »
One called AATW presumes that with no evidence. The company clearly states everything was done at sea level using line-of-sight.
The evidence is in the articles you posted.

They state that the signal went via a gateway in the Canary Islands, not directly between the two end points. It was the LoRaWAN that broke the record, not LoRa.
So while yes those two end points were at sea level, the location of the gateway in the Canary Islands is not stated.
But why would the signal have to be relayed via anywhere if there was line of sight between the two sea level buoys? If the earth is flat why is this even news? And why does raising altitude of the nodes increase their range? That just makes them further away.

No, the gateway is the endpoint in this case. You ASSuming that there was an unmentioned third transmitter acting as a relay on some unspecified mountain is just wishful thinking unfortunately.

Quote
It was the LoRaWAN that broke the record, not LoRa.

LoRaWAN is just the WAN protocol for LoRa. You know, so they can actually use the stuff.

Quote
And why does raising altitude of the nodes increase their range? That just makes them further away

There's a bunch of reasons for that that have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth and they don't apply to line-of-sight communication for the most part.

Where's the mountain? You admit that wasn't specified but you still ASSume that they placed a relay on some mountain (because if not Earth = flat, so of course you have to). Got any evidence for your claims, son?
« Last Edit: September 29, 2023, 11:46:22 AM by Dual1ty »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record
« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2023, 09:59:26 PM »
It sounds like they were lucky enough to catch an exceptionally long  tropospheric duct.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.02802.pdf
Quote
ABSTRACT
With the growth of LoRa deployments there are plenty of anecdotal reports of very long wireless links, well beyond the line of sight.  Most reports suggest that these links are related to anomalous tropospheric propagation. We developed a platform to study tropospheric links based on TheThingsNetwork, a popular LoRaWAN-based infrastructure.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record
« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2023, 12:29:36 AM »
The key takeaway here is just as AATW points out, that if the earth was flat this would not be a note worthy event as it would be common place.
If the earth were flat this wouldn't be remarkable, this would be expected. The fact it's newsworthy tells you something...
The contents of the GPS NAV message is the time of transmission and the orbital location of the transmitter at that time. If the transmitters are not where they claim to be GPS would not work.  Since it does work the transmitters must in fact be in orbit, which means the earth is round.

Dual1ty

Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record
« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2023, 09:36:35 AM »
It sounds like they were lucky enough to catch an exceptionally long  tropospheric duct.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.02802.pdf
Quote
ABSTRACT
With the growth of LoRa deployments there are plenty of anecdotal reports of very long wireless links, well beyond the line of sight.  Most reports suggest that these links are related to anomalous tropospheric propagation. We developed a platform to study tropospheric links based on TheThingsNetwork, a popular LoRaWAN-based infrastructure.

Absolute nonsense.

Do you realize what line-of-sight at sea level means? It means it has nothing to do with the troposphere which is claimed to be at an average height of 8.1 MILES above sea level.

Not nonsense to you? Post the math that make it work in this case. But remember that nothing is pointing up to the troposphere, that only happens in your imagination.

The key takeaway here is just as AATW points out, that if the earth was flat this would not be a note worthy event as it would be common place.
If the earth were flat this wouldn't be remarkable, this would be expected. The fact it's newsworthy tells you something...

830 miles common place? lol

Plenty of examples of line-of-sight communication which are consistent with FE. For the imaginary ball Earth you have to invent excuses such as "tropospheric ducting" which does not happen in reality and does not apply to short or even mid-range communications. Not only that, but you also have this which no one has even attempted to debunk yet:



Sorry, youchoosenonsense.  :'(
« Last Edit: September 30, 2023, 12:09:22 PM by Dual1ty »

*

Online AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6479
    • View Profile
Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record
« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2023, 11:25:21 AM »
No, the gateway is the endpoint in this case. You ASSuming that there was an unmentioned third transmitter acting as a relay on some unspecified mountain is just wishful thinking unfortunately.
It wasn't an assumption, it was something I saw about this which made me think that. But having looked again I would concede I've misunderstood.
However, according to this:

https://hackaday.com/2023/09/15/new-lora-distance-record-830-miles/

Quote
The conductive surface of the sea makes an excellent aid to propagation, and from amateur radio experience we’d guess that tropospheric conditions aided by the summer weather would have something to do with it too.
Radio amateurs on those coasts and islands chase those conditions and live in hope of making a rare UHF contact across the ocean to the Americas or the Caribbean. The difference in their respective frequency allocations notwithstanding, we wonder whether the same might be possible using LoRa given a fortuitous atmosphere.

Why would this depend on atmospheric conditions? Why are long distance connections rare? If the earth is flat this is expected, isn't it? Why is this the record? What's to stop the signals going further all the time?

Quote
There's a bunch of reasons for that that have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth
Do go on. What reasons? On a FE two buoys at sea level would always have line of sight between them. Why is it news or noteworthy that this occurred?

EDIT: The LoRa documentation gives some details of calculations needed because of earth's curvature
https://lora.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
« Last Edit: September 30, 2023, 11:49:02 AM by AATW »
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Dual1ty

Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record
« Reply #10 on: September 30, 2023, 11:53:27 AM »
Your problem is that you're always talking out of your ass and you don't really know anything about the subjects that you involve yourself in.

How about you go study physics instead of offering yours or someone else's opinions.

https://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/communications/2-why-do-communications-get-harder-with-distance.html

https://www.wifi-professionals.com/2018/11/inverse-square-law
« Last Edit: September 30, 2023, 11:56:41 AM by Dual1ty »

Dual1ty

Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record
« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2023, 12:36:39 PM »
EDIT: The LoRa documentation gives some details of calculations needed because of earth's curvature
https://lora.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

Yeah? Do the calculation for how much curvature in 830 miles and tell me if line-of-sight at sea level is possible LOL.

*

Online AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6479
    • View Profile
Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record
« Reply #12 on: September 30, 2023, 12:37:53 PM »
Your problem is that you're always talking out of your ass and you don't really know anything about the subjects that you involve yourself in.
Your problem is you'll leap on anything which you think backs up your worldview but you don't look in to the wider context.
For example, you know that first link is from a site explaining how data is transmitted from satellites to earth?  ;D
Your other problem is you don't answer questions when they get too hard and you just ignore bits which aren't convenient.
You're happy to accept the LoRa result as a slam-dunk for FE, but just ignore the parts of their documentation where they talk about accounting for the curve of the earth.
You say there are a "bunch of reasons" why higher altitude increases range but don't provide a single one or any explanation of it.

And your continued ignoring of my questions about why this result is noteworthy or why the atmospheric conditions are a factor is noted.

Some more stuff to read here about how signals can travel further than line of sight.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.02802.pdf
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Dual1ty

Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record
« Reply #13 on: September 30, 2023, 01:55:57 PM »
You're happy to accept the LoRa result as a slam-dunk for FE, but just ignore the parts of their documentation where they talk about accounting for the curve of the earth.

No problem - show us how they accounted for it for the 830 mile test.

It's your time to shine.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record
« Reply #14 on: September 30, 2023, 04:35:05 PM »
It sounds like they were lucky enough to catch an exceptionally long  tropospheric duct.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.02802.pdf
Quote
ABSTRACT
With the growth of LoRa deployments there are plenty of anecdotal reports of very long wireless links, well beyond the line of sight.  Most reports suggest that these links are related to anomalous tropospheric propagation. We developed a platform to study tropospheric links based on TheThingsNetwork, a popular LoRaWAN-based infrastructure.

Absolute nonsense.

Do you realize what line-of-sight at sea level means? It means it has nothing to do with the troposphere which is claimed to be at an average height of 8.1 MILES above sea level.
Would you please post the specifications of the antennas used?  Line-of-sight does not necessarily mean highly directional.

Not nonsense to you? Post the math that make it work in this case. But remember that nothing is pointing up to the troposphere, that only happens in your imagination.
I have no involvement in the TROPPO LoRa project, so you would be better off asking the authors of the paper that I cited.  I'm sure that they would be more than happy to answer any reasonable questions that you have about tropospheric LoRa propagation.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2023, 04:40:24 PM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Dual1ty

Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record
« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2023, 06:25:10 PM »
I have no involvement in the TROPPO LoRa project, so you would be better off asking the authors of the paper that I cited.  I'm sure that they would be more than happy to answer any reasonable questions that you have about tropospheric LoRa propagation.

That has nothing to do with the 830 mile line-of-sight test, LIAR.

Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record
« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2023, 09:54:20 PM »
@ Dual1ty; can I just throw in a critique on the video in Reply #8; the one that "... no one has even attempted to debunk yet"? 

First of all, the credentials of the F-16 pilot.  Yes, if he's an F-16 pilot you would expect him to have appropriate intelligence and education.  I am a retired aircraft engineer/mechanic.  So far as my personal abilities as such are concerned, I would say I did a reasonable job (well I would, wouldn't I)?  Do I remember everything I was taught?  Did I even understand everything I was taught?  Others may differ in their views, but along the way I met some real aces, better trained, more experienced and a broader range of knowledge.  I also met some real duffers; could barely read and understand the manual.  But we were all qualified Engineers.  RonJ, as we know is a Navigator and Engineer.  Is he competent in that job?  Undoubtedly, as he is qualified in that role.  But I bet there are better, and I bet there are worse; a spectrum.  I don't know your career choice, but if you have a field of expertise perhaps you can relate to this. 

The F-16 is one of the most mass produced aircraft currently in service; well over 4000 built, and entered service (in Europe) around 1983.  40 years.  A typical squadron would have 2 or 3 pilots per aircraft, flying the aircraft for perhaps 10 years.  Eight or ten pilots per aircraft, lets call it 40,000 F-16 pilots worldwide; some aces, some not the sharpest knife in the kitchen drawer.  A spectrum.  And this one thinks the world is flat. 

Speed.  Much is made of the 1500mph and "250 miles in 10 minutes".  Horsepoop.  The maximum speed of the F-16 is less than 1400mph, but lets call that within a range of tolerence.  What's important is that the only way an F-16 goes that speed is with a clean aeroplane, no missiles, no external fuel tanks, and for short distances, and not to interecept a bomber.  If he's travelling 250 miles at Mach 2, there better be a friendly airfield at 249 miles.  Interestingly, the accompanying video (which is largely pointless stock footage btw, as you know) does show the USAF Thunderbirds Flight Demonstration Team, with a shot of the cockpit showing us that he's doing 400 kias at 24000', around 430 knots true airspeed, or 500mph.  So 250 miles in around half an hour.  For the pilot, or producer, to suggest otherwise is at least disingenuous. 

The radar.  Our guy assesses that at a range of 80 miles the width of scanstop-to-stop is 138 miles and that should give a hump of 12,700' in the middle of the screen.  Wrong; since the scope either side of the centreline is 69 miles, this would give a real-world hump of just over 3000' on the boresight; less than a mile, at eighty miles.  Insignificant, as any BVR weapon will be targetted by its radar position, not its apparent altitude.  The final line is a cracker, that the radar will get them killed "unless the manufacture has accounted for curvature"!  And?  Is there any evidence that curvature has not been accounted for?  Is that all that's in the drawer? 

Navigating the curvature.  Let me give you an analogy in azimuth.  It took me about 3 minutes on Google Maps to find a highway in Seskatchewan, SK-15, running due west from the town of Nokomis to just short of Broderick, around 80 miles, and its absolutely due west.  So imagine you're driving to Broderick.  Do you set your compass and drive due west from your origin?  No, you drive 2-feet to left of the white line and you arrive in Broderick.  Its absolutely the same with maintaining altitude.  Here we are in the 3rd decade of the 21st Century, and all aircraft maintain altitude, not by GPS, not by radar, not by attitude indication, but by referencing the air pressure.  Doesn't matter if you're on autopilot or flying by hand; pressure increases; the plane needs to fly up.  Pressure decrease; plane needs to fly down.  The pressure of the air is directly related to its height above sea level, and any movement of the aircraft up or down due to curvature is absolutely imperceptable against the other forces, turbulance and changes of mass and CofG as fuel is consumed.  That any pilot can be unaware of this, and state as much, is frankly incredible. 
« Last Edit: September 30, 2023, 11:09:23 PM by DuncanDoenitz »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record
« Reply #17 on: October 01, 2023, 02:46:53 AM »
I have no involvement in the TROPPO LoRa project, so you would be better off asking the authors of the paper that I cited.  I'm sure that they would be more than happy to answer any reasonable questions that you have about tropospheric LoRa propagation.

That has nothing to do with the 830 mile line-of-sight test, LIAR.
Maybe not that particular test, but they do have experience with a number of other long distance line-of-sight tests.  I would think that the principles would be pretty much the same.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Dual1ty

Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record
« Reply #18 on: October 01, 2023, 11:18:19 AM »
Maybe not that particular test, but they do have experience with a number of other long distance line-of-sight tests.  I would think that the principles would be pretty much the same.

I read the paper and it's a bunch of baloney from the globe cult as always.

1. The project's sole purpose is to provide an explanation for reported long-range line-of-sight tests that shouldn't be possible if Earth is a ball.

2. The authors assume that we live on a ball and speculate that every successful long-range line-of-sight communication links are explained "by diffraction, super-refraction, tropospheric ducting or a combination of diffraction and super-refraction." (LOL)

3. To try to explain #2 they offer a couple of examples that supposedly work because they looked at weather data & did some refraction equations on paper to get the result they wanted, and they convinced themselves that it makes sense (mathematically). Just math on paper and subjective conclusions based on the assumption that Earth is a ball.

4. They provide no details regarding where the antennas are pointing (but it's obvious to me that it has to be line-of-sight assuming it's a directional antenna and assuming no curvature or else it doesn't work, does it? ;)), how long it works for, whether it works or not in different weather conditions by adjusting the antenna (they probably just need to adjust the math in that case, eh??), or whether their hypothesis is actually physically possible beyond just math on paper and speculation.

So in other words, a bunch of refraction equations on paper YET AGAIN coupled with some weather data and some "tropospheric ducting" hypothetical nonsense to try to desperately make it make sense on the imaginary ball.

Math model on top of math model GARBAGE!

But anyway, why don't you at least give us the math model on top of math model garbage for the 830 mile test -which is what I'm discussing-, huh?
« Last Edit: October 01, 2023, 06:52:43 PM by Dual1ty »

*

Online AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6479
    • View Profile
Re: New line-of-sight sea level signal transmission record
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2023, 11:07:20 AM »
it's obvious to me that it has to be line-of-sight assuming it's a directional antenna and assuming no curvature or else it doesn't work, does it?
It's ironic that you above said that I "don't really know anything about the subjects that you involve yourself in", and then you say stuff like this which shows a complete ignorance of how these signals actual propogate.
It's also ironic that you keep bemoaning "math models", when in this statement you're presuming a simple model of a FE where all signals travel is a perfectly straight line. That IS a simplified model, it's not how things work in the real world.

The answer to your question above is they didn't account for the curve of the earth in this experiment. I've provided a few sources, I'm sure you can find plenty more if you're interested, which explains how signals can propagate further than the line of sight between two points. You bemoan these as "math models", but you're happy to accept the "math model" of a Flat Earth where signals must have line of sight to propagate.

Which leads me back to the questions you're carefully ignoring. If the earth is flat why is this news? This would be expected behaviour and would be reproducable consistently. And why does increasing the height increase the range. You said there were a "bunch or reasons", go on then, name a few and explain. You mentioned the inverse square law above. Increasing the altitude of the transmitter increases the distance to the receiver, so that should make the signal weaker and harder to receive, no?
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"