Recording of HAARP and Moon Echo
Pipester
This is was recorded on 6.7925 in CW mode
with a portable mp3 player recording it
http://www.mediafire.com/?71x4h0wbjd0
Enjoy
Rory
David
Pipester
"David" <not...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:13p4f7q...@corp.supernews.com...
TY, but I could have done even better , I wanted to record straight to my
computer but never made a cable yet, as I
didn't have a reason to record HF ,but I just grabbed my Iriver T10 and
started recording on
a whim. It did come out pretty good!
msg
Here is a direct url for those of us with web browsers that
choke on the site, to use in a media player:
http://download308.mediafire.com/jznid3b1u0eg/71x4h0wbjd0/V0118000.ogg
Nice recording.
Regards,
Michael
H...@nospam.com
tidal...@hotmail.com says...
signal here was not much better than your echo return with the echo
return here weaker still. There was considerable fading in and out on
the terrestrial signal and the echo was absent more than it was present.
The echo was strongest here at 35 past the hour. I never did hear a
signal on 7407.5 kHz that I could say for sure was there.
msg
Sorry, it looks like the hosting site does transactional coding of the url,
so it expires shortly after use; I put up the file on my site for a quick
download:
http://www.cybertheque.org/ham/audio/pipester_eme_6792500Hz_011807.ogg
Regards,
Michael
Pipester
<H...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.21fc40361...@news.tds.net...
> In article <fmt92m$ubu$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> tidal...@hotmail.com says...
>> I recorded it last night, just posted it, You need an .ogg player.
>> This is was recorded on 6.7925 in CW mode
>> with a portable mp3 player recording it
>>
>> http://www.mediafire.com/?71x4h0wbjd0
>>
>> Enjoy
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
> In general terms, where are you located?
Central Louisiana
I am in NH and the terrestrial
> signal here was not much better than your echo return with the echo
> return here weaker still. There was considerable fading in and out on
> the terrestrial signal and the echo was absent more than it was present.
It came and went here , I happened to record when I was hearing the echo
consistantly
> The echo was strongest here at 35 past the hour.
I never did hear a
> signal on 7407.5 kHz that I could say for sure was there.
Me either, but that was due to Major QRM/QRN at my location
RHF
OGG Files : http://www.vorbis.com/
INFO - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg
DLI -http://www.illiminable.com/ogg/
EXE - http://www.illiminable.com/ogg/oggcodecs_0.71.0946.exe
~ RHF
.
RHF
> On Jan 19, 8:37 am, "Pipester" <tidalfo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I recorded it last night, just posted it, You need an .ogg player.
> > This is was recorded on 6.7925 in CW mode
> > with a portable mp3 player recording it
>
> >http://www.mediafire.com/?71x4h0wbjd0
>
> > Enjoy
> > Rory
>
> OGG Files :http://www.vorbis.com/
>
>
> DLI -http://www.illiminable.com/ogg/
>
> EXE -http://www.illiminable.com/ogg/oggcodecs_0.71.0946.exe
>
> ~ RHF
> .
Pipester,
You can hear both the Originating Earth Pulse and the Reflective
Lunar Tone : Although I understand that the Reflective Lunar Tone
that you are hearing is actually Echo from a couple of Pulses
before.
Note - There is a 2 1/2 Second Round-Trip Lunar Propagation Delay.
http://www.setileague.org/eme/emepix3.htm
~ RHF
.
H...@nospam.com
8c8785...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, rhf-new...@pacbell.net
says...
> On Jan 19, 3:47 pm, RHF <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 19, 8:37 am, "Pipester" <tidalfo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I recorded it last night, just posted it, You need an .ogg player.
> > > This is was recorded on 6.7925 in CW mode
> > > with a portable mp3 player recording it
> >
> > >http://www.mediafire.com/?71x4h0wbjd0
> >
> > > Enjoy
> > > Rory
> >
> > OGG Files :http://www.vorbis.com/
> >
> > INFO -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg
> >
> > DLI -http://www.illiminable.com/ogg/
> >
> > EXE -http://www.illiminable.com/ogg/oggcodecs_0.71.0946.exe
> >
> > ~ RHF
> > .
>
> Pipester,
>
> You can hear both the Originating Earth Pulse and the Reflective
> Lunar Tone : Although I understand that the Reflective Lunar Tone
> that you are hearing is actually Echo from a couple of Pulses
> before.
I think that echo you hear is the one that results from the terrestrial
pulse you just heard, and not 1 or 2 back. My guess is that the leading
edge of the reflected pulse arrives approx. 2.5 seconds after it leaves
and the same for the trailing edge of the pulse. That means if you look
at entire 5 second time line, at 0 seconds the earth pulse starts and at
2 seconds it ends. At 2.5 seconds the beginning part of the echo pulse
arrives and at 4.5 seconds (2.5 seconds after the terrestrial pulse
ended) the end of the echo pulse arrives. There is always 2.5 seconds
between any reference point on the timeline of the sent pulse to the
corresponding point on the timeline of the return pulse. One complete
cycle of send/receive should be approximately 4.5 seconds. I think that
is why they selected 5 seconds between sending 2 second pulses. At
least that is the way I view it. I am open to other views.
Mark Zenier
>In article <ffd0d3c9-18d9-4b7b-95dc-
>
>I think that echo you hear is the one that results from the terrestrial
>pulse you just heard, and not 1 or 2 back. My guess is that the leading
>edge of the reflected pulse arrives approx. 2.5 seconds after it leaves
>and the same for the trailing edge of the pulse. That means if you look
>at entire 5 second time line, at 0 seconds the earth pulse starts and at
>2 seconds it ends. At 2.5 seconds the beginning part of the echo pulse
>arrives and at 4.5 seconds (2.5 seconds after the terrestrial pulse
>ended) the end of the echo pulse arrives. There is always 2.5 seconds
>between any reference point on the timeline of the sent pulse to the
>corresponding point on the timeline of the return pulse. One complete
>cycle of send/receive should be approximately 4.5 seconds. I think that
>is why they selected 5 seconds between sending 2 second pulses. At
>least that is the way I view it. I am open to other views.
On the first transmission, (Jan 19, 05:00 UTC), I tried using an
oscilloscope to see if I could see the echo. It was a 4 second cycle
with 2 seconds on and 2 off. (Which made syncing the scope (with a 5
second sweep) a real pain. The next pulse was going when the first one
ended, triggering it again).
Anyway, with the narrowest (2 kHz) bandwidth on my old R-1000, it
just didn't cut it. When the outgoing signal was S9+10 (in Seattle)
I thought I might have heard an echo or two, but just couldn't be
sure.
What bandwidth were you successful listeners using?
Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)
mi...@sushi.com
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:35:37 GMT, mzen...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier)
> wrote:
>
> >On the first transmission, (Jan 19, 05:00 UTC), I tried using an
> >oscilloscope to see if I could see the echo. It was a 4 second cycle
> >with 2 seconds on and 2 off. (Which made syncing the scope (with a 5
> >second sweep) a real pain. The next pulse was going when the first one
> >ended, triggering it again).
> >Anyway, with the narrowest (2 kHz) bandwidth on my old R-1000, it
> >just didn't cut it. When the outgoing signal was S9+10 (in Seattle)
> >I thought I might have heard an echo or two, but just couldn't be
> >sure.
> >What bandwidth were you successful listeners using?
>
> The cycle (per the HAARP website) was 5 seconds. 2 seconds on,
> followed by 3 seconds off.
>
> Arne (AzUSA)
It seems those that heard the reflected signal were in the south.
I used a crystal CW filter. 250hz BW. My recollection is that is at
-6dB, not -3dB.
RHF
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:35:37 GMT, mzen...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier)
> wrote:
>
> >oscilloscope to see if I could see the echo. It was a 4 second cycle
> >with 2 seconds on and 2 off. (Which made syncing the scope (with a 5
> >second sweep) a real pain. The next pulse was going when the first one
> >ended, triggering it again).
> >Anyway, with the narrowest (2 kHz) bandwidth on my old R-1000, it
> >just didn't cut it. When the outgoing signal was S9+10 (in Seattle)
> >I thought I might have heard an echo or two, but just couldn't be
> >sure.
> >What bandwidth were you successful listeners using?
>
> The cycle (per the HAARP website) was 5 seconds. 2 seconds on,
> followed by 3 seconds off.
>
> Arne (AzUSA)
Note - There is a 2 1/2 Second Round-Trip Lunar Propagation Delay.
http://www.setileague.org/eme/emepix3.htm
EP .= = = = _ _ _ _ _ _ 5s
LR ._ _ _ _ _ -- -- -- -- _ 5s
"." Start of the Time Sync for 5 Second Signal Cycle
"=" Earth Pluse Time
"_" Non-Signal Time
"--" Lunar Reflection Time
~ RHF
.
H...@nospam.com
@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, rhf-new...@pacbell.net says...
> Note - There is a 2 1/2 Second Round-Trip Lunar Propagation Delay.
> http://www.setileague.org/eme/emepix3.htm
>
> EP .= = = = _ _ _ _ _ _ 5s
> LR ._ _ _ _ _ -- -- -- -- _ 5s
>
> "." Start of the Time Sync for 5 Second Signal Cycle
> "=" Earth Pluse Time
> "_" Non-Signal Time
> "--" Lunar Reflection Time
>
> ~ RHF
> .
I don't think that is quite correct. If the pulse were only a
millisecond long, 0 to .001 on the time line, you would receive the echo
at between 2.500 and 2.501 seconds on the time line. If you think of a
two second pulse as only a series of millisecond pulses, the first pulse
(or the beginning of a two second pulse) would be hitting the moon after
1.25 seconds and starting on its way back before the last millisecond
pulse (or the end of the 2 second pulse) even left.
I think you are treating the pulse as a single discrete object that
actually doesn't leave until the pulse is complete, like bouncing a ball
off the wall. I don't think that is the case.
I think it is more like a long train (2 seconds long) on a short U
shaped track (1.25 seconds on each leg). The engine coming back will
pass the caboose still on its way to the end of the U. The engine will
reach the end of the return leg 2.5 seconds after it left. The caboose
will also reach the end of the return leg 2.5 seconds after it left, but
it will be 4.5 seconds after the engine left making the total time for
the train (2 second pulse) to make the trip (one cycle) 4.5 seconds.
Billy Burpelson
> I think it is more like a long train (2 seconds long) on a short U
> shaped track (1.25 seconds on each leg). The engine coming back will
> pass the caboose still on its way to the end of the U.
An interesting and thoughtful response. However, it generates a question:
In your train analogy above, what is to keep the leading part of the
echo from being QRMed by the trailing part of the transmitted signal?
RHF
BP,
"*" In the 5 Second Time Cycle for the Two Signals; this is
the Two Periods of 'Silence' between the Earth Pulse and
the Lunar Reflection.
EP .= = = = * _ _ _ _ * 5s
LR ._ _ _ _ * -- -- -- -- * 5s
"." Start of the Time Sync for 5 Second Signal Cycle
"=" Earth Pluse Time
"_" Non-Signal Time
"--" Lunar Reflection Time
A 2 Second Earth Pulse with a 2.5 Second Lunar Reflection
Delay creates a One-Half (1/2) Second Period of Silence
between the two Signals.
~ RHF
.
RHF
> On Jan 22, 4:56 am, Billy Burpelson <bi...@burpelson.net> wrote:
>
> > H...@nospam.com wrote:
> > > I think it is more like a long train (2 seconds long) on a short U
> > > shaped track (1.25 seconds on each leg). The engine coming back will
> > > pass the caboose still on its way to the end of the U.
>
> > An interesting and thoughtful response. However, it generates a question:
>
> > In your train analogy above, what is to keep the leading part of the
> > echo from being QRMed by the trailing part of the transmitted signal?
>
> BP,
>
> "*" In the 5 Second Time Cycle for the Two Signals; this is
> the Two Periods of 'Silence' between the Earth Pulse and
> the Lunar Reflection.
>
> EP .= = = = * _ _ _ _ * 5s
> LR ._ _ _ _ * -- -- -- -- * 5s
Look at it as a Repetitive Linear Event :
[ Repetitive Signal Interval Timing ]
.= = = = * -- -- -- -- *.= = = = *-- -- -- -- *.= = = = * -- -- -- --
* ~
"." Start of the Time Sync for 5 Second Signal Cycle {Instant}
"=" Earth Pluse Time
{Four 1/2 Second Marks = 2 Seconds}
"*" "Silence" in between Non-Signal Time
{One 1/2 Second Mark = 1/2 a Second}
"--" Lunar Reflection Time
{Four 1/2 Second Marks = 2 Seconds}
"*" "Silence" in between Non-Signal Time
{One 1/2 Second Mark = 1/2 a Second}
This Ends the 5 Second Time Cycle
and the process repeats itself.
Do-the-Math : = 2 + 1/2 + 2 + 1/2 = 5
I 'Trust' to the Fact that the HAARP Scientists
are Equal to Rocket Scientists and that :
They Do Know What They Are Doing. ~ RHF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_science
.
Billy Burpelson
Roy, I think you might still might be missing the point here. Yes, the
ROUND-TRIP delay is 2.5 seconds; one-way is ~1.25 seconds.
So, if you send a 2 second long pulse -to- the moon, it will arrive in
1.25 seconds and thus the reflected signal will start back at time 1.25
seconds; but there is still the remaining .75 second of the original
terrestrial pulse still winging its way to the moon. Thus my original
question: Will the beginning of the echo (at time 1.25 sec) QRM the last
.75 second of the original transmitted pulse still on the way?
Inquiring minds want to know...
RHF
- Yes, the ROUND-TRIP delay is 2.5 seconds;
- one-way is ~1.25 seconds.
-
- So, if you send a 2 second long pulse -to- the moon, it will
- arrive in 1.25 seconds and thus the reflected signal will start
- back at time 1.25 seconds; but there is still the remaining
- .75 second of the original terrestrial pulse still winging its way
- to the moon.
-
- Thus my original question: Will the beginning of the echo
- (at time 1.25 sec) QRM the last .75 second of the original
- transmitted pulse still on the way?
-
- Inquiring minds want to know...
IMHO - To the Radio receiving the Two Separate Signals
the Answer would be a : "NO" ~ RHF
The receiving Radio is Earth 'based' -and- The Two Signals
come by 'different' Paths to it :
1 - First comes the 2-Second Earth Pulse*
* The Earth Pulse has a 'Short Path' via Inner Atmosphere SkyWave.
- - - followed by a 1/2 Second of Silence.
2 - Second comes the 2-Second Lunar Reflection**
**The Lunar Reflection has a 'Long Path via the Trans-Atmosphere
Earth-to-Moon-to-Earth (EME) One-Big-Bounce.
- - - followed by a 1/2 Second of Silence.
NOTE - The Two Signal 'arrive' at the Antenna of the receiving
Radio at "Separate" Times in a recuring 5-Second Cycle.
.
Per the X-Files : The Answer {Truth} Is Out There ! :o)
.
H...@nospam.com
bi...@burpelson.net says...
The analogy is good in so far as it shows the timing, but I have to
admit it is poor in that I used a solid object, the train, to represent
a wave and their properties are very different. For example, if two
trains hit head on, you are going to have a mess. That is not the case
with waves. If you throw two rocks at the same time in a pond of still
water so that they land some distance apart, the waves from each impact
point move out in concentric rings. When the rings from one impact
point spread out enough to meet the spreading rings of the second, there
is however no "wreck". The rings of waves of one appear to pass through
the rings of the other with no harm done to either wave. It is the
energy that is moving across the water, not the water.
Here is a good URL for seeing a wave reflecting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/physics/waves/water_wavesrev3.
shtml
In our case the pulse is much longer so the interaction is longer, and
it also is not physical water, but the wave theory is the same.
H...@nospam.com
9c55b4...@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, rhf-new...@pacbell.net
says...
This is the way I see it also. Well, technically, that .75 seconds of
pulse is not winging its way to the moon because it has not been
generated yet. When the very first part of the pulse just touches the
moon, it will be at 1.25 seconds as you say, but only 1.25 seconds of
pulse will have been generated on earth and be winging its way to the
moon. It will take an additional .75 seconds for the rest of the pulse
to be generated (transmitted) and be winging its way to the moon. When
the earth pulse ends there will still be 1.25 seconds of signal winging
its way to the moon, the last 1.25 seconds, but the first .75 seconds of
pulse will indeed be on its way back.
I know. Picky, picky.
> - Thus my original question: Will the beginning of the echo
> - (at time 1.25 sec) QRM the last .75 second of the original
> - transmitted pulse still on the way?
> -
> - Inquiring minds want to know...
I have cut and pasted my response to the same question earlier
below:
The train analogy is good in so far as it shows the timing, but I have
to admit it is poor in that I used a solid object, the train, to
represent a wave, and their properties are very different. For example,
if two trains hit head on, you are going to have a mess. That is not the
case with waves. If you throw two rocks at the same time in a pond of
still water so that they land some distance apart, the waves from each
impact point move out in concentric rings. When the rings from one
impact point spread out enough to meet the spreading rings of the
second, there is however no "wreck". The rings of waves of one appear
to pass through the rings of the other with no harm done to either wave.
It is the energy that is moving across the water, not the water.
Here is a good URL for seeing a wave reflecting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/physics/waves/water_wavesrev3.
shtml
In our case the pulse is much longer so the interaction is longer, and
it also is not physical water, but the wave theory is the same.
I should also point out that although the returning part of the 2 second
wave will not interfere with that part of the wave still on its way, if
you could set up your receiver where both parts exist at the same time
(i.e. near the moon), I think one might QRM the other as you would be
trying to listen to both parts of the wave at the same. That is
different than two waves just passing each other.
>
> IMHO - To the Radio receiving the Two Separate Signals
> the Answer would be a : "NO" ~ RHF
>
> The receiving Radio is Earth 'based' -and- The Two Signals
> come by 'different' Paths to it :
>
> 1 - First comes the 2-Second Earth Pulse*
> * The Earth Pulse has a 'Short Path' via Inner Atmosphere SkyWave.
> - - - followed by a 1/2 Second of Silence.
I would guess the path delay for the terrestrial signal is no more than
.04 seconds here in the US, probably less, so transmitted time can be
considered received time.
>
> 2 - Second comes the 2-Second Lunar Reflection**
> **The Lunar Reflection has a 'Long Path via the Trans-Atmosphere
> Earth-to-Moon-to-Earth (EME) One-Big-Bounce.
> - - - followed by a 1/2 Second of Silence.
>
> NOTE - The Two Signal 'arrive' at the Antenna of the receiving
> Radio at "Separate" Times in a recuring 5-Second Cycle.
Exactly so. At least I have one person that agrees with me ;-).
Telamon
wrote:
Situation #1
Lets say the direct earth signal "1" takes 0.0 seconds to reach you and
the moon bounce signal "2" takes 2.5 seconds. One frame sequence would
be:
Each number represents .1 second
12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
11111111111111111111000002222222222222222222200000
The cycle starts and you get the 2 seconds direct signal, then 0.5
seconds noise, the 2 seconds moon reflection, then 0.5 second noise,
then the cycle repeats. The leading edge of the direct to reflected is
2.5 seconds.
Situation #2
Lets say the direct earth signal "1" takes 0.1 seconds to reach you and
the moon bounce signal "2" takes 2.5 seconds. One frame sequence would
be:
Each number represents .1 second
12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
01111111111111111111100002222222222222222222200000
The cycle starts and you get 0.1 second noise, then the 2 second direct
signal, then 0.4 noise, the 2 second moon reflection, then .5 second
noise, then the cycle repeats. The leading edge of the direct to
reflected is 2.4 seconds.
Do you see how this works? The echo does not overlap the direct signal.
You could think of situation #1 being close to the HAARP station and #2
that you have a magic trigger with no time delay and you are a long
distance away from HAARP. #2 is just an example as you can't get far
enough away from HAARP for the 0.1 second direct time of flight.
If you were 1860 miles away time of flight would be 0.01 seconds for
example.
You don't live next to HAARP and you don't have the magic trigger so the
error you would measure would likely be < 0.01 seconds. The error would
only be in one direction causing the moon measurement to be closer. You
could correct this error by adding the time of direct flight from you to
HAARP to the moon reflected signal in #2 situation. In #2 you saw the
moon bounce as 2.4 seconds + 0.1 seconds direct brings you back to 2.5
seconds in the #1 situation.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
RHF
second
> wave will not interfere with that part of the wave still on its way,
- if you could set up your receiver
- where both parts exist
- at the same time
- (i.e. near the moon),
VERY SPECIAL CONDITIONS :
That would require that the First Antenna 'Existed' in Reality
and a Second Antenna 'Existing' in a 2.5 Second Time Shift.
That would be some set of diversity antennas. ~ RHF
- I think one might QRM the other as you would be
- trying to listen to both parts of the wave at the same.
Yes in Theory -if- Both Signals were Time Shifted
so that they did indeed 'exist' at the same time.
- That is different than two waves just passing each other.
At the Mid-Point between the Earth-&-Moon With Two Antennas :
One for the Earth Pulse {In-Time} and a Second for the Lunar
Reflection {Shifted in Time to 'Be' In-Time} : Both Signals would
'be' "Passing Each Other" from Opposite Directions and thus
could QEM Each Other.
IIRC -IF- You were on the Surface of the Moon
at the Center of the Reflected Signal :
You would Hear the Earth Pulse very well.
You Would Not Hear Any Lunar Reflection At All [.]
THINK ABOUT IT { Here on Earth } : Do You Hear ? "The Reflection"
From Your Receiving Antenna 'On' the Signal Being Received ?
it is the nature {physics} of things at one instance in time ~ RHF
>
> > IMHO - To the Radio receiving the Two Separate Signals
> > the Answer would be a : "NO" ~ RHF
>
> > The receiving Radio is Earth 'based' -and- The Two Signals
> > come by 'different' Paths to it :
>
> > 1 - First comes the 2-Second Earth Pulse*
> > * The Earth Pulse has a 'Short Path' via Inner Atmosphere SkyWave.
> > - - - followed by a 1/2 Second of Silence.
>
> I would guess the path delay for the terrestrial signal is no more than
> .04 seconds here in the US, probably less, so transmitted time can be
> considered received time.
>
>
>
> > 2 - Second comes the 2-Second Lunar Reflection**
> > **The Lunar Reflection has a 'Long Path via the Trans-Atmosphere
> > Earth-to-Moon-to-Earth (EME) One-Big-Bounce.
> > - - - followed by a 1/2 Second of Silence.
>
> > NOTE - The Two Signal 'arrive' at the Antenna of the receiving
> > Radio at "Separate" Times in a recuring 5-Second Cycle.
>
> Exactly so. At least I have one person that agrees with me ;-).
>
>
>
> > .
> > Per the X-Files : The Answer {Truth} Is Out There ! :o)
> > .- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
H...@nospam.com
@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid says...
<SNIP>
previously that you did not agree with that prompted this?
Telamon
wrote:
What other people posted indicated they did not understand what was
happening so I posted the examples.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Billy Burpelson
> In article <2Kllj.83$R84...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
> bi...@burpelson.net says...
>> H...@nospam.com wrote:
>>
>>> I think it is more like a long train (2 seconds long) on a short
>>> U shaped track (1.25 seconds on each leg). The engine coming
>>> back will pass the caboose still on its way to the end of the U.
>>>
>> An interesting and thoughtful response. However, it generates a
>> question:
>>
>> In your train analogy above, what is to keep the leading part of
>> the echo from being QRMed by the trailing part of the transmitted
>> signal?
>>
>>
>
> The analogy is good in so far as it shows the timing, but I have to
> admit it is poor in that I used a solid object, the train, to
> represent a wave and their properties are very different. For
> example, if two trains hit head on, you are going to have a mess.
> That is not the case with waves. If you throw two rocks at the same
> time in a pond of still water so that they land some distance apart,
> the waves from each impact point move out in concentric rings. When
> the rings from one impact point spread out enough to meet the
> spreading rings of the second, there is however no "wreck". The
> rings of waves of one appear to pass through the rings of the other
> with no harm done to either wave.
I don't think that is true. I believe the waves would add, subtract or
be somewhere in between depending on their phase relationship.
> It is the energy that is moving across the water, not the water.
>
> Here is a good URL for seeing a wave reflecting.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/physics/waves/water_wavesrev3.
> shtml
>
> (http://tinyurl.com/2ykkdr)
>
> In our case the pulse is much longer so the interaction is longer,
> and it also is not physical water, but the wave theory is the same.
What you say is interesting, but...wave theory notwithstanding, what we
have are TWO RF signals on -essentially- the same frequency (ignoring
Doppler, libration, etc), the incident and the reflected. And I think we
both agree that the signals "overlap" for .75 seconds (as so aptly
stated in your 'train' analogy). Just like the old USSR jamming the VOA
-- two signals on the same frequency. Why wouldn't they interfere for
the .75 seconds in question?
Let me give you one more analogy:
Assume the moon is -totally- absorbent (no RF reflections).
Next assume an earth station sends a 2 second long 7.0000 MHz CW signal
towards the moon.
Finally, assume there is a radio operator on the moon. The -instant- he
hears the earth signal, he turns on -his- 7.0000 MHz CW transmitter.
Again, because of the 2 second earth signal and only a 1.25 second
transit time, the two signals will overlap by 0.75 seconds.
How can they NOT interfere with each other for the .75 second overlap?
This is -exactly- like SWBC jamming (only unintentional) and all the
'wave theory' in the world doesn't mean jamming doesn't work. Sorry, but
I believe two signals on the same frequency during the same period of
time will interfere with each other.
Telamon
Billy Burpelson <bi...@burpelson.net> wrote:
If you had a receiver and non-directional antenna near the moon's
surface to roughly halfway from the moon to the earth yes you would have
that vector sum to consider. The mixing would occur in the antenna at
those range of locations.
Is that where you are located?
How does the green cheese taste?
Halfway from the earth to the moon or anywhere on the earth the signals
do not exist at the same time so there is no vector sum to consider.
For the purpose of the argument YOU are trying to make we don't have to
imagine the independent transmitter on the moon.
Do you understand the direct and moon reflected signals do not exist at
the same time anywhere on the earth?
My quandary is how much to charge you per clue. I think I may have
stumbled across the ultimate get rich quick scheme.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
RHF
> H...@nospam.com wrote:
> > In article <2Kllj.83$R84...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
> > bi...@burpelson.net says...
> >> H...@nospam.com wrote:
>
> >>> I think it is more like a long train (2 seconds long) on a short
> >>> U shaped track (1.25 seconds on each leg). The engine coming
> >>> back will pass the caboose still on its way to the end of the U.
>
> >> An interesting and thoughtful response. However, it generates a
> >> question:
>
> >> In your train analogy above, what is to keep the leading part of
> >> the echo from being QRMed by the trailing part of the transmitted
> >> signal?
>
> > The analogy is good in so far as it shows the timing, but I have to
> > admit it is poor in that I used a solid object, the train, to
> > represent a wave and their properties are very different. For
> > example, if two trains hit head on, you are going to have a mess.
> > That is not the case with waves. If you throw two rocks at the same
> > time in a pond of still water so that they land some distance apart,
> > the waves from each impact point move out in concentric rings. When
> > the rings from one impact point spread out enough to meet the
> > spreading rings of the second, there is however no "wreck". The
> > rings of waves of one appear to pass through the rings of the other
> > with no harm done to either wave.
>
- I believe the waves would add, subtract or be somewhere
- in between depending on their phase relationship.
BP,
These are Phase Relationships :
* Two Identical Sine Waves {A Wave Length} perfectly
in-sync 'In Phase" + Additive
* Two Identical Sine Waves {A Wave Length} perfectly
out-of-sync 'Out-of-Phase" - Subtractive
However, when Two Identical Sine Waves are separated by
hundreds of Wave Lengths beyond a One Cycle Period :
They then are beyond being 'In' -or- 'Out' of Phase.
Thus this first becomes a Time Base Relationship and after
the Time Base Issues have been Resolved (If Possible) then
you could consider Addressing the Phase Relationship
between the two {like} Waves.
IMHO - Signal Phasing is one of the least concerns -wrt-
Earth-Moon-Earth Signals and the Relationship of the Earth
Signal Pulse and the Lunar Reflection Image :
While "Time" is the Essence of the Problem.
anti-h-g-wells basketball rules apply ~ RHF
.
> time will interfere with each other.- Hide quoted text -
Billy Burpelson
> Do you understand the direct and moon reflected signals do not exist at
> the same time anywhere on the earth?
Do -you- understand what I wrote? Do you grasp the concept? Please pay
attention.
I -never- said the direct and reflected signals would exist at the
-same- time 'anywhere on earth'.
What I -did- speculate on is that a *portion* of the echo (the echo's
leading edge) will be QRM'd *right as it leaves the moon* (the first
0.75 seconds of the echo) by the trailing edge of the incident wave (its
last 0.75 seconds). Therefore, either a shortened echo (due to full
cancellation of the 'overlap', which is unlikely) or an echo with a
distorted or weakened leading edge (more likely) will ultimately reach
the earth, depending on how much out-of-phase cancellation at the moon
end of the circuit occured.
Telamon
Billy Burpelson <bi...@burpelson.net> wrote:
> Telamon wrote:
>
> > Do you understand the direct and moon reflected signals do not exist at
> > the same time anywhere on the earth?
>
> Do -you- understand what I wrote? Do you grasp the concept? Please pay
> attention.
Yes I understand what you wrote loser and I'm doing my best to explain
that your thinking is incorrect. I'm the second person tell you this.
> I -never- said the direct and reflected signals would exist at the
> -same- time 'anywhere on earth'.
I didn't say you did. I was trying to give you the bigger picture.
> What I -did- speculate on is that a *portion* of the echo (the echo's
> leading edge) will be QRM'd *right as it leaves the moon* (the first
> 0.75 seconds of the echo) by the trailing edge of the incident wave (its
> last 0.75 seconds). Therefore, either a shortened echo (due to full
> cancellation of the 'overlap', which is unlikely) or an echo with a
> distorted or weakened leading edge (more likely) will ultimately reach
> the earth, depending on how much out-of-phase cancellation at the moon
> end of the circuit occured.
OK you misunderstood what I wrote, which is these EM waves can mix as
you think in a antenna in the part of space where the wave going to the
moon exists in the same space time as the reflected signal. Without the
antenna these waves do not interact. With the antenna they do interact.
Is that redundant enough for you?
Logically, since no antennas exist in this area of space time your idle
speculation is moot. Now you have had two people explain this to you so
if this does not sink into your very dense skull give up.
Let me explain something else to you O'clueless wonder and that's if you
don't get it your problem not mine.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
RHF
> Telamon wrote:
> > Do you understand the direct and moon reflected signals do not exist at
> > the same time anywhere on the earth?
>
> Do -you- understand what I wrote? Do you grasp the concept? Please pay
> attention.
>
> I -never- said the direct and reflected signals would exist at the
> -same- time 'anywhere on earth'.
- What I -did- speculate on is that a *portion* of the echo
- (the echo's leading edge) will be QRM'd *right as it leaves
- the moon* (the first 0.75 seconds of the echo) by the
- trailing edge of the incident wave (its last 0.75 seconds).
- Therefore, either a shortened echo (due to full cancellation
- of the 'overlap', which is unlikely) or an echo with a
- distorted or weakened leading edge (more likely) will
- ultimately reach the earth, depending on how much
- out-of-phase cancellation at the moon end of the
- circuit occured.
-
BP,
What you are saying is the 'theoretical' Signal Time-Line
on the Moon 'might-be' :
[ Roughly 0.1 Second Time Increments ]
EEEEEEEEEE 1 { 'E' 100% Earth Pulse }
EEEEEEEEEE 2
EEEEEEEEEE 3
EEEEEEEEEE 4
EEEEEEEEEE 5
EEEEEEEEEE 6
EEEEEEEEEE 7
EEEEEEEEEE 8
EEEEEEEEEE 9
EEEEEEEEEE 10
EEEEEEEEEE 11
EEEEEEEEEE 12
eeeee l l l l l 13 { 'e l' Mixed Signal Conditions}
eeeee l l l l l 14
eeeee l l l l l 15
eeeee l l l l l 16
eeeee l l l l l 17
eeeee l l l l l 18
eeeee l l l l l 19
eeeee l l l l l 20
LLLLLLLLLL 21 { 'L' 100% Lunar Reflection }
LLLLLLLLLL 22
LLLLLLLLLL 23
LLLLLLLLLL 24
LLLLLLLLLL 25
LLLLLLLLLL 26
LLLLLLLLLL 27
LLLLLLLLLL 28
LLLLLLLLLL 29
LLLLLLLLLL 20
LLLLLLLLLL 21
LLLLLLLLLL 22
IWFT - The 'potential' Exists for these "Mixed Signal Conditions"
to be Observed in the Signal Received by the Earth Radio.
OK - It is 'possible' ~ RHF
.
Telamon
<5f288a92-24ac-4c89...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
RHF <rhf-new...@pacbell.net> wrote:
For God's sake it's not possible. Didn't you read my examples? Can't you
think at all? EM waves don't directly interact with each other anyway.
Think what would the result would be if this luny-tunes idea were true.
How about the people that designed the experiment? Do they have a
functioning brain? I would say yes! Do you? I would say no and that also
goes for Billy boy.
How embarrassing.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
<5f288a92-24ac-4c89...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
RHF <rhf-new...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Here get yourself one of these and don't take it off for any reason.
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in
_article_id=510172&in_page_id=1774>
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
RHF
<telamon_spamshi...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <5f288a92-24ac-4c89-b3d3-2b2c6acc0...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
(OT) : HAARPing With Telamon : Do We Have Enough Bandwidth ?
The Never Ending Lunar echo, Echo. ECHO !
- For God's sake it's not possible.
OK - We have your word for that.
-ps- For God's Sake : Chill-Out Dude !
This was a Hypothetical Discussion based on the
'potential' for 'possibilities' given the condition of
'what if' where the 'if' beyond both the Scientific and
practical limits of the Experiment.
Remember - There is an 'if' in the word : "Scient-if-ic"
- Didn't you read my examples?
Yes But - Maybe I did not understand them
in the same the way that you did.
- Can't you think at all?
thinking, Thinking. THINKING ! - OK - My Trible Redundant
System Check Shows That : I Can Think !
- EM waves don't directly interact with each other anyway.
Hey Score One For You ! {In FreeSpace}
However - I Did Write :
IWFT - The 'potential' Exists for these "Mixed Signal Conditions"
to be Observed in the Signal Received by the Earth Radio.
Once Two Signals are inside a Radio/Recever "It Ain't Free Space"
- Think what would the result would be
if this luny-tunes idea were true.
A Universal Mixed Product RF/EM Environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
- How about the people that designed the experiment?
Maybe 'if' you would first read and attempt to understand
-vice- Being So Judgemental : Remember I wrote in this
very thread :
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
From: RHF <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:03:28 -0800 (PST)
Local: Tues, Jan 22 2008 8:03 am
Subject: Re: HAARP What Bandwidth?
(was Re: Recording of HAARP and Moon Echo)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/1746e18812e433e1
.
I 'Trust' to the Fact that the HAARP Scientists
are Equal to Rocket Scientists and that :
They Do Know What They Are Doing. ~ RHF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_science
- Do they have a functioning brain?
IMHO - Clearly They Do.
- I would say yes!
On That We Can Agree.
- Do you?
On That We Clearly Disagree.
- I would say no and that also goes for Billy boy.
You Are Entitle To You Opinion.
EVEN WHEN YOU ARE WRONG [.]
- How embarrassing.
-
- --
- Telamon
- Ventura, California
Yes - Indeed "How Embarrassing" For You. ~ RHF
.
Telamon
<4fe401c8-f206-4bc4...@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
RHF <rhf-new...@pacbell.net> wrote:
To bad for you that you don't understand. By all means don't take my
word for it as you can go read up on the subject.
> - How embarrassing.
>
> Yes - Indeed "How Embarrassing" For You. ~ RHF
>
You don't get it even after I posted about it?
You can go educate yourself but that takes work doesn't it? So you won't
do the work you will instead continue to remain ignorant either for the
reason of ability or laziness but that's your problem not mine. So do
continue to make foolish posts. They are very entertaining.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
H...@nospam.com
bi...@burpelson.net says...
<SNIP>
> >> In your train analogy above, what is to keep the leading part of
> >> the echo from being QRMed by the trailing part of the transmitted
> >> signal?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > The analogy is good in so far as it shows the timing, but I have to
> > admit it is poor in that I used a solid object, the train, to
> > represent a wave and their properties are very different. For
> > example, if two trains hit head on, you are going to have a mess.
> > That is not the case with waves. If you throw two rocks at the same
> > time in a pond of still water so that they land some distance apart,
> > the waves from each impact point move out in concentric rings. When
> > the rings from one impact point spread out enough to meet the
> > spreading rings of the second, there is however no "wreck". The
> > rings of waves of one appear to pass through the rings of the other
> > with no harm done to either wave.
>
> I don't think that is true. I believe the waves would add, subtract or
> be somewhere in between depending on their phase relationship.
What you say is true, but what I said is also true. The waves are not
"wrecked" and after the waves pass each other, they are are the same as
before they overlapped.
I found a reference on the web
(http://www.smgaels.org/physics/amsco_review_and_glencoe/chapter04.pdf)
that says it much better than I could. On page 109 the author states:
(Beginning of Quote)
"Two or more waves may pass through a medium at the same time. When this
occurs two rules apply. First, the total displacement experienced at any
point where waves meet is equal to the sum of the displacements of the
individual waves at that point. This is known as the principle of
superposition. Second, waves pass through each other, with each wave
unaffected by the passage of the others. After meeting, the individual
waves continue traveling in their original directions and with the same
characteristics as before."
(End of Quote)
<SNIP>
> What you say is interesting, but...wave theory notwithstanding, what we
> have are TWO RF signals on -essentially- the same frequency (ignoring
> Doppler, libration, etc), the incident and the reflected. And I think we
> both agree that the signals "overlap" for .75 seconds (as so aptly
> stated in your 'train' analogy).
Actually they overlap for very close to 2 seconds. Thinking back to the
train analogy, the instant the pulse hits the moon (cow catcher on the
engine) and starts back the other way as an echo, we have an overlap.
That means 99.99% of the pulse (train), or almost 2 seconds worth, still
has to hit the surface and reflect before there is no longer an overlap.
> Just like the old USSR jamming the VOA
> -- two signals on the same frequency. Why wouldn't they interfere for
> the .75 seconds in question?
I think they do to the extent of the "superposition" of the waves, and
if you were in a space capsule with a receiver 1000 miles from the
surface of the moon, I think you might indeed hear that interference.
>
> Let me give you one more analogy:
>
> Assume the moon is -totally- absorbent (no RF reflections).
>
> Next assume an earth station sends a 2 second long 7.0000 MHz CW signal
> towards the moon.
>
> Finally, assume there is a radio operator on the moon. The -instant- he
> hears the earth signal, he turns on -his- 7.0000 MHz CW transmitter.
>
> Again, because of the 2 second earth signal and only a 1.25 second
> transit time, the two signals will overlap by 0.75 seconds.
>
> How can they NOT interfere with each other for the .75 second overlap?
> This is -exactly- like SWBC jamming (only unintentional) and all the
> 'wave theory' in the world doesn't mean jamming doesn't work. Sorry, but
> I believe two signals on the same frequency during the same period of
> time will interfere with each other.
>
I agree. I thought your opening question, "what is to keep the leading
part of the echo from being QRMed by the trailing part of the
transmitted signal?", was asking why the overlapping signals
(transmitted and echo) didn't QRM the echo at the receivers on earth.
That is why I gave the example of the stones to show that did not
happen. I did not realize you were indicating a hypothetical receiver
where the signals are overlapping. My apologies.
RHF
<telamon_spamshi...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <5f288a92-24ac-4c89-b3d3-2b2c6acc0...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
- Here get yourself one of these and don't take it off for any reason.
-
- <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/
healthmain.html?in
- _article_id=510172&in_page_id=1774>
-
- --
- Telamon
- Ventura, California
Gee - Telamon - A Personage of Your Great Knowledge :
Don't You Know How To Provide and Un-Truncated Link/URL ?
-=WRT=- Your Link from the Daily Mail [UK]
The Helmet That Could Turn Back The Symptoms of Alzheimer's
{ Electro Gizmo Beanie - http://tinyurl.com/3xem75 }
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=510172&in_page_id=1774
-by- David Derbyshire - The Daily Mail - 25th January 2008
Telamon - I take it that this Recommendation is base on your
own Personal Experience : Oops I've Got News For You . . .
It Ain't Working ! ~ RHF
OBTW - I prefer the Inverted "CK" Antenna : After all it is a
passive device and natually : No Batteries Are Required.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/9b260fb0b38afd68
The Inverted "CK" Antenna (Patent Pending) is the Ultimate
Solution for All Your Cranial Reception and Cerebral
Interference Needs. CAUTION: When Properly Installed.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/f31dbdfa5566478c
YES - The Inverted "CK" Antenna - For the ever Increasing
Number of Senior-Moments that are getting ever and forever
longer and longer . . .
WOW - When The Tin Foil Hat Just Can't Get The Crazy Job Done.
It's time to put the Inverted "CK" Antenna back-on !
Remember the Solid Copper Kettle Pot Keeps the Brain from Boiling.
telamon -wrt- alzheimer's disease - I honestly hope that no
member of you family is so afflected. - it ain't no joke [.] ~ RHF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alzheimer's_disease
.
RHF
<telamon_spamshi...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <4fe401c8-f206-4bc4-a675-f835ba973...@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
- You don't get it even after I posted about it?
Dang - Telamon - You are getting smarter with every post.
- You can go educate yourself but that takes work doesn't it?
On this we could agree.
Education = Work
Work = Acomplishment
Acomplishment = Education . . .
- So you won't do the work you will instead continue to remain
- ignorant either for the reason of ability or laziness but that's
- your problem not mine.
Yes 'my' Ignorance is 'my' Problem -and- Your Problems are
Your Problems : One of Them Being Arguing With 'me'.
- So do continue to make foolish posts.
Clearly History Repeats Itself : When We Don't Learn From It.
-ps- So Do Continue To Make Replies To Same {Foolish Posts}.
- They are very entertaining.
HEY - SEE THERE I HAVE SOME VALUE :o)
-and- THAT IS SOMETHING AFTER-ALL !
-
- --
- Telamon
- Ventura, California
-
~ RHF
Twain Harte, California -USA-
-and- Oakland, California -USA-
.
Telamon
wrote:
Superposition is the concept. The EM waves in space do not interact. Yes
they certainly would interact in an antenna where they would create a
vector sum.
Since it is the same signal the interaction in the antenna would be to
weaken if out of phase to strengthen if in phase. It would not sound
like interference.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Kenneth Isham
I have been reading this thread and wonder how the movement of Earth
compared to the moon would affect the signal?
Wouldn't this also ensure the signal would never interfere with itself
as the signal would always be different location on the moon due to
rotational movement.
Ken I.
dxAce
Kenneth Isham wrote:
I don't think HAARP has the capability of targeting a 'different location' on
the moon. This has been pointed out if not here then in other forums.
dxAce
Michigan
USA
RHF
- Telamon:
-
- I have been reading this thread and wonder how the movement
- of Earth compared to the moon would affect the signal?
- Wouldn't this also ensure the signal would never interfere
- with itself as the signal would always be different location
- on the moon due to rotational movement.
-
- Ken I.
-
KEN I. - There must be many "Major" and 'minor' Factors :
Most likely the Biggest Factor was the Separation {The Distance
Between} of the Earth Pulse Sending Site in Alaska and the Lunar
Reflection Receiving Site in New Mexico.
The HF Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) in Alaska
http://k9zw.wordpress.com/2008/01/18/haarp-lwa-eme-bounce/
and the Long Wavelength Array (LWA) in New Mexico are
planning an additional Lunar Echo Experiment for Jan 18-19.
WHY - Being in a 'place' where you could Hear
both Signals Independently :
* Earth Pulse via Skywave {One Path}
* Lunar Reflection TransSkyWave (2x Out-and-In) {Other Path}
Effectively the Great Distance from Earth-to-Moon 238,857 Miles
renders the Variation in the Altitude of the Moon's Surface : the
Ups-and-Down to be a Non-Factor.
But there is the actual Surface of the Moon itself : Size/Area;
Material Composition; Hardness; RF/EM Properties; etc
Moon Diameter : 2,160 Miles
-and- YES this could be a Factor in the Reflection of Each
Earth Pulse as a Series of Independant Events.
However - HAARP is a Very Large Array {Antenna}
* It Sends Out A Very Focused Signal from at Wide Area
* A Large Area of the Moon is Covered by this Signal
-if- Not All of the Surface
* The Moon is a Very Large Convex Surface that is being used
as a Reflector for this Signal. Given the Larger Distances that
are involved it may be considered to be a "Flat" Surface.
Doing-the-Math :
Earth-to-Moon Distance : 238,857 Miles
Lunar Orbit : 1.5 Million Miles
Moon Diameter : 2,160 Miles
Half Lunar Surface Circumferance : 3391 Miles
Therefore the Half-of-the-Surface of the Moon being used
as a Reflector is 'only' about One (1°) Degree-of-Arc with
respect to the Earth as being the center of it's Orbit.
Thus given it's relative small Half-Surface Size and Distance
from the Earth it can also be considered a "Point Source"
Target and Reflector.
TBL - To me it all boils down to :
How Good Is "The Entire Half-Surface" of the Moon as a Radio
Frequency Signal Reflector for the Frequencies being Transmitted.
Individual Pulse Time versus the Earth and Moon Movements Times :
* Individual Earth Pulse Time Two Seconds (2")
* Earth Rotation 24 Hours ~ 86,400 Seconds [1:43,200]
* Lunar Rotation 28 Days ~ 2.42 Million Seconds [1:1.21M]
Clearly the Movement of both the Earth and the Moon in
just the Two Seconds (2") of the Individual Earth Pulse is
NOT a Significant Factor.
However -IF- It were you could 'Fractionalize' the Two Seconds
(2") of an Individual Earth Pulse into 200, 2000, etc Discrete
Parts and then Evaluate each Discrete Part and Add them all
back together again to have something [some number*}.
* Most Likely the Exact Number of . . . . . . . . . .
Angels That Can Fit-On-To-The Head-of-a-Pin. :o)
i am all pulsed out and going lunar ~ RHF
.
H...@nospam.com
Interesting point. It would seem that might be the case, at least in
theory. Sort of like the Young's double slit experiment with a single
monochromatic light source passing through two slits and interacting to
create bands of constructive and destructive interference. I wonder if
in practice though if Doppler and other effects might alter the
frequency enough so that it would still sound like interference at the
receiver.
That two slit experiment however would also tend to indicate that EM
waves do interact in space regardless if there is an antenna around or
not. Perhaps the antenna is only the vehicle for capturing the
interaction and not required for the actual interaction.
Or perhaps it is only a matter of semantics.
http://www.studyphysics.ca/newnotes/20/unit04_light/chp1719
_light/lesson58.htm
> Telamon:
>
> I have been reading this thread and wonder how the movement of Earth
> compared to the moon would affect the signal?
> Wouldn't this also ensure the signal would never interfere with itself
> as the signal would always be different location on the moon due to
> rotational movement.
>
> Ken I.
>
I think at the HF frequencies of HAARP the beam width is much too wide
at those distances to focus on one spot. That, along with the fact the
angular movement is so small compared to the speed of the radio wave,
would seem to preclude that from happening.
We have sure batted this topic around enough :-).
Telamon
wrote:
What is happening here is that the two waves of varying phase fall upon
a different medium like white paper that causes them to interact and
readmit a light level (an output) according to the phase result of the
two incoming wave inputs. The antenna and white paper perform the same
function allowing the EM waves of different phase to interact.
>
>
>
> >
> > I have been reading this thread and wonder how the movement of Earth
> > compared to the moon would affect the signal?
> > Wouldn't this also ensure the signal would never interfere with itself
> > as the signal would always be different location on the moon due to
> > rotational movement.
> >
> >
>
>
> I think at the HF frequencies of HAARP the beam width is much too wide
> at those distances to focus on one spot. That, along with the fact the
> angular movement is so small compared to the speed of the radio wave,
> would seem to preclude that from happening.
>
> We have sure batted this topic around enough :-).
The EM waves will not interact with each other in space. Can you imagine
the chaos that would result on earth if this were to occur with all the
different EM waves at your location nothing would be receivable. You can
see this point right? If this were not true then any medium could only
ever carry one signal at a time light or radio both being EM waves.
What happens if there is an antenna that picks up the forward and
reflected signals then defines or creates a different environment of a
specific local vector sum of the resulting fields in the elements at
that point in space. This vector sum being the interaction in the
antenna where the forward and reverse direction signals would either add
or subtract according to the phase relationship at the antenna
terminals. You would then sample the result a measurement device.
If you left the transmitter on you would create by superposition a
standing wave between the earth and moon and this could be detected with
an antenna that would pick up both as it moved along between the earth
and moon. This is no different that forward and reflected waves in any
transmission environment. Don't lose sight that the antenna has to pick
up both signals for them to mix.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
dker...@gmail.com
> I recorded it last night, just posted it, You need an .ogg player.
> This is was recorded on 6.7925 in CW mode
> with a portable mp3 player recording it
>
> http://www.mediafire.com/?71x4h0wbjd0
>
> Enjoy
> Rory
Start your own online business. Sell ebooks/software. Full reprint
rights. http://www.fastdatacash.com/in.php?ix=1959
Make money with your own website. Keep 100% of all profits.
http://www.fastdatacash.com/in.php?ix=1959
Earn tons of cash online selling ebooks/software. http://www.fastdatacash.com/in.php?ix=1959
The best online income opportunity. Operate your own ebusiness.
http://www.fastdatacash.com/in.php?ix=1959
Earn big money by selling ebooks/software with your own website. Keep
all profits for yourself. http://www.fastdatacash.com/in.php?ix=1959
Billy Burpelson
A basic web search on wave propagation theory says *nothing* about
needing an antenna for the signals to add or cancel. HSD gets it; RHF
gets it, but you don't seem to get it. Here are a few references that
may help you:
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference
> Theory
>
> The principle of superposition of waves states that the resultant
> displacement at a point is equal to the vector sum of the
> displacements of different waves at that point. If a crest of a wave
> meets a crest of another wave at the same point then the crests
> interfere constructively and the resultant wave amplitude is greater.
> If a crest of a wave meets a trough of another wave then they
> interfere destructively, and the overall amplitude is decreased.
[please note: it just says 'if they meet'. Nothing about needing an
antenna.]
> Characteristics
> All waves have common behavior under a number of standard situations.
> All waves can experience the following:
>
> * Reflection - wave direction change from hitting a reflective
> surface
> * Interference - superposition of two waves that come into contact
> with each other (collide)
[Please note it says nothing about colliding in an antenna]
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle
> First version of the superposition principle
>
> * The phenomenon of interference between waves is based on the
> superposition principle. Waves are usually described by variations in
> some parameter through space and time (for example, height in a
> water wave, pressure in a sound wave, or the electromagnetic field in
> a light wave). The superposition principle says that the net
> variation in that parameter caused by two or more waves traversing
> the same space, is the sum of the variations of that parameter which
> would have been produced by the individual waves separately. (For
> waves described by vector fields, such as electromagnetic waves, the
> sum is a vector sum.) In some cases, the summed variation has a
> smaller amplitude than the component variations; this is called
> destructive interference. Other times, the summed variation will have
> a bigger amplitude than any of the components individually; this is
> called constructive interference.
[Again, please note that -nothing- is said about requiring an antenna.]
from http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/quantum/glossary.shtml
> Interference. Interfering.
> Compare with constructive interference and destructive interference.
> The amplitudes of waves moving into the same region of space add to
> produce a single resultant wave. The resulting wave can have higher
> or lower amplitude than the component waves. See constructive
> interference* and destructive interference*.
[Again, please note that they refer to 'same region of space', and say
nothing of requiring an antenna]
Nothing in wave theory says an 'antenna' is required for interference to
occur.
Finally, I originated a polite, on-topic post. You responded with
vulgarity, name-calling and rudeness. Hopefully, you will eventually
awaken to the fact that your obnoxious behavior hurts no one but
yourself and serves only to illustrate your character (or lack thereof).
Billy Burpelson
> What is happening here is that the two waves of varying phase fall
> upon
> The EM waves will not interact with each other in space. Can you
> imagine the chaos that would result on earth if this were to occur
> with all the different EM waves at your location nothing would be
> receivable. You can see this point right?
-You- miss the point, right?
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference
> Interference is the addition (superposition) of two or more waves
> that results in a new wave pattern.
>
> As most commonly used, the term interference usually refers to the
> interaction of waves which are correlated or coherent with each
> other, either because they come from the same source or because they
> have the same or nearly the same frequency.
Please carefully re-read the part that says: "because they have the same
or nearly the same frequency".
So, yes, that is why we experience QRM (interference) on earth: because
*some* signals are at the same or nearly the same frequency and that is
why everything else doesn't interfere with everything else -- because
they are *different* frequencies. No antenna needed!
craigm
>>> What I -did- speculate on is that a *portion* of the echo (the
>>> echo's leading edge) will be QRM'd *right as it leaves the moon*
>>> (the first 0.75 seconds of the echo) by the trailing edge of the
>>> incident wave (its last 0.75 seconds). Therefore, either a
>>> shortened echo (due to full cancellation of the 'overlap', which is
>>> unlikely) or an echo with a distorted or weakened leading edge
>>> (more likely) will ultimately reach the earth, depending on how
>>> much out-of-phase cancellation at the moon end of the circuit
>>> occured.
>>
Your error is assuming that echo is modified by the incident wave. The waves
pass by each other without interacting.
When you try to observe the waves, using any method, you get the sum of the
two signals. So anywhere they 'overlap' you will see interference. This is
superposition.
If you look at a point where there is no overlap, you only see one signal.
Then you observe no interference.
Billy Burpelson
> Billy Burpelson wrote:
>
>
>>>> What I -did- speculate on is that a *portion* of the echo (the
>>>> echo's leading edge) will be QRM'd *right as it leaves the moon*
>>>> (the first 0.75 seconds of the echo) by the trailing edge of the
>>>> incident wave (its last 0.75 seconds). Therefore, either a
>>>> shortened echo (due to full cancellation of the 'overlap', which is
>>>> unlikely) or an echo with a distorted or weakened leading edge
>>>> (more likely) will ultimately reach the earth, depending on how
>>>> much out-of-phase cancellation at the moon end of the circuit
>>>> occured.
craigm wrote:
> Your error is assuming that echo is modified by the incident wave. The waves
> pass by each other without interacting.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Above, you say they will
"pass by each other without interacting". Below, you say "anywhere they
'overlap' you *will* see interference". [emphasis added].
> When you try to observe the waves, using any method, you get the sum of the
> two signals. So anywhere they 'overlap' you will see interference. This is
> superposition.
I agree -- and if you read what I said above (or tried to say) was
addressing the overlap, which due to superposition, will either
constructively or destructively add; in either case, the 'overlap'
portion of the echo (leading edge) -will- be modified (or degraded or
interfered with, however you want to look at it) by the trailing edge of
the incident signal, and that portion of the echo, when received on
earth, will be perceived as such.
Aren't we really saying the same thing???
craigm
No it is not the same. The waves do not interact with each other. It is the
ability to observe them that is the problem. Where they overlap you are
seeing the sum of two independent waves. When the wave moves beyond the
overlap, it has not been changed. Outside of the area of the overlap, there
is no evidence of the prior overlapping.
Billy Burpelson
Sorry, I respectfully suggest you might be incorrect here. In your
second paragraph, you say "So anywhere they 'overlap' you will see
interference.This is superposition". I agree with that.
I think all of us agree that because of the timing of the signal, the
last part of the incident wave will 'overlap' the leading edge of the
echo, just starting to head back to earth. Per YOUR statement above,
they are overlapping and thus will 'interfere'. (and by 'interfere', I
mean your 'super positioning' will cause the leading edge of the echo to
be 'distorted', either because of constructive or destructive addition.
This distorted front edge of the echo will continue on to earth along
with the un-molested last part of the echo. Once the overlap/super
positioning has created the distortion (or interference or whatever you
want to call it), it will stay there. How can you 'UN-ring' a bell that
has been rung?
RHF
>
> - Show quoted text -
BP - Seems Like IAPIAT - You Would Have To Be . . .
On The Surface of the Moon to Experience this 'Overlap'.
Down here on Earth you simple get two separate Signals
that come from two different Sources along two separate
Paths to your Earth bound Radio {Location}.
lets talk about reality not iapiat ~ RHF
.
craigm
The overlap is -not- modifying either wave. It is the ability to observe
that leads to the perception of distortion. Perhaps some poor analogies
will help.
1) Two ships are traveling towards each other on the ocean. You see them as
silhouettes. As they pass each other, the silhouette you see is the
combination of the two. Your view is therefore distorted. Once they pass,
there is no overlap and each is unchanged.
2) Take two light beams, one red and another green. Cross them so they form
an "X" and in the distance they shine on a wall. The red beam will cause a
red spot to appear on the wall, the green beam will form a green spot on
the wall. If you hold a piece of paper in the beams where they cross you
will see a different color. This is because of the superposition of the two
beams. They pass through this overlapping region and are unchanged.
In both cases, you see something different at the overlap, but the original
items are unchanged when they leave the overlapping region.
> This distorted front edge of the echo will continue on to earth along
> with the un-molested last part of the echo. Once the overlap/super
> positioning has created the distortion (or interference or whatever you
> want to call it), it will stay there.
You have to understand the meaning of the words I used. Note I used the
phrase "try to observe the waves". The problem is that by trying to look at
what is going on at a specific location, you don't see the bigger picture.
Looking inside the overlap you appear to see a distorted wave when you are
actually looking at two independent waves that get added together by
whatever you are using to observe them. Once they get past each other they
are unchanged.
It is not that the waves are changed. The limitation is in your ability to
observe them.
> How can you 'UN-ring' a bell that
> has been rung?
That is a totally different thing. When you ring a bell you are applying a
force to the bell. You are interacting with the bell. Overlapping waves are
not interacting with each other.
Telamon
Billy Burpelson <bi...@burpelson.net> wrote:
If you don't understand what you read well then there is no hope for
you. Give up. Just accept the concepts are beyond your understanding. I
can't do anything more for you.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
craigm <no...@domain.invalid> wrote:
What I find interesting here is how long your patience will last. I
doubt more examples will help. I'm done with Mr. Burp. Good luck.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
RHF
>
> - Show quoted text -
CraigM - TYVM for the Illustrations.
Even I could understand them. ~ RHF
.
RHF
<telamon_spamshi...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote:
> In article <W29nj.15$s%2.28...@news.sisna.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Telamon - You mean to say that the little 'burp'
turned out to be a Big "Belch" ! ~ RHF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burping
Burping -v- Belching -sos- [doom]
.