Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #12   Report Post  
Old March 4th 12, 09:35 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,336
Default What's the most accurate elevation tool on the net (freebie)

On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 20:10:17 -0000, wrote:

My objective was to determine my full Maidenhead before there were web
applications to find it.


Some GPS receivers will deliver the Maidenhead grid square directly.
http://www.n7cfo.com/vhf/gps/~gps.htm

I just took my portable, WAAS enabled, aviation GPS to the back yard and
let it average for a couple of minutes.

Since then I discovered why I kept getting different results pre-GPS (long
boring story about map accuracies); turns out the dividing line runs
down the sidewalk across the street.


Chuckle.

We're close to that problem at the local club station (K6BJ):
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/slides/grid-cm8x.html
I had to post this map because operators were constantly calculating
the wrong grid square.

Nearby, is the local intersection of the lat-long lines.
http://confluence.org
http://confluence.org/confluence.php?lat=37&lon=-122
Notice the wide variations in photos by people thinking they've found
the correct location. The problem is that the real intersection is
located on a poison oak infested steep hillside. We posted a DGPS
located marker, but people keep stealing it.

--
Jeff Liebermann

150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #13   Report Post  
Old March 4th 12, 10:15 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,898
Default What's the most accurate elevation tool on the net (freebie)

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 20:10:17 -0000, wrote:

My objective was to determine my full Maidenhead before there were web
applications to find it.


Some GPS receivers will deliver the Maidenhead grid square directly.
http://www.n7cfo.com/vhf/gps/~gps.htm

I just took my portable, WAAS enabled, aviation GPS to the back yard and
let it average for a couple of minutes.

Since then I discovered why I kept getting different results pre-GPS (long
boring story about map accuracies); turns out the dividing line runs
down the sidewalk across the street.


Chuckle.

We're close to that problem at the local club station (K6BJ):
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/slides/grid-cm8x.html
I had to post this map because operators were constantly calculating
the wrong grid square.

Nearby, is the local intersection of the lat-long lines.
http://confluence.org
http://confluence.org/confluence.php?lat=37&lon=-122
Notice the wide variations in photos by people thinking they've found
the correct location. The problem is that the real intersection is
located on a poison oak infested steep hillside. We posted a DGPS
located marker, but people keep stealing it.


As it turns out, my house is in the very SW corner of DM14fco7, with the
front in DM14fco7ae and the back in DM14fco7be.

mandatory antenna content

If you go to
http://no.nonsense.ee/qthmap/ and enter DM14fco7be the
white dot in the middle of the back yard is the box covering an SGC
autotuner for the 33 foot vertical.


  #14   Report Post  
Old March 5th 12, 04:09 PM posted to alt.internet.wireless,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2012
Posts: 7
Default What's the most accurate elevation tool on the net (freebie)

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:43:47 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
What is the OP trying to accomplish?


The neighbors and are discussing setting up a neighborhood mesh network
and we need to ascertain, beforehand, where to place masts and which
direction to point them in our mountainous neighborhood (Skyline & Summit
area).

If for an FCC license HAAT calculation, almost any reasonable guess

will suffice.

For us, probably any reasonable answer would suffice - but why not pick
the most accurate for starters is what we're thinking.

What level of accuracy is really required?
The original position of 37.337408N -121.644073W is specified
to 1 millionth of a degree, or about 0.09 meters.


A few feet would probably work just fine for the neighborhood. We each
have acres of land, but the terrain is so rough that only a few spots for
antennas would be useful. That's why we want to choose them ahead of time.

It would be interesting to know where this highly accurate
number came from.


We didn't want to put our actual location on the net, so, we picked an
arbitrary set of numbers from one of the elevation calculators just as an
example. But we're in the roughly 37,-122 range.

What datum are you using? I suggest WGS84.


WGS84.

We have some numbers in NAD83 from the various WISP providers but they
drive us crazy since we have to imperfectly convert them to WGS84 to keep
our numbers consistent.

Are you interested in ground level, building rooftop level,
or tree top level?


All three because we want to site a dozen or more antennas which need to
have clear line of sight over rooftops and trees by at least the first
Fresnel zone.

  #15   Report Post  
Old March 5th 12, 04:30 PM posted to alt.internet.wireless,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2012
Posts: 7
Default What's the most accurate elevation tool on the net (freebie)

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:43:47 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

http://www.maptools.com/UsingUTM/mapdatum.html


Interesting quotes from that helpful reference (with my comments in
parenthesis).

"In the Continental United States the difference between WGS 84 and NAD
27 can be as much as 200 meters." (I wonder how they handle the constant
creep which occurs out here near the San Andreas fault line).

"Every map that shows a geographic coordinate system such as UTM or
Latitude and Longitude with any precision will also list the datum used
on the map." (I'd change "will" to 'should' based on my experience the
past two weeks on the web)

"The Global Positioning System uses an earth centered datum called the
World Geodetic System 1984 or WGS 84." (That's what I prefer.)

"For all practical purposes there is no difference between WGS 84 and NAD
83." (Good to know.)

"On a USGS topographic map ... The datum will always be NAD 27... A
dashed cross in the SW and NE corners of the map gives a visual
indication of the difference between the two datums." (This is good to
know.)

"If you are engaged in a mission that requires more [than several hundred
meters] precision, then your datums should match." (Since we're siting
antennas on private hilly land, we probably want two or three meters
accuracy in position and a half-meter to a meter in elevation accuracy so
our datums must match.)


  #16   Report Post  
Old March 5th 12, 04:33 PM posted to alt.internet.wireless,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2012
Posts: 7
Default What's the most accurate elevation tool on the net (freebie)

On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:30:57 +0000, alpha male wrote:

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:43:47 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
(I wonder how they handle the constant
creep which occurs out here near the San Andreas fault line).


What I mean by that is that it's a right-slip fault, and it moves by
centimeters to inches each year (sometimes in feet to yards, both in
elevation and in position) ... but ... how do they know if the west side
moved north or if the east side moved south?

I wonder what they use for their frame of reference since it depends on
which side of the fault you're on if you want to say the west moved north
or that the east moved south.
  #17   Report Post  
Old March 5th 12, 05:26 PM posted to alt.internet.wireless,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,336
Default What's the most accurate elevation tool on the net (freebie)

On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:09:40 +0000 (UTC), alpha male
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:43:47 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
What is the OP trying to accomplish?


The neighbors and are discussing setting up a neighborhood mesh network
and we need to ascertain, beforehand, where to place masts and which
direction to point them in our mountainous neighborhood (Skyline & Summit
area).


Ok. Go thee unto:
http://www.cplus.org/rmw/english1.html
Follow the destructions at:
http://www.cplus.org/rmw/download/download.php?S=1
For maps, download the SRTM3 maps for your area from:
http://rmw.recordist.com
Do not bother with DEM, SRTM1, or other maps. Do NOT unzip the maps.
My directory shows about 600MBytes of SRTM3 data for everything for
the SF Bay and Monterey Bay areas. You can set Radio-Mobile to
automatically download a map if needed, but it's easier to just
download the maps ahead of time.

Follow a simple example such as:
http://www.cplus.org/rmw/afirst.html
to get started. There are also numerous tutorials on the web.
Note that the program uses the concept of "networks" which will be key
to modeling a mesh. Locate your nodes, use realistic values, and
build a model. This part is a PITA and requires considerable time and
effort. Draw the (optical) coverage areas for each node, and the line
of sight:
http://joelgranados.wordpress.com/2011/11/05/wireless-link-calculations-radio-mobile/

You're going to have a big problem in the Santa Cruz Mountains call
trees. These are cellulose and water obstructions that may or may not
appear at the correct altitude on the elevation profiles. 2.4GHz will
NOT penetrate foliage, especially when wet. You'll need to manually
adjust your path profiles for the tree line. If the trees are inside
the Fresnel zone, you'll have losses.

If you have problems, ask here, or preferably the Yahoo Radio-Mobile
group at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Radio_Mobile_Deluxe/

I have a really bad attitude about mesh networks. Bug me if you want
to hear the full rant. For a sample, see the dismal performance of an
early mesh network (MIT Roofnet - Meraki).
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/roofnet/doku.php?id=interesting
"Surprisingly, the performance over a two hop route is
less than 1/2 that of one hop routes, implying routes
tend to interfere with themselves."
Also:
http://sha.ddih.org/2011/11/26/why-wireless-mesh-networks-wont-save-us-from-censorship/
covers the main problems. Do you really want a phone call at 2AM from
a neighbor asking if the network is down?

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #18   Report Post  
Old March 5th 12, 08:46 PM posted to alt.internet.wireless,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2012
Posts: 7
Default What's the most accurate elevation tool on the net (freebie)

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:43:47 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/haat_calculator.html


This is an interesting antenna HAAT (Height Above Average Terrain)
program ... but I'm not quite sure what use it is because it gives a 360
degree average height ... but most 2.4Ghz antennas I'm dealing with are
directional.

You enter the latitude, longitude, & height of the antenna, and then it
tells you, for example, for 360 degrees, the average antenna height above
ground for 2 to 10 miles along each radial, the result of which can go
negative.

The output is a text file. It's interesting, but, without graphics, I'm
not sure how to use the results properly when just going point to point.
  #19   Report Post  
Old March 6th 12, 03:35 AM posted to alt.internet.wireless,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,336
Default What's the most accurate elevation tool on the net (freebie)

On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 19:46:16 +0000 (UTC), alpha male
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:43:47 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/haat_calculator.html


This is an interesting antenna HAAT (Height Above Average Terrain)
program ... but I'm not quite sure what use it is because it gives a 360
degree average height ... but most 2.4Ghz antennas I'm dealing with are
directional.

You enter the latitude, longitude, & height of the antenna, and then it
tells you, for example, for 360 degrees, the average antenna height above
ground for 2 to 10 miles along each radial, the result of which can go
negative.


I wrote that before you disclosed what you were trying to accomplish.
Had your intent to obtain accurate altitude readings been for the
purpose of applying for an FCC station license, you would have needed
the HAAT calculations to estimate coverage area. For building you
mesh network, you don't need HAAT calculations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAAT
The first paragraph should explain what HAAT means.

The output is a text file. It's interesting, but, without graphics, I'm
not sure how to use the results properly when just going point to point.


Hint: You can always take a table of number and create a graph or
graphic. Going the other direction is not so easy. Most propagation
and antenna design software generates an output table (text file),
from which a graphic is later generated.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
#
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
  #20   Report Post  
Old March 6th 12, 10:24 AM posted to alt.internet.wireless,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2011
Posts: 7
Default What's the most accurate elevation tool on the net (freebie)

On 3/5/2012 8:26 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:09:40 +0000 (UTC), alpha male
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:43:47 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
What is the OP trying to accomplish?


The neighbors and are discussing setting up a neighborhood mesh network
and we need to ascertain, beforehand, where to place masts and which
direction to point them in our mountainous neighborhood (Skyline& Summit
area).


Ok. Go thee unto:
http://www.cplus.org/rmw/english1.html
Follow the destructions at:
http://www.cplus.org/rmw/download/download.php?S=1
For maps, download the SRTM3 maps for your area from:
http://rmw.recordist.com
Do not bother with DEM, SRTM1, or other maps. Do NOT unzip the maps.
My directory shows about 600MBytes of SRTM3 data for everything for
the SF Bay and Monterey Bay areas. You can set Radio-Mobile to
automatically download a map if needed, but it's easier to just
download the maps ahead of time.

Follow a simple example such as:
http://www.cplus.org/rmw/afirst.html
to get started. There are also numerous tutorials on the web.
Note that the program uses the concept of "networks" which will be key
to modeling a mesh. Locate your nodes, use realistic values, and
build a model. This part is a PITA and requires considerable time and
effort. Draw the (optical) coverage areas for each node, and the line
of sight:
http://joelgranados.wordpress.com/2011/11/05/wireless-link-calculations-radio-mobile/

You're going to have a big problem in the Santa Cruz Mountains call
trees. These are cellulose and water obstructions that may or may not
appear at the correct altitude on the elevation profiles. 2.4GHz will
NOT penetrate foliage, especially when wet. You'll need to manually
adjust your path profiles for the tree line. If the trees are inside
the Fresnel zone, you'll have losses.

If you have problems, ask here, or preferably the Yahoo Radio-Mobile
group at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Radio_Mobile_Deluxe/

I have a really bad attitude about mesh networks. Bug me if you want
to hear the full rant. For a sample, see the dismal performance of an
early mesh network (MIT Roofnet - Meraki).
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/roofnet/doku.php?id=interesting
"Surprisingly, the performance over a two hop route is
less than 1/2 that of one hop routes, implying routes
tend to interfere with themselves."
Also:
http://sha.ddih.org/2011/11/26/why-wireless-mesh-networks-wont-save-us-from-censorship/
covers the main problems. Do you really want a phone call at 2AM from
a neighbor asking if the network is down?


I've used Radio Mobile and SPLAT!. I never got a warm and fuzzy with
Radio Mobile. Of course, it is a bit more complicated to use SPLAT!.

One obvious advantage to SPLAT! is it can analyze very large areas. Not
all that useful in the case of this wifi setup, but very useful in sigint.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS Kenpro elevation rotor KR 500 Howard Sherer Swap 0 October 13th 07 12:51 AM
Freebie: PCB Etch Tanks RST Engineering \(jw\) Homebrew 1 April 25th 07 12:04 AM
FS Kenpro KR 500 elevation rotor Howard Sherer Swap 0 April 24th 07 10:52 PM
Kenpro KR 500 elevation rotor FS Howard Sherer Swap 0 March 14th 07 10:09 AM
Freebie ITU Books Walter Treftz Shortwave 0 September 9th 03 04:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017