[geocentrism] Re: Feasibility
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:53:03 +1000
I take it that your response to item 20 is that sufficient power was
technically available to the astronauts on the Moon in 1969 to transmit and
receive signals to/from Earth.Robert.
Much more than enough . The moon bounce method smothers the surface in signal,
to allow for losses in the "soil". and enable enough to reflect back These
frequencies do not bounce efficiently as do the medium wave and and short wave
around the earth. People on the moon would complain of too much signal. If it
was not for the ionosphere you could listen to all your radio stations on the
moon. Except that you'd get all the languages at once. lol.
I never claimed to the contrary. If I remember correctly, in 69, backyard
enthusiasts were able to listen in direct to some of the transmissions. from
the moon. They might not have had the ability to decode the coded stuff though.
I cannot remember if I sent this to the list or it was to a small group while
we were shut down, but I can assure you it is easily proven that a very high
gain dish is exceptionally directional, and will not recieve from outside of a
narrow angle in all directions. The small 2ft dish on my roof is fixed to an
exact position in the sky. If I go up and move it even a few degrees in ANY
direction, my wife will quickly complain.
That proves the source is a fixed and non moving transmitter in the sky. 50
miles away a neighbour has the same dish getting the same program, yet if you
look at the set up dials you will see that it is slightly different to mine, to
point at the same exact spot in the sky. Everyone in Australia is looking at
the same spot.
If you go on line and search you can find all the angles of elevation and
azimuth you need for any geographical location to fix on any available
geostationary satellite. They all point to the exact same spot in the sky, for
this or that bird. Even given these numbers as a guide, one still has to fine
tune the angles precisely using a signal strength meter, to make the picture
good enough to view.
Some of you might have the experience of having to get up on the roof and turn
the TV antenna to get a good picture. Wife screams from down below, "thats it"
The further away you are the harder it is to get exact centre. Well a dish
is much more directional than that.
I'm sorry Neville, it has to be a stationary satellite in the sky, and if it is
not 23000 miles out there then please explain what holds it up.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Bennett
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 1:34 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Feasibility
Philip,
I take it that your response to item 20 is that sufficient power was
technically available to the astronauts on the Moon in 1969 to transmit and
receive signals to/from Earth.
Why would a claim be then made to the contrary?
Robert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Philip
> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 6:34 PM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Feasibility
>
>
> Thanks Robert for analysing the feasability article. It was
> beyond me... However some info on radio ...
> The sun on earth provides about 1kW of power per square metre.
> Ordinary Solar panels, (I don't know how good NASA's are) are 16%
> efficient. So thats 160 watts for a square metre. On the moon
> that constant would be much higher.
>
> I could transmit a voice signal to the moon with a 5 watt signal .
>
> A directional transmitter antenna takes that 5 watts from a
> spherical output and projects it in a beam. Effectively
> multiplying the power of the signal many times. ..
>
> Ordinary AM and Short wave transmissions circle the globe by
> bounce (refraction) off the ionosphere and reflecting again from
> the earth, making many skips around the globe. Radio Amateurs
> using only 100 watts input power and standard dipole antenna, in
> the 20 metre band regularly communicate over long distances.
> Bouncing a signal off the surface of the moon is another regular
> means of contact. This is off the moons surface, note, not a
> special reflector.
>
> I share some history:
> Project "Diana" 1946 was the first attempted and successful echo
> recieved via moonbounce. using 111.5 Mhz.
> Developing from that in late 1960 twoway moonbounce communication
> was achieved on 1296mHz between W1BU near Boston, and W6HB in
> California, (the Eimac Radio club)
>
> I have a photo of the team with their 8 ft dish They maintained
> communication for four hours.
>
> Today regular moon bounce communications are made on the 144 and
> 2300 MHz amateur bands...
>
> Philip.
>
>
Other related posts:
