[geocentrism] Re: Feasibility
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:10:01 -0500
Philip,
Thanks for your explanation of 'moon-bouncing'. I thought over-the-horizon
ham radio was only possible with ionospheric 'skipping' of the signal - now
they 'skip' the signal off the Moon.
My question was directed to the forum list: In the light of your
explanation, why would anyone think that transmission power was insufficient
in the '70's to send radio/TV signals between Earth and Moon?
Pax Christi,
Robert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Philip
> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 11:53 PM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Feasibility
>
>
> 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:
