[JRowe]

Why are 'they' not going to publish information that people in the industry need? 

When did I ever say that? They do give off readings that will serve the same purpose. Put it like this: one satellite and two houses. The satellite gives a signal in a straight line to those two houses; that's your model. Now, take those lines, and place, say, a balloon where that line passes through a certain altitude: there you go, done.

That's a good idea.  To make it more accurate use 4 locations more than 500 miles apart from each other.

You may just find the angles fit a round earth with a geostationary satellite, as shown by various calculators, and used by everyone in the industry.

How high would a balloon have to be to cover all of the USA?  http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?position=287

I don't know, you tell me. Better yet, tell me why there has to only be one balloon.

[inquisitive]

Why are 'they' not going to publish information that people in the industry need? 

When did I ever say that? They do give off readings that will serve the same purpose. Put it like this: one satellite and two houses. The satellite gives a signal in a straight line to those two houses; that's your model. Now, take those lines, and place, say, a balloon where that line passes through a certain altitude: there you go, done.

That's a good idea.  To make it more accurate use 4 locations more than 500 miles apart from each other.

You may just find the angles fit a round earth with a geostationary satellite, as shown by various calculators, and used by everyone in the industry.

How high would a balloon have to be to cover all of the USA?  http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?position=287

I don't know, you tell me. Better yet, tell me why there has to only be one balloon.

If you look up transponder footprints you will find that link above covers the whole of the USA.

[JRowe]

Why are 'they' not going to publish information that people in the industry need? 

When did I ever say that? They do give off readings that will serve the same purpose. Put it like this: one satellite and two houses. The satellite gives a signal in a straight line to those two houses; that's your model. Now, take those lines, and place, say, a balloon where that line passes through a certain altitude: there you go, done.

That's a good idea.  To make it more accurate use 4 locations more than 500 miles apart from each other.

You may just find the angles fit a round earth with a geostationary satellite, as shown by various calculators, and used by everyone in the industry.

How high would a balloon have to be to cover all of the USA?  http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?position=287

I don't know, you tell me. Better yet, tell me why there has to only be one balloon.

If you look up transponder footprints you will find that link above covers the whole of the USA.

Still waiting for why that could only ever possibly be achieved by one transmitter.

[inquisitive]

Why are 'they' not going to publish information that people in the industry need? 

When did I ever say that? They do give off readings that will serve the same purpose. Put it like this: one satellite and two houses. The satellite gives a signal in a straight line to those two houses; that's your model. Now, take those lines, and place, say, a balloon where that line passes through a certain altitude: there you go, done.

That's a good idea.  To make it more accurate use 4 locations more than 500 miles apart from each other.

You may just find the angles fit a round earth with a geostationary satellite, as shown by various calculators, and used by everyone in the industry.

How high would a balloon have to be to cover all of the USA?  http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?position=287

I don't know, you tell me. Better yet, tell me why there has to only be one balloon.

If you look up transponder footprints you will find that link above covers the whole of the USA.

Still waiting for why that could only ever possibly be achieved by one transmitter.

We are not discussing how it could be implemented, but how it actually is now.

[jroa]

Why are 'they' not going to publish information that people in the industry need? 

When did I ever say that? They do give off readings that will serve the same purpose. Put it like this: one satellite and two houses. The satellite gives a signal in a straight line to those two houses; that's your model. Now, take those lines, and place, say, a balloon where that line passes through a certain altitude: there you go, done.

That's a good idea.  To make it more accurate use 4 locations more than 500 miles apart from each other.

You may just find the angles fit a round earth with a geostationary satellite, as shown by various calculators, and used by everyone in the industry.

How high would a balloon have to be to cover all of the USA?  http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?position=287

I don't know, you tell me. Better yet, tell me why there has to only be one balloon.

If you look up transponder footprints you will find that link above covers the whole of the USA.

Still waiting for why that could only ever possibly be achieved by one transmitter.

We are not discussing how it could be implemented, but how it actually is now.

No, you are being just as theoretical as everyone else, exept you just asume your theories are facts.   

[JRowe]

Why are 'they' not going to publish information that people in the industry need? 

When did I ever say that? They do give off readings that will serve the same purpose. Put it like this: one satellite and two houses. The satellite gives a signal in a straight line to those two houses; that's your model. Now, take those lines, and place, say, a balloon where that line passes through a certain altitude: there you go, done.

That's a good idea.  To make it more accurate use 4 locations more than 500 miles apart from each other.

You may just find the angles fit a round earth with a geostationary satellite, as shown by various calculators, and used by everyone in the industry.

How high would a balloon have to be to cover all of the USA?  http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?position=287

I don't know, you tell me. Better yet, tell me why there has to only be one balloon.

If you look up transponder footprints you will find that link above covers the whole of the USA.

Still waiting for why that could only ever possibly be achieved by one transmitter.

We are not discussing how it could be implemented, but how it actually is now.

So, yet again, please provide evidence that what we see now could only ever possibly be achieved by one transmitter. Please stop evading every question I ask.

[inquisitive]

Why are 'they' not going to publish information that people in the industry need? 

When did I ever say that? They do give off readings that will serve the same purpose. Put it like this: one satellite and two houses. The satellite gives a signal in a straight line to those two houses; that's your model. Now, take those lines, and place, say, a balloon where that line passes through a certain altitude: there you go, done.

That's a good idea.  To make it more accurate use 4 locations more than 500 miles apart from each other.

You may just find the angles fit a round earth with a geostationary satellite, as shown by various calculators, and used by everyone in the industry.

How high would a balloon have to be to cover all of the USA?  http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?position=287

I don't know, you tell me. Better yet, tell me why there has to only be one balloon.

If you look up transponder footprints you will find that link above covers the whole of the USA.

Still waiting for why that could only ever possibly be achieved by one transmitter.

We are not discussing how it could be implemented, but how it actually is now.

So, yet again, please provide evidence that what we see now could only ever possibly be achieved by one transmitter. Please stop evading every question I ask.

We were actually discussing how to identify the location of a transmitter by knowing the elevation and azimuth of the dish in several locations.  Are you OK with using 4 widely spaced locations?

As all receivers for a particular satellite transponder frequency in a coverage area receive the same frequency this shows there is a single transmitter.  It would not be feasible to design and run land based, or airship? based systems to achieve 100% coverage across a continent for multi channel tv transmissions with equivalent coverage to existing satellites.

Please, please show details of equivalent systems if you believe they exist.

[JRowe]

We were actually discussing how to identify the location of a transmitter by knowing the elevation and azimuth of the dish in several locations.  Are you OK with using 4 widely spaced locations?

Actually you explicitly asked how high a balloon would have to be to cover the whole US: which is either a straw man, or irrelevant.
I'm happy with using any two locations so long as we know they point to the same transmitter. I've said this before. An arbitrary set of two or four or sixteen is not going to guarantee that they are, however.

As all receivers for a particular satellite transponder frequency in a coverage area receive the same frequency this shows there is a single transmitter.

Why? That's a matter of transmitter, not location.

  It would not be feasible to design and run land based, or airship? based systems to achieve 100% coverage across a continent for multi channel tv transmissions with equivalent coverage to existing satellites.

Assertion. Even if satellites were somehow easier (which they're not, as I've shown and as no one has responded to), the fact they would be impossible in most FE and my Dual Earth model, means that it's irrelevant. If you are claiming that it is impossible for an equivalent system based on balloons/airships/towers, you need to do more than handwave it.

[inquisitive]

We were actually discussing how to identify the location of a transmitter by knowing the elevation and azimuth of the dish in several locations.  Are you OK with using 4 widely spaced locations?

Actually you explicitly asked how high a balloon would have to be to cover the whole US: which is either a straw man, or irrelevant.
I'm happy with using any two locations so long as we know they point to the same transmitter. I've said this before. An arbitrary set of two or four or sixteen is not going to guarantee that they are, however.

As all receivers for a particular satellite transponder frequency in a coverage area receive the same frequency this shows there is a single transmitter.

Why? That's a matter of transmitter, not location.

  It would not be feasible to design and run land based, or airship? based systems to achieve 100% coverage across a continent for multi channel tv transmissions with equivalent coverage to existing satellites.

Assertion. Even if satellites were somehow easier (which they're not, as I've shown and as no one has responded to), the fact they would be impossible in most FE and my Dual Earth model, means that it's irrelevant. If you are claiming that it is impossible for an equivalent system based on balloons/airships/towers, you need to do more than handwave it.

We know that an area of coverage of a transponder uses the same frequency for all locations within it.  Is there a specification for a multichannel tv SFN which anything other than a single satellite would have to use?

[JRowe]

We were actually discussing how to identify the location of a transmitter by knowing the elevation and azimuth of the dish in several locations.  Are you OK with using 4 widely spaced locations?

Actually you explicitly asked how high a balloon would have to be to cover the whole US: which is either a straw man, or irrelevant.
I'm happy with using any two locations so long as we know they point to the same transmitter. I've said this before. An arbitrary set of two or four or sixteen is not going to guarantee that they are, however.

As all receivers for a particular satellite transponder frequency in a coverage area receive the same frequency this shows there is a single transmitter.

Why? That's a matter of transmitter, not location.

  It would not be feasible to design and run land based, or airship? based systems to achieve 100% coverage across a continent for multi channel tv transmissions with equivalent coverage to existing satellites.

Assertion. Even if satellites were somehow easier (which they're not, as I've shown and as no one has responded to), the fact they would be impossible in most FE and my Dual Earth model, means that it's irrelevant. If you are claiming that it is impossible for an equivalent system based on balloons/airships/towers, you need to do more than handwave it.

We know that an area of coverage of a transponder uses the same frequency for all locations within it.  Is there a specification for a multichannel tv SFN which anything other than a single satellite would have to use?

Are two transmitters incapable of using the same frequency? Why?

[inquisitive]

We were actually discussing how to identify the location of a transmitter by knowing the elevation and azimuth of the dish in several locations.  Are you OK with using 4 widely spaced locations?

Actually you explicitly asked how high a balloon would have to be to cover the whole US: which is either a straw man, or irrelevant.
I'm happy with using any two locations so long as we know they point to the same transmitter. I've said this before. An arbitrary set of two or four or sixteen is not going to guarantee that they are, however.

As all receivers for a particular satellite transponder frequency in a coverage area receive the same frequency this shows there is a single transmitter.

Why? That's a matter of transmitter, not location.

  It would not be feasible to design and run land based, or airship? based systems to achieve 100% coverage across a continent for multi channel tv transmissions with equivalent coverage to existing satellites.

Assertion. Even if satellites were somehow easier (which they're not, as I've shown and as no one has responded to), the fact they would be impossible in most FE and my Dual Earth model, means that it's irrelevant. If you are claiming that it is impossible for an equivalent system based on balloons/airships/towers, you need to do more than handwave it.

We know that an area of coverage of a transponder uses the same frequency for all locations within it.  Is there a specification for a multichannel tv SFN which anything other than a single satellite would have to use?

Are two transmitters incapable of using the same frequency? Why?

The same frequency can be used for digital terrestrial broadcasts but this is not what is used for satellite broadcasts, because they come from one transmitter and do not have SFN decoding, unless you can find it in the spec.

OK with measurements from 4 locations for accuracy?  Clearly 2 would give a wrong location depending on the shape of the earth so by using 4 or more we can calculate both the shape of the earth and the location of the transmitter.

[markjo]

Are two transmitters incapable of using the same frequency? Why?

Are you familiar with the concept of interference patterns?

[JRowe]

The same frequency can be used for digital terrestrial broadcasts but this is not what is used for satellite broadcasts, because they come from one transmitter and do not have SFN decoding, unless you can find it in the spec.

None of that explains how we know the signals come from one transmitter. You just assert it.

OK with measurements from 4 locations for accuracy?  Clearly 2 would give a wrong location depending on the shape of the earth so by using 4 or more we can calculate both the shape of the earth and the location of the transmitter.

So long as we know the signals come from the same transmitter, as I have said before. Three would be enough: you get three separate measurements.

Are you familiar with the concept of interference patterns?

Yes. Why is that relevant? Interference will occur on the journey to the dish: no matter the origin, it will be unpredictable. That's why it's interference.

[markjo]

Are you familiar with the concept of interference patterns?

Yes. Why is that relevant? Interference will occur on the journey to the dish: no matter the origin, it will be unpredictable. That's why it's interference.

It's relevant because 2 transmitters sending signals on the same frequency will interfere with each other in very predictable ways.  That's why transmitters generally use different frequencies.

[inquisitive]

Are you familiar with the concept of interference patterns?

Yes. Why is that relevant? Interference will occur on the journey to the dish: no matter the origin, it will be unpredictable. That's why it's interference.

It's relevant because 2 transmitters sending signals on the same frequency will interfere with each other in very predictable ways.  That's why transmitters generally use different frequencies.

And how are Single Frequency Networks synchronised?

... using the GPS network...

[JRowe]

Are you familiar with the concept of interference patterns?

Yes. Why is that relevant? Interference will occur on the journey to the dish: no matter the origin, it will be unpredictable. That's why it's interference.

It's relevant because 2 transmitters sending signals on the same frequency will interfere with each other in very predictable ways.  That's why transmitters generally use different frequencies.

If it's predictable, they can compensate: that means nothing.

[Rama Set]

If it's predictable, they can compensate: that means nothing.

The receiver would have to compensate.  Are you aware of any such compensating mechanism in a home satellite dish or are you just asserting?

[JRowe]

If it's predictable, they can compensate: that means nothing.

The receiver would have to compensate.  Are you aware of any such compensating mechanism in a home satellite dish or are you just asserting?

Or the transmitter could compensate by synchronizing signals, or altering in a specific way. I don't profess to know every detail of how it works, that is what a conspiracy is. The fact is, however, an in-atmosphere system will work just fine.

[inquisitive]

If, if, satellite tv came from balloons or similar you would see dishes pointing in different directions.  However in the northern hemisphere they all point southish.

And there might be some documentation explaining how it works...

[inquisitive]

If it's predictable, they can compensate: that means nothing.

The receiver would have to compensate.  Are you aware of any such compensating mechanism in a home satellite dish or are you just asserting?

Or the transmitter could compensate by synchronizing signals, or altering in a specific way. I don't profess to know every detail of how it works, that is what a conspiracy is. The fact is, however, an in-atmosphere system will work just fine.

Why should there be a conspiracy about how satellite tv works?  Who is in on it?