Body
Hi Smokey,
Wow -172 dBm! nice.
The best we could do inside a screened enclosure was around -130 dBm.
I guess the cooling's to get the T down in the Noise Power equation.
(k*T*Bandwidth).
Gerry
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 5:26 PM, David G Dawson [email protected]
[EVGRAY] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> *Space Industry DSN Technical: *DSN - Deep Space Network
> The Space Industry used Masers for the downlinks in all of S/X/and K Band
> - X/K receive only (2.3 Ghz/8.4Ghz/24Ghz) and we had two for each frequency
> range - always a back up for every single function there were two units
> available including equipment in 19" racks in the control rooms.
> *They were not curiosities but functional receivers of very weak distant
> signals.*
> They were situated inside the Cones you see inside the Cassegrain Antennas
> and below the resonant chamber of the Beam Waveguide types.
>
> Many times on shift I would take over a cooldown which could take up to 24
> hours and the temperature at cold was 269 Kelvin - 4 Kelvin above absolute
> and that is what the analogue pump meter on top of the drive unit was
> telling you - you do not use degrees when referring to Kelvin temperature.
> I was also fortunate in maintaining the drive pumps as these were
> operating the full time the Maser was cooled.
> The theory of cold here is in the use of a Joules Thompson Valve - liquid
> Nitrogen was used to initially cleanse and evacuate all system piping with
> a Kenny Pump and Helium was the final gas used in the Maser itself.
> The system temperature of the Cone windows looking into Space was 26
> Kelvin.
> Transmitters used were 10kW and later at DSS 43 at 70 meter diameter
> upgrade we went to 50 Kw Klystron as did Goldstone and Madrid, Spain.
> This was for the Voyagers I & II moving outside this planetary system but
> I am informed today that the real purpose of these two were to investigate
> Nibiru or Planet-X - probably triangulation with Earth itself to get a
> bearing.
> Believe this is also the reason for the Vatican's Infrared antenna on
> Mount Graham in Arizona and also the NASA unit at the South Pole.
> I am continually scanning our skies here in the South Outer Circle (SOC)
> using an IR lens on my Camera but no anomalies have been observed.
>
> When I left in 1986, signal level of the Voyagers was about -172 dbm and
> that was near the limit of a 64 meter antenna and why an upgrade was made
> to 70 meter with increased transmitter power.
> Before I left I was given the task of upgrading all of the RF equipment
> including the 1.5" Spiro lines which were also Nitrogen fed.
> Any nick made on these when terminating or joining meant a signal loss and
> in such the job simply had to be perfect.
> I was the only person ever given a Certificate for wire wrap without any
> training and was doing that job on the graveyard shift as tracking at that
> point was just too quiet for me.
> The Computer boards measured about 15" square using pin connection
> technology and the reason for this was simple as the entire board could be
> upgraded with a rewire and a special small drill was used to wrap the wire
> on the Gold pins and once again the job had to be perfect.
> Again, another precursor to your todays Computer.
> Now I'm boasting.
> At one stage for several years I was the only person in the Main room
> which was some 50 x 25 meters as by this time we had Computer control of
> most systems but not the Antenna nor the RF side with staff level dropping
> from about 24 running two stations, to 10 running 4.
> All of our ground installations were being used as the guinea pig for your
> desktop Computers of today as we were given the 4040 series Intel chips in
> any new equpment to trial and any problems were listed in a special book.
>
> I have attached a picture of UFOs outside a hangar in probably New Mexico
> and I date that at about 1953 due to the two Sabre Jets alongside.
> Have also seen this same hangar with B52s outside (Nellis AFB?).
>
>
>
>
> *A very strong suggestion here that the Astronauts were transferred onto
> UFOs for the final trip to the Moon and why there are some inconsistencies
> in this area time wise and why so much footage had to be manufactured in a
> Movie Studio that raised obvious questions. All of this to deny you the
> 'black ops' side of the USA Military that have been using UFOs now for some
> near 70 years and courtesy of 15,000 Nazi German scientists and technicians
> that were imported into the USA after Peenemunde was secured in 1945. We
> did go to the Moon! *
> Having actually pushed the buttoms for a great deal of this space
> involvement, that is my take on why there are many inconsistencies.
> We tracked the Helios I & II Solar Probes from 1975/76 (joint German ESA
> and NASA) for many years with no feedback from the Mission Control people
> which nagged me somewhat as also the RTLT (Round Trip Light Time) was
> always 16 minutes and I asked why when the Spacecraft was doing a loop
> around the Sun some 93million miles away.
>
>
>
> *In reseaching this 'why', I came across the fact that there was an
> intentional time delay designed into the Spacecarft to make it look as if
> the Sun was that distance away when in fact it wasn't. *This purpose
> delay was inserted between the one and two way modes.
> This irked me into further ground research where my own calculations over
> some two years puts our Sun at only some 4,000 miles away.
> Further research is ongoing here to refine that distance.
>
> When you talk to any Spacecraft (SC) they are in a 1-way mode, downlink
> only and you ramp your uplink frequency through the SC rest frequency where
> you pull it into the two way mode, both now an uplink and downlink.
> At this point the ground receivers would drop out of lock and you had to
> reacquire in the 2-way mode.
> At this point you were able to transmit commands into the SC for telemetry
> science data/maintenance etc.
> At transmitter off, the SC receivers would then drift back to their one
> way rest frequency.
> I have the data here if anybody questions what I found.
>
> Too much controversy here in all that I have done within the Space
> Industry and would appreciate any questions as they will be answered
> truthfully or to the best of my knowledge.
> Respectfully.
>
> Smokey
>
> PS: EVGray:
> The next person on this Forum that mentions the 'F' word will see me
> depart .
> If you can't be civil and talk with respect to others then you don't
> deserve to be here.
> Nothing is achieved when you talk like that including any 'Energy
> Synthesis'.
> Moderation IS firmly required here.
>
> Smokey
>
> On 8/06/2018 5:57 PM, [email protected] [EVGRAY] wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Mick,
>
> I don't know a lot about radio technology. But to be able to transmit at
> long distances with low power it is essential to not spread out the signal.
> Communication with the Voyager spacecrafts is done by using big disc
> antennas in both ends (transmitter and receiver). The Voyager 1 craft
> transmits with 23W and the signal takes 10 hours travel time between the
> antennas. Use a search engine to find the information or go to a library.
> Communication with the Voyager spacecrafts: https://science.howstuffworks.
> com/question431.htm. <https://science.howstuffworks.com/question431.htm>
>
> They use a frequency range with low noise which allows for big
> amplification of the signal. The distance is from outside the solar system.
>
> Regards
> Ole
>
>
> ---In [email protected], <mkjekyll@...> <mkjekyll@...> wrote :
>
> Ole,
>
> Thanks for the link.
>
> As I understand it in theory a maser would make perfect sense but as far
> as I am aware until very recently they required so much input power for so
> little output they were just lab curiosities until the much more efficient
> lasers were invented and became a useful tool.
>
> From your knowledge of electronics and RF math without tricks such as
> DSP's digging into the noise floor or special totally coherent non beam
> expanding collimated antennas what is the amount of power required to
> communicate reliably day in and day out 250k miles without repeaters or
> satellites, just two way with lets say a pair of 28dbi gain dishes? I just
> want to see if my math is completely messed up.
>
> On 6/6/2018 4:06 PM, onielsen@... [EVGRAY] wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Mick,
>
> The RF beam must be as narrow as possible to not spread out the energy to
> places where it does no good. The guy I told about used a helical antenna.
> I don't know anything about how he did it and the power used. One way could
> be by using the predecessor of the LASER which was the MASER. This would
> transmit a thin beam of microwaves.
>
> This Wikipedia article (https://wiki2.org/en/Earth%
> E2%80%93Moon%E2%80%93Earth_communication) has a gallery of antennas used
> for earth moon earth communication. It tells that as low as 100W can be
> used when using digital signal processing.
>
> Regards
> Ole
>
>
> ---In [email protected], <mkjekyll@...> <mkjekyll@...> wrote :
>
> Ole,
>
> Specifically the math is messing with my head. Either I am
> misunderstanding / applying the math else according to FPL calculations
> antenna gain and dbW something the distance of the moon should not be
> feasible without millions of watts of transmitter power.
>
> Laserbounce is another story due to the reflectors and the fact a laser
> stays colimated enough not to disperse as quickly as does Rf.
>
> On 6/6/2018 3:04 PM, onielsen@... [EVGRAY] wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Mick,
>
> The problem by using the moon as a reflector could be made more efficient
> if placing a RF reflector just like the LASER reflectors already out there.
> Another way could be making a RF repeater like is done in communication
> satellites. It would probably be much cheaper to put up a communication
> satellite or to use one of the many already up there.
>
> The surface of the moon isn't a good conductor (I guess) and it may even
> spread out the signal instead of reflecting it back to the transmitter like
> it is done with corner reflectors <https://wiki2.org/en/Corner_reflector>.
> This gives great loss of the received signal.
>
> Regards
> Ole
>
>
> ---In [email protected], <mkjekyll@...> <mkjekyll@...> wrote :
>
> https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/ham_radio/amateur-propagation/
> moonbounce-propagation-eme.php
>
> Here is a link for ham radio folk about EME or moonbounce radio. The path
> loss in best case scenarios is very high.
>
>
> Can someone who knows more RF electronics theory such as Ole or Hector
> please comment as to how this is overcome with 1000 watt input transmitter
> when the maximum theoretical S/N ratio and 252 db PL should require
> transmitters larger than AM radio stations.
>
>
> I must be missing something. Also checking the amateur radio sites for an
> answer.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>