Moon Bounce question
 

At the HAARP web site for the moon bounce experiment
(http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/mbann.html), they display a graph
that shows relative power of the incident and reflected signal versus
time. They show the transmitted signal at ~ -65 dB; they show the
reflected signal at ~ -77 dB.

Are they implying that the round trip path loss to the moon and back is
only ~ 12 dB???????

Moon Bounce question
 

Billy Burpelson wrote:
At the HAARP web site for the moon bounce experiment
(http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/mbann.html), they display a graph
that shows relative power of the incident and reflected signal versus
time. They show the transmitted signal at ~ -65 dB; they show the
reflected signal at ~ -77 dB.

Are they implying that the round trip path loss to the moon and back is
only ~ 12 dB???????

It's gotta be closer to 100 dB path loss I would think. BTW, an
absolute level must be in dBm, or something similar. Plain XX dB always
refers to a comparison.

Moon Bounce question
 

Billy Burpelson wrote:
At the HAARP web site for the moon bounce experiment
(http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/mbann.html), they display a graph
that shows relative power of the incident and reflected signal versus
time. They show the transmitted signal at ~ -65 dB; they show the
reflected signal at ~ -77 dB.

Are they implying that the round trip path loss to the moon and back is
only ~ 12 dB???????

For comparison purposes, I should have mentioned that the nominal path
loss at 144 MHz (2 meter band) is about 252 dB.

Moon Bounce question
 

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:30:12 +0000, Billy Burpelson wrote:
At the HAARP web site for the moon bounce experiment
(http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/mbann.html), they display a graph
that shows relative power of the incident and reflected signal versus
time. They show the transmitted signal at ~ -65 dB; they show the
reflected signal at ~ -77 dB.

Are they implying that the round trip path loss to the moon and back is
only ~ 12 dB???????

I think they're talking about the relative power *as measured at some
distant point*. If you're listening at a point say, 5,000 miles from the
transmitter in Alaska, you might hear the direct terrestrial signal from
Alaska at -65dB, and the lunar reflection at -77dB.

In other words, 12dB is the *difference* in path loss between the
lunar-reflected signal and the terrestrially-propagated signal.

(that difference still seems awfully small to me)

Another way of putting it... if there was a ham 200 miles away doing a
moonbounce transmission on 144MHz... his direct, terrestrially-propagated
signal at my location would be pretty weak... especially since his
antennas would be pointed up, at the moon, not down along the horizon...
so I would not be surprised if the *difference* between his
lunar-reflected signal and his terrestrial signal was a lot less than
252dB.

Moon Bounce question
 

Billy Burpelson wrote:
At the HAARP web site for the moon bounce experiment
(http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/mbann.html), they display a graph
that shows relative power of the incident and reflected signal versus
time. They show the transmitted signal at ~ -65 dB; they show the
reflected signal at ~ -77 dB.

Are they implying that the round trip path loss to the moon and back
is only ~ 12 dB???????

I posed the question above to the nice folks at HAARP and here is the
answer I received:

Billy,

Thanks for the question.

The figure is a chart using real data from the moon bounce experiment
that we previously conducted in late October 2007. The chart shows
signals received at the LWA antenna site in New Mexico. The signal
labeled "HAARP Transmit" was the actual signal level received on the
receiver in New Mexico via sky wave. As you know, the sky wave signal
can be strong or weak depending on ionospheric conditions at the
time. The signal labeled "Lunar Echo" is the actual signal received
directly from the moon. Our observations in October were that the
lunar echo was relatively constant in amplitude during the experiment
while the ionospherically propagated signal from HAARP to New Mexico
varied quite a bit.

I hope this helps.

I.H.

After receiving this reply, I sent him the following response/questions:

Dear I.H.,

Thanks for your prompt reply. However, the following questions beg to
be asked:

What is the estimated round-trip path loss to the moon at 7 MHz?

What power was being transmitted to the moon?

What is the gain of the LWA antenna?

And finally, keeping those numbers in mind, is it reasonable to
expect reception of the echo with a garden variety ham receiver and
40 meter dipole? I believe it would be fair to say that the dipole
would have -significantly- less gain/capture area than the LWA.

Although this is an interesting project (Thanks for getting the
hams/SWLs involved!), realistically speaking, what chances are there
of hearing the echo on a dipole?

Thanks again,
Billy

Moon Bounce question
 

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:30:12 +0000, Billy Burpelson wrote:
At the HAARP web site for the moon bounce experiment
(http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/mbann.html), they display a graph
that shows relative power of the incident and reflected signal versus
time. They show the transmitted signal at ~ -65 dB; they show the
reflected signal at ~ -77 dB.

Are they implying that the round trip path loss to the moon and back is
only ~ 12 dB???????

Doug Smith W9WI wrote:

I think they're talking about the relative power *as measured at some
distant point*. If you're listening at a point say, 5,000 miles from the
transmitter in Alaska, you might hear the direct terrestrial signal from
Alaska at -65dB, and the lunar reflection at -77dB.

In other words, 12dB is the *difference* in path loss between the
lunar-reflected signal and the terrestrially-propagated signal.

(that difference still seems awfully small to me)

Good call, Doug...that's exactly what they did (see HAARP response I
posted elsewhere).

Unfortunately, it seems like a rather meaningless comparison, as the
terrestrial signal can be all over the board due to the vagaries of
propagation. Sort of like measuring something with a rubber ruler... :-)

Moon Bounce question
 

In article ,
Billy Burpelson wrote:

At the HAARP web site for the moon bounce experiment
(http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/mbann.html), they display a graph
that shows relative power of the incident and reflected signal versus
time. They show the transmitted signal at ~ -65 dB; they show the
reflected signal at ~ -77 dB.

Are they implying that the round trip path loss to the moon and back is
only ~ 12 dB???????

You are such a funny guy. Man, I knew you were clueless but you out did
yourself this time. This is to funny.

Hey, Billy it has something to do with the amplifying properties of
green cheese, really, I would not kid you.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Moon Bounce question
 

In article ,
Doug Smith W9WI wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:30:12 +0000, Billy Burpelson wrote:
At the HAARP web site for the moon bounce experiment
(http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/mbann.html), they display a graph
that shows relative power of the incident and reflected signal versus
time. They show the transmitted signal at ~ -65 dB; they show the
reflected signal at ~ -77 dB.

Are they implying that the round trip path loss to the moon and back is
only ~ 12 dB???????

I think they're talking about the relative power *as measured at some
distant point*. If you're listening at a point say, 5,000 miles from the
transmitter in Alaska, you might hear the direct terrestrial signal from
Alaska at -65dB, and the lunar reflection at -77dB.

In other words, 12dB is the *difference* in path loss between the
lunar-reflected signal and the terrestrially-propagated signal.

No, no Doug it's the moon cheese. Don't confuse Billy.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Moon Bounce question
 

In article ,
Billy Burpelson wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:30:12 +0000, Billy Burpelson wrote:
At the HAARP web site for the moon bounce experiment
(http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/mbann.html), they display a graph
that shows relative power of the incident and reflected signal versus
time. They show the transmitted signal at ~ -65 dB; they show the
reflected signal at ~ -77 dB.

Are they implying that the round trip path loss to the moon and back is
only ~ 12 dB???????

Doug Smith W9WI wrote:

I think they're talking about the relative power *as measured at some
distant point*. If you're listening at a point say, 5,000 miles from the
transmitter in Alaska, you might hear the direct terrestrial signal from
Alaska at -65dB, and the lunar reflection at -77dB.

In other words, 12dB is the *difference* in path loss between the
lunar-reflected signal and the terrestrially-propagated signal.

(that difference still seems awfully small to me)

Good call, Doug...that's exactly what they did (see HAARP response I
posted elsewhere).

To late. Billy boy is really confused now.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Moon Bounce question
 

In article ,
Billy Burpelson wrote:

Billy Burpelson wrote:
At the HAARP web site for the moon bounce experiment
(http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/mbann.html), they display a graph
that shows relative power of the incident and reflected signal versus
time. They show the transmitted signal at ~ -65 dB; they show the
reflected signal at ~ -77 dB.

Are they implying that the round trip path loss to the moon and back
is only ~ 12 dB???????

I posed the question above to the nice folks at HAARP and here is the
answer I received:

They lied about the cheese. You are so gullible.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Moon Bounce question
 

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:36:16 +0000, Billy Burpelson wrote:
Unfortunately, it seems like a rather meaningless comparison, as the
terrestrial signal can be all over the board due to the vagaries of
propagation. Sort of like measuring something with a rubber ruler... :-)

True enough, though I would suggest the same would apply to the lunar
signal. The Moon isn't perfectly flat - and any signals bounced off it
have to pass through the ionosphere (twice). Ham moonbounce VHF
communications are subject to changes in propagation, and I'd bet those
effects would be even more pronounced on HF.

I would suggest the purpose of the graph was to show in general terms how
to identify whether you were hearing the HAARP signal or not, and if you
were, whether it was the terrestrial signal or the lunar signal. (or both)

Moon Bounce question
 

On Jan 19, 6:23*pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,
*Doug Smith W9WI wrote:





On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:30:12 +0000, Billy Burpelson wrote:
At the HAARP web site for the moon bounce experiment
(http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/mbann.html), they display a graph
that shows relative power of the incident and reflected signal versus
time. They show the transmitted signal at ~ -65 dB; they show the
reflected signal at ~ -77 dB.

Are they implying that the round trip path loss to the moon and back is
only ~ 12 dB???????

I think they're talking about the relative power *as measured at some
distant point*. *If you're listening at a point say, 5,000 miles from the
transmitter in Alaska, you might hear the direct terrestrial signal from
Alaska at -65dB, and the lunar reflection at -77dB.

In other words, 12dB is the *difference* in path loss between the
lunar-reflected signal and the terrestrially-propagated signal.

- No, no Doug it's the moon cheese.
Don't confuse Billy.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Moon is Made of Cheese - Who Knows ?

Maybe in China they think that the Moon
is made of Doufu {Tofu}. :o) ~ RHF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doufu

Moon Bounce question
 

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:36:16 +0000, Billy Burpelson wrote:
Unfortunately, it seems like a rather meaningless comparison, as the
terrestrial signal can be all over the board due to the vagaries of
propagation. Sort of like measuring something with a rubber ruler... :-)

Doug Smith W9WI wrote:

True enough, though I would suggest the same would apply to the lunar
signal. The Moon isn't perfectly flat - and any signals bounced off it
have to pass through the ionosphere (twice).

No, the moon certainly isn't flat, with a radio reflectivity of about 7%.

Additionally, the effects of libration of the moon can cause the signal
to fluctuate a bit.

I would suggest the purpose of the graph was to show in general terms how
to identify whether you were hearing the HAARP signal or not, and if you
were, whether it was the terrestrial signal or the lunar signal. (or both)

Agreed. They just didn't label it properly; as 'I.H.' (the HAARP
spokesperson) stated in his response to me: "I'll need to add some
clarifying information to the figure, I can see".

Moon Bounce question
 

Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:36:16 +0000, Billy Burpelson wrote:
Unfortunately, it seems like a rather meaningless comparison, as the
terrestrial signal can be all over the board due to the vagaries of
propagation. Sort of like measuring something with a rubber ruler... :-)

True enough, though I would suggest the same would apply to the lunar
signal. The Moon isn't perfectly flat - and any signals bounced off it
have to pass through the ionosphere (twice). Ham moonbounce VHF
communications are subject to changes in propagation, and I'd bet those
effects would be even more pronounced on HF.

I would suggest the purpose of the graph was to show in general terms how
to identify whether you were hearing the HAARP signal or not, and if you
were, whether it was the terrestrial signal or the lunar signal. (or both)


Is there anything left of the ionosphere above the HAARP array, once the
XMTRs fire-up (so to speak)?

Moon Bounce question
 

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 05:42:03 -0800, David wrote:
Is there anything left of the ionosphere above the HAARP array, once the
XMTRs fire-up (so to speak)?

Actually, I think the point of HAARP (though not in this particular
experiment) is to artifically energize the ionosphere.

Moon Bounce question
 

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
David wrote:

Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:36:16 +0000, Billy Burpelson wrote:
Unfortunately, it seems like a rather meaningless comparison, as the
terrestrial signal can be all over the board due to the vagaries of
propagation. Sort of like measuring something with a rubber ruler... :-)
True enough, though I would suggest the same would apply to the lunar
signal. The Moon isn't perfectly flat - and any signals bounced off it
have to pass through the ionosphere (twice). Ham moonbounce VHF
communications are subject to changes in propagation, and I'd bet those
effects would be even more pronounced on HF.

I would suggest the purpose of the graph was to show in general terms how
to identify whether you were hearing the HAARP signal or not, and if you
were, whether it was the terrestrial signal or the lunar signal. (or both)


Is there anything left of the ionosphere above the HAARP array, once the
XMTRs fire-up (so to speak)?

Hey David, the ionosphere reestablishes itself shortly after the
experiments conclude even if the object was to burn a hole in it.

If you are trying to say the most ignorant thing you can think of in
order to look worse than Billy I'd give up. You may be drug addled but
Billy has you beat on the clueless factor.

It was a joke.

Moon Bounce question
 

On Jan 20, 4:15 pm, dave wrote:
Telamon wrote:
In article ,
David wrote:

Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:36:16 +0000, Billy Burpelson wrote:
Unfortunately, it seems like a rather meaningless comparison, as the
terrestrial signal can be all over the board due to the vagaries of
propagation. Sort of like measuring something with a rubber ruler... :-)
True enough, though I would suggest the same would apply to the lunar
signal. The Moon isn't perfectly flat - and any signals bounced off it
have to pass through the ionosphere (twice). Ham moonbounce VHF
communications are subject to changes in propagation, and I'd bet those
effects would be even more pronounced on HF.

I would suggest the purpose of the graph was to show in general terms how
to identify whether you were hearing the HAARP signal or not, and if you
were, whether it was the terrestrial signal or the lunar signal. (or both)

Is there anything left of the ionosphere above the HAARP array, once the
XMTRs fire-up (so to speak)?

Hey David, the ionosphere reestablishes itself shortly after the
experiments conclude even if the object was to burn a hole in it.

If you are trying to say the most ignorant thing you can think of in
order to look worse than Billy I'd give up. You may be drug addled but
Billy has you beat on the clueless factor.

It was a joke.

Have Al Gore or Pita contacted their "green" attorneys about this
travesty?

FC

Moon Bounce question
 

In article ,
dave wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
David wrote:

Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:36:16 +0000, Billy Burpelson wrote:
Unfortunately, it seems like a rather meaningless comparison, as the
terrestrial signal can be all over the board due to the vagaries of
propagation. Sort of like measuring something with a rubber ruler...
:-)
True enough, though I would suggest the same would apply to the lunar
signal. The Moon isn't perfectly flat - and any signals bounced off it
have to pass through the ionosphere (twice). Ham moonbounce VHF
communications are subject to changes in propagation, and I'd bet those
effects would be even more pronounced on HF.

I would suggest the purpose of the graph was to show in general terms how
to identify whether you were hearing the HAARP signal or not, and if you
were, whether it was the terrestrial signal or the lunar signal. (or
both)


Is there anything left of the ionosphere above the HAARP array, once the
XMTRs fire-up (so to speak)?

Hey David, the ionosphere reestablishes itself shortly after the
experiments conclude even if the object was to burn a hole in it.

If you are trying to say the most ignorant thing you can think of in
order to look worse than Billy I'd give up. You may be drug addled but
Billy has you beat on the clueless factor.

It was a joke.

Sorry, but it's tough to tell with what's posted here most days.

In any event Billy wins hands down.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California