*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #20 on: September 14, 2016, 09:42:55 AM »
Quote
Again I pointed out like a lot of stuff size is decreasing, amount of data and reliability is increasing.  Troposcatter antenna are still not carried by soldiers, but on trucks and trailers.  Troposcatter antennas need to be larger than a satellite antenna with the current technology we have.

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6963
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #21 on: September 14, 2016, 10:23:28 AM »
Quote
Again I pointed out like a lot of stuff size is decreasing, amount of data and reliability is increasing.  Troposcatter antenna are still not carried by soldiers, but on trucks and trailers.  Troposcatter antennas need to be larger than a satellite antenna with the current technology we have.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
Greater range on 70 cm than on 2 m

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

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

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

c.   more frequent ducting because a smaller duct will do

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

fewer other amateurs are active
greater antenna gain => smaller beam width
difficult to have the same transmitter power output
in the old days it was more difficult to make a low-noise preamplifier for 70 cm than for 2 m
greater cable loss
 
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #22 on: September 14, 2016, 11:28:47 AM »
Quote
Again I pointed out like a lot of stuff size is decreasing, amount of data and reliability is increasing.  Troposcatter antenna are still not carried by soldiers, but on trucks and trailers.  Troposcatter antennas need to be larger than a satellite antenna with the current technology we have.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
Greater range on 70 cm than on 2 m

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

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

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

c.   more frequent ducting because a smaller duct will do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a relatively simple thing to do.  Go to a site that tells you the direction and elevation a satellite dish needs to be pointed to receive a signal from a satellite of your choosing.  Maybe even one that is in the time lapse photo I posted in this thread.  Then figure out the altitude and direction the signal source is.  This is one of the things I pointed out before.  You dismissed it becasue you said it would not prove the shape of the Earth.  Now since you are questioning the existence of satellites in this thread and you are seeking the truth I see no reason for you to dismiss it.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #23 on: September 14, 2016, 11:43:42 AM »
Quote from: woody
Again I pointed out like a lot of stuff size is decreasing, amount of data and reliability is increasing.  Troposcatter antenna are still not carried by soldiers, but on trucks and trailers.  Troposcatter antennas need to be larger than a satellite antenna with the current technology we have.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One Direct Broadcast Satellite typicaly
Quote
has up to 32 Ku-band or 24 C-band transponders, or more for Ku/C hybrid satellites. Typical transponders each have a bandwidth between 27 and 50 MHz.
From Wikipedia.
And one satellite can cover an area such as Australia or the USA.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6963
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #24 on: September 16, 2016, 02:32:29 AM »
That is 2'4" and still could not send a signal from the Middle East to North Carolina like I could with sat-comm. Which used a dish about 1/2 that size. Not only was it 1/2 the size it was not solid but made of mesh material.  Which decrease the effectiveness at transmitting and receiving.  Even then it worked 100% of the time I used it.

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

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

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

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

Compression and bandwidth is something Satellite TV also had to overcome. I've posted a source which stated that high bandwidth applications like video are possible with Troposcatter technology. It would follow that if Satellite TV was really Troposcatter TV, whoever is behind Troposcatter TV would have invested in Troposcatter compression and bandwidth tech rather than Satellite compression and bandwidth tech.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #25 on: September 16, 2016, 04:16:29 AM »
That is 2'4" and still could not send a signal from the Middle East to North Carolina like I could with sat-comm. Which used a dish about 1/2 that size. Not only was it 1/2 the size it was not solid but made of mesh material.  Which decrease the effectiveness at transmitting and receiving.  Even then it worked 100% of the time I used it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I know you will ignore these facts again and again, but they remain facts.

Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #26 on: September 21, 2016, 05:03:33 PM »
Tom - we are discussing satellite broadcasting that millions use.  Troposcatter has nothing to do with this, completely different.

geckothegeek

Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #27 on: September 22, 2016, 02:28:41 AM »
From what I have read on this website the problem is that most flat earthers tend to spout their own opinion of how things work which are often erroneous.
In this case, I think they generalize and do not realize that each piece of electronic equipment is designed for a different purpose and has its own frequency  and criteria of operation for that particular use. It is like tryimg to compare apples with oranges.

*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #28 on: September 22, 2016, 09:59:20 AM »
From what I have read on this website the problem is that most flat earthers tend to spout their own opinion of how things work which are often erroneous.
In this case, I think they generalize and do not realize that each piece of electronic equipment is designed for a different purpose and has its own frequency  and criteria of operation for that particular use. It is like tryimg to compare apples with oranges.

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

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

Similar to GPS.  The only complaints and draw backs of LORAN was lack of world coverage and number of stations needed that had to be maintained.  GPS uses satellites because it provides better coverage and is more cost effective.

*

Offline cel

  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Think OUT of the box. Be a TRUTH SEEKER!
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #29 on: September 22, 2016, 10:38:03 AM »
Just curious... how much does a satellite cost nowadays, if there is any? FEs say satellites are non-existent, and GEs say they do. But to think that they or NASA allotted huge budget for this, i think its true existence can be verified. Anyway, satellite, if it does exist, can really orbit around the GE as presently taught to us by NASA and textbook/schools, and likewise also revolves/orbits in a circular path over FE just like FE sun and moon. So in both cases, satellites can do orbit/revolves.... :)
You may wish to decipher how many squares are there in the 4x4 matrix of my profile image. If you do, tell me! That way I can tell if you really have an imaginative/creative mind that knows how to think out of the box. If you got it right, you've got great potential of becoming a genuine Truth Seeker! Welcome then to the Truth Seeker's group!

geckothegeek

Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #30 on: September 22, 2016, 04:10:35 PM »
Just curious... how much does a satellite cost nowadays, if there is any? FEs say satellites are non-existent, and GEs say they do. But to think that they or NASA allotted huge budget for this, i think its true existence can be verified. Anyway, satellite, if it does exist, can really orbit around the GE as presently taught to us by NASA and textbook/schools, and likewise also revolves/orbits in a circular path over FE just like FE sun and moon. So in both cases, satellites can do orbit/revolves.... :)

As has been explained frequently , there are many satellites and they do exist and NASA is just one of many space agencies and they do exist, too.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #31 on: September 23, 2016, 01:04:05 AM »
Just curious... how much does a satellite cost nowadays, if there is any? FEs say satellites are non-existent, and GEs say they do. But to think that they or NASA allotted huge budget for this, i think its true existence can be verified. Anyway, satellite, if it does exist, can really orbit around the GE as presently taught to us by NASA and textbook/schools, and likewise also revolves/orbits in a circular path over FE just like FE sun and moon. So in both cases, satellites can do orbit/revolves.... :)

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

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

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


*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #32 on: September 23, 2016, 01:42:34 AM »
Just to add to rabinoz post satellites generally have a useful life expectancy of at least 10 years.

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

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

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


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6963
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #33 on: September 24, 2016, 10:03:01 AM »
Sure, but all these are quite modern developments. DBS TV has been around for over 40 years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
Most of the 4K content available so far is via streaming (Netflix has started; Vudu and Amazon are on the way). For this, you need a very fast Internet connection (wired preferred) with speeds of 15 to 25 mbps second, and your ultra HDTV needs to also be a smart TV with the necessary built-in circuitry that can decode the signal.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2016, 10:19:49 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #34 on: September 24, 2016, 10:18:11 AM »
Sure, but all these are quite modern developments. DBS TV has been around for over 40 years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Last Edit: September 24, 2016, 10:26:36 AM by rabinoz »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6963
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #35 on: September 24, 2016, 10:35:35 AM »
Quote
You bandwidth requirements are for one channel. Modern satellites have around 32 transponders and
Quote
A satellite used for TV or fixed telecommunications will have multiple "transponders", these are a chain of equipment that takes RF bandwidth in, transposes/shifts its frequency, amplifies it and sends it back to Earth. Because there is no processing the design can be simpler and the system doesn't need upgrading because all the smart stuff happens on the ground. Each transponder can handle 50 to 100MHz of bandwidth.
That's at least 1.6 GB/s.

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

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

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

Secondly, your argument for limited distance relies on the assumption that the earth is a globe. It is not.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #36 on: September 24, 2016, 10:48:28 AM »
Quote
You bandwidth requirements are for one channel. Modern satellites have around 32 transponders and
Quote
A satellite used for TV or fixed telecommunications will have multiple "transponders", these are a chain of equipment that takes RF bandwidth in, transposes/shifts its frequency, amplifies it and sends it back to Earth. Because there is no processing the design can be simpler and the system doesn't need upgrading because all the smart stuff happens on the ground. Each transponder can handle 50 to 100MHz of bandwidth.
That's at least 1.6 GB/s.

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

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

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

Secondly, your argument for limited distance relies on the assumption that the earth is a globe. It is not.
The alignmant of satellites dishes at different locations proves the earth is a globe and the use of satellites.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6963
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #37 on: September 24, 2016, 10:50:55 AM »
The alignmant of satellites dishes at different locations proves the earth is a globe and the use of satellites.

This has yet to be demonstrated.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #38 on: September 24, 2016, 11:02:43 AM »
The alignmant of satellites dishes at different locations proves the earth is a globe and the use of satellites.

This has yet to be demonstrated.
It is used every day by millions.  Also see websites that give details for setting up a dish, none shown to be incorrect.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6963
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?
« Reply #39 on: September 24, 2016, 11:13:46 AM »
It is used every day by millions.  Also see websites that give details for setting up a dish, none shown to be incorrect.

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

It has not been demonstrated that the signals can only come from satellites in orbit around a globe earth. You will have to present something other than fallacies to further your argument.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy