Ham Radio and Moonbounce

But either way, however it happens, on a flat earth, the signal would ALWAYS be received in front of you rather than behind. And apologies for the poor pictures but you get the idea.

When you broadcast a wave which can bounce of both the Ionosphere and the ground, it's obviously going to be scattered in every possible direction at the first ricochet and then be scattered in every possible direction on the second ricochet. It doesn't take much to imagine a scenario where the photons are bouncing a few times off angled surfaces and being reflected back towards the antenna, even coming from another direction from which it was sent.

How can you tell which way the photons are coming, or what path they are taking?

Quote

But either way, however it happens, on a flat earth, the signal would ALWAYS be received in front of you rather than behind. And apologies for the poor pictures but you get the idea.

When you broadcast a wave which can bounce of both the Ionosphere and the ground, it's obviously going to be scattered in every possible direction at the first ricochet and then be scattered in every possible direction on the second ricochet. It doesn't take much to imagine a scenario where the photons are bouncing a few times off angled surfaces and being reflected back towards the antenna, even coming from another direction from which it was sent.

The scenario you describe would involve the signal coming back to you from a seemingly random direction dependent upon local topography ...

But Julian Martin has described a phenomenon where the signal always come back to you from behind you (a bearing of 180 degrees from the path the signal went out from).

So your explanation is, frankly, not adequate (you appear to be clutching at straws).

When you broadcast a wave which can bounce of both the Ionosphere and the ground, it's obviously going to be scattered in every possible direction

Obviously, but not convincingly, I'm afraid.   If (as you say) the waves are scattered in every possible direction, then they're not going to be in any single direction.  So your later statement that:

photons are bouncing a few times off angled surfaces and being reflected back towards the antenna, even coming from another direction from which it was sent.

...contradicts the first, as you are now talking about waves travelling in specific directions.

It's not a coherent argument.

Quote

But either way, however it happens, on a flat earth, the signal would ALWAYS be received in front of you rather than behind. And apologies for the poor pictures but you get the idea.

When you broadcast a wave which can bounce of both the Ionosphere and the ground, it's obviously going to be scattered in every possible direction at the first ricochet and then be scattered in every possible direction on the second ricochet. It doesn't take much to imagine a scenario where the photons are bouncing a few times off angled surfaces and being reflected back towards the antenna, even coming from another direction from which it was sent.

How can you tell which way the photons are coming, or what path they are taking?

Man alive you are a tool sometimes Tom, I have to say.

And what do you mean "it's obviously going to be scattered in every possible direction at the first ricochet" ?

Firstly, ricochets are a property of solid objects. I'm talking about a reflection tom. Of EM waves that have a single phase length of upto 80-100 metres.

Secondly, it's "obviously" going to be scattered is it? What is obvious about that? If what you are saying is right, pretty much all longwave radio communication theory to this day is entirely flawed. I wouldn't be able to have a directional antenna in the first place - as all signals would have this erratic reflection behaviour. The entire ham radio community experiences otherwise I'm afraid. Go out and buy a radio and a Yagi beam and test out your theory yourself before you try to modify basic EM theory.

Thirdly, buy a book on radio communications before you argue with statements like that.

Fourthly, I WANT DIAGRAMS!

Fourthly, I WANT DIAGRAMS!

So do I (please)!

How can you tell which way the photons are coming, or what path they are taking?

Forgot to answer this Tom.

You can use a Bellini-Tosi direction finder device.

See here: http://leeds1.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkpdf&contentId=1676641&history=true&StyleSheetView=all

How can you tell which way the photons are coming, or what path they are taking?

This is a perfect example of "talking out one's ass", as is so common with FE'ers.  Tom has demonstrated that he really does not have a grasp of even the most basic concepts in this thread, and yet he presumes to be some kind of expert who is qualified to contradict accepted science in this field.  Staggering.

Anyone who has lost their way in an airplane and followed a directional radio signal, or observed zoologists use a directional antenna to track a tagged animal understands these basic ideas.  Or is "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom" in on NASA's conspiracy?  They are tried and proven over the decades by tens of thousands of pilots and other radio operators.  The fact that anyone is willing to even suggest this information isn't accurate shows them to be completely out of touch with reality, Tom.

... It doesn't take much to imagine a scenario where the photons are bouncing a few times off angled surfaces and being reflected back towards the antenna, even coming from another direction from which it was sent.

How can you tell which way the photons are coming, or what path they are taking?

Since when is something that is easy to imagine scientific?

It doesn't take much to imagine a group of people who are so desperate for attention that they are willing to trade their dignity to get it.

Sorry, but a signal which is bouncing off of the atmosphere and ground like rubber balls in a bucket is not going to be traveling in one direction. The direction is defendant on the angle of the surface it is reflected from. Obviously some are going to return to the source.

I have seen no evidence that the waves are traveling around a globe earth. There are a plethora of other paths it can be taking to return to the observer.

Nor has evidence been presented that the signals are only received exactly 180 degrees behind the observer and none other.

Nor has evidence been presented that the signals are only received exactly 180 degrees behind the observer and none other.

The evidence before us is Julian Martin's first-hand account of repeatable experiences that he has actually had with his own equipment.

This is in contrast to your assertion that:

All that is known at present is that the coast of Antarctica stretches out into a seemingly perpetual  expanse of ice and snow.

Which appears to be based on nothing but your own opinion:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29967.msg733899#msg733899

Edit: so who is being more scientific here - you or Julian Martin?

The evidence before us is Julian Martin's first-hand account of repeatable experiences that he has actually had with his own equipment.

What equipment would that be? Ham radio antennas can pick up signals from many different directions.

Quote

The evidence before us is Julian Martin's first-hand account of repeatable experiences that he has actually had with his own equipment.

What equipment would that be? Ham radio antennas can pick up signals from many different directions.

Julian Martin has already answered this question:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 29, 2009, 04:18:57 PM

How can you tell which way the photons are coming, or what path they are taking?

Forgot to answer this Tom.

You can use a Bellini-Tosi direction finder device.

See here: http://leeds1.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkpdf&contentId=1676641&history=true&StyleSheetView=all

Are you even reading his posts properly?

Quote

The evidence before us is Julian Martin's first-hand account of repeatable experiences that he has actually had with his own equipment.

What equipment would that be? Ham radio antennas can pick up signals from many different directions.

The question has been asked and answered already.  Are you seriously saying that you don't understand how a directional antenna works?  How about every satellite dish you have ever seen?  Or every large, outdoor TV antenna ever made?  Any DirectTV or Dish Network customer who has had their dish bumped a tenth of a degree and lost their signal can attest to this.

Anyone can detect the direction of a common Wi-Fi signal with a paper plate wrapped in tin-foil positioned behind the antenna as a focusing reflector.

Why is this so mysterious for you?  I contend that it isn't and you are just trying to digress the discussion like you always do.  I think grasping at straws has degraded into Number 9 on the "Tools of The Debate Impostor" list.  Can anyone confirm?

Edited for preciseness, and added that "JulianMartin" is my new hero!  Sorry, Tesla.

Jules, (may I call you Jules too?)

Kudos!  You have - in short time and few posts - nailed FET to the wall in what I can only describe as a brilliant and elegant display of scientific expertise and debate prowess.  This thread stands as a monument to the true dichotomy between pseudoscience and reality, in a field of false idols and rubbish heaps.

If any FE'er were to best you, it would assuredly convince me that the Earth is as flat as the top of Tom's head.

I am proud to know you, Sir.


.

I doubt Mr Bishop has satellite TV at home. However I am sure that he has a compelling theory to say why all satellite TV dishes point upwards towards particular points in the sky.

... I am sure that he has a compelling theory to say why all satellite TV dishes point upwards towards particular points in the sky.

Irrelevant and immaterial.  My post demonstrates how the direction of an incoming signal can be accurately determined with simple, common and well understood equipment, regardless of where that signal originates (from satellites in orbit or from NASA's Nazi-Penguin-Ice-Wall-Sniper-operated pirate TV stations).

That's why I like this one so much.  Tom's best argument is to ignorantly deny the basic principals of RF transmission; ones that anyone can easily verify with the simplest of equipment.  His remarks fly in the face of common sense and shows that there is simply no room in FET for what JulianMartin has put forth.  I doubt that anyone but Tom has enough self-loathing to invite ridicule by disputing such axioms, and other FE'ers are indeed staying away from this thread like the plague.  Tesla's star trails thread went a similar way, and it remains standing (as of this post) as a confirmed failure of FET to withstand scientific scrutiny.

The question has been asked and answered already.  Are you seriously saying that you don't understand how a directional antenna works?  How about every satellite dish you have ever seen?  Or every large, outdoor TV antenna ever made?  Any DirectTV or Dish Network customer who has had their dish bumped a tenth of a degree and lost their signal can attest to this.

Anyone can detect the direction of a common Wi-Fi signal with a paper plate wrapped in tin-foil positioned behind the antenna as a focusing reflector.

Why is this so mysterious for you?  I contend that it isn't and you are just trying to digress the discussion like you always do.  I think grasping at straws has degraded into Number 9 on the "Tools of The Debate Impostor" list.  Can anyone confirm?

Edited for preciseness, and added that "JulianMartin" is my new hero!  Sorry, Tesla.

Jules, (may I call you Jules too?)

Kudos!  You have - in short time and few posts - nailed FET to the wall in what I can only describe as a brilliant and elegant display of scientific expertise and debate prowess.  This thread stands as a monument to the true dichotomy between pseudoscience and reality, in a field of false idols and rubbish heaps.

If any FE'er were to best you, it would assuredly convince me that the Earth is as flat as the top of Tom's head.

I am proud to know you, Sir.

Ha! Yes yes call me jules. Well glad you have enjoyed my posts so much!

Well well well Tom. Where do I start?

With a Yagi beam, it's top down emission pattern looks like this:

http://hfradio.org/ace-hf/Fig06A_10-m_OptiBeam_Yagi_3-stack_Antenna_at_28.4_MHz.jpg

You can clearly see the greatest level of gain is achieved at 0 degrees. That's proof of a directional antenna. You can have a receiving antenna in the same form that has a higher gain for signals in the target direction. Using a squelch control on a transceiver, it's easy to cut out all the crap and wait for the signal you want to be received.

Factor in the wavelength of the signals we are talking about. 80m for example. That's pretty big. Thus, you would need a substantially large object of the right material and at the right angle to deflect the entirely of a signal backwards. A mountain range for example might just be able to do it if the signal is on a single path. That's one reason why this phenomena isn't a continual occurrence and isn't a simple thing to recreate at any time. An example of this is that it's easier for me to get this effect by transmitting south from the UK to say, South Africa. In that path, there are few mountain ranges etc.

To an extent Tom, you are right in that there will be alterations every time the signal has a deflection. But given the amount of power that is used to transmit to get this effect, these deflections and slight alterations are seriously insignificant. Think of the signal as a tube, bouncing up and down. Every time the tube bounces, a splinter of the tube flies off in a slightly different direction, but in comparison with the whole tube, they are tiny, and would never attain the propagation to give the described effect. On top of that these "splinters" would have to have the same thing happen to them several times before it could come from behind oneself. If you really want to get nitty gritty, the alterations in angular propagation after a deflection could actually assist in preserving the signal. See this pretty picture that I drew:

As you can see, varying deflections could well help avoid obstacles.

You say there are a plethora of other paths - please could you illustrate these as I have been taking the time to do so for you.

Obviously I have only spoken about one plane of deflection alterations. In the other, yes, it is possible that it can change direction. But not a hope in hell of the entire signal taking 90 degree bends or suchlike which is what I guess you are aiming towards in your statements. This effect that I describe doesn't demand that the signal be received 180 degrees opposite to the angle of transmission to prove the concept, but the plausible variation which I would estimate to only be a maximum of + or - 5 to 8 degrees are completely explainable by obstacles in the path of the signal as you have so kindly suggested. More often than not, it is received directly behind oneself though.

Just for completeness, this image shows the other plane of signal propagation from a Yagi Beam antenna:

http://hfradio.org/ace-hf/Fig06B_10-m_OptiBeam_Yagi_3-stack_Antenna_at_28.4_MHz.jpg

As you can see the varying angles in vertical propagation give 2 clear paths for the signal to take, one of which will inevitably get further round the earth as it will (mainly by luck) hit less interfering surfaces, and thus have better propagation.

Julian Martin has already answered this question:

You mean this?

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&um=1&sa=1&q=Bellini-Tosi+direction+finder+device

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 30, 2009, 01:07:18 PM

Julian Martin has already answered this question:

You mean this?

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&um=1&sa=1&q=Bellini-Tosi+direction+finder+device

Hey, Tom.  Don't read my posts.  Don't you do it!  Don't read the words in any post that answer your question, just ask dopey questions that prolong the pain.

...and the beat goes on...

Hey, Tom.  Don't read my posts.  Don't you do it!  Don't read the words in any post that answer your question, just ask dopey questions that prolong the pain.

...and the beat goes on...

Bellini-Tosi antenna's aren't satellite dishes, they're metal structures.

Quote from: Skeptek on June 30, 2009, 07:38:45 PM

Hey, Tom.  Don't read my posts.  Don't you do it!  Don't read the words in any post that answer your question, just ask dopey questions that prolong the pain.

...and the beat goes on...

Bellini-Tosi antenna's aren't satellite dishes, they're metal structures.

You can't have a metal structure that is a satellite dish?

You can't have a metal structure that is a satellite dish?

If it's an Eiffel Tower of metal it's just an antenna. There's nothing unidirectional about it.

Quote from: Squat on June 30, 2009, 11:36:38 PM

You can't have a metal structure that is a satellite dish?

If it's an Eiffel Tower of metal it's just an antenna. There's nothing unidirectional about it.

You can't have a metal structure that is unidirectional?

Quote from: Skeptek on June 30, 2009, 07:38:45 PM

Hey, Tom.  Don't read my posts.  Don't you do it!  Don't read the words in any post that answer your question, just ask dopey questions that prolong the pain.

...and the beat goes on...

Bellini-Tosi antenna's aren't satellite dishes, they're metal structures.

Yet again Tom drags the debate down to the level of an obstinate six year-old ...

You can't have a metal structure that is unidirectional?

Not if photons can hit the detector omnidirectionally.

Quote from: Squat on July 01, 2009, 12:17:48 AM

You can't have a metal structure that is unidirectional?

Not if photons can hit the detector omnidirectionally.

But if the photons are unidirectional?

Quote from: Squat on July 01, 2009, 12:17:48 AM

You can't have a metal structure that is unidirectional?

Not if photons can hit the detector omnidirectionally.

Tom, what you linked to is indeed a Bellini-Tosi device.

I don't see what you are trying to say though - are you doubting that it works? I think those countless pictures of the thing on naval ships says something...! Just because it doesn't look how you expected it to, doesn't mean it won't work. If I remember rightly, the antenna has to be spun round by a motor, once each arm of the antenna is tuned to the right frequency, the relative amplitude can be measured on each arm using a rather standard signal strength meter, which while spinning obviously goes up and down as it goes past the source signal. Using a bit of pretty basic maths involving the motors RPM, it's pretty easy to work out within 5 degrees or so where a signal is coming from. Using more complex meters and calculations with a BT device that has arm lengths that are closer to a factor of the signal wavelength will only increase the accuracy considerably.

I think you should look up a bit on radio direction finding Tom.

This PDF explains many basics and the various ways: http://www.rdfproducts.com/wn001_apl_01.pdf

Bear in mind tom, Bellini-Tosi devices are just one of many many different ways of direction finding. I named it because it's one of the simpler ones and has been about since the days of Marconi ruling the roost in RF tech. There are other much much more complicated ones that I don't know enough about to vouch for, but no doubt work very well.

Quote from: Squat on July 01, 2009, 12:17:48 AM

You can't have a metal structure that is unidirectional?

Not if photons can hit the detector omnidirectionally.

That isn't strictly true tom. The way antennas receive directionally is using antenna theory to increase the gain of signals from a particular direction, thus making signals from that direction more powerful and easier to receive. Signals received from other directions on said antenna will have little to no gain, often a negative gain is induced, reducing the signals penetration into the receiver network.

Quote from: Skeptek on June 30, 2009, 07:38:45 PM

Hey, Tom.  Don't read my posts.  Don't you do it!  Don't read the words in any post that answer your question, just ask dopey questions that prolong the pain.

...and the beat goes on...

Bellini-Tosi antenna's aren't satellite dishes, they're metal structures.

....of a calculated size and impedance. They aren't as basic as "metal structures".

I could go on picking out bits of your posts all day Tom.

Please read my posts fully and answer or debate the more serious issues rather than small sidepoints which simply relate to your (understandable) lack of knowledge and (not so understandable) doubt in RF theory. I don't expect you to be a professor of RF, but I do expect some common sense Tom.

Metal antennas can receive photons omnidirectionally, from all sides. A photon can hit any point on the metallic surface from many different angles.

Metal antennas can receive photons omnidirectionally, from all sides. A photon can hit any point on the metallic surface from many different angles.

So how do you explain the highly directional nature of the equipment that JM is describing?

If it was truly omnidirectional, then received signal strength would not change as you rotated the antenna.

(And radio-wave direction finding could not work when we know it can.)

I am unsure as to whether you are dispalying a true lack of understanding here ....

Or if you are just stubbornly refusing to admit that you are wrong.