Long range, low bitrate, small data transceiver unit for tel

[Phil Allison]

"Mark Borgerson"
Phil Allison

** At 100 km range, that damn balloon better be up in the stratosphere
for
a free line of sight !

Huh??? An altitude of about 700 meters ought to put it above the
horizon over flat ground or water.

** I have already answered this point - twice.

Curvature of the earth is not the issue - but the local terrain is.

Imagine that from the ground receiver's position, there is a hill 50 metres
higher, sited 1 km away.

How high is your horizon out at 100 km now ?




............ Phil

 

[Leo Patrick]

Paul,

Thank you for your very informative posting.
I've read with greath appriciation.
Regards,

Leo Patrick

Just in case someone might be more interested in technical details
than in the mud slinging contest, here are some details.

. . .
. . .
One other interesting observation of wireless products advertised by
various vendors is that in order to get the distances claimed, the
station would have to be in orbiting satellites, preferably on the far
side of the Moon , to avoid the noise and interference from other
stations in the same frequency band.

Paul

 

[Phil Allison]

"Leo Patrick"

Paul,

Thank you for your very informative posting.
I've read with greath appriciation.
Regards,

Leo Patrick

** Is there the slightest chance YOU are going to explain what your
requirements are in sufficient detail ??

Or are you just another stinking troll ??


BTW Get a bloody spell checker !!




........... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:02:41 +1000, Phil Allison wrote:

"Leo Patrick"
Paul,

Thank you for your very informative posting.
I've read with greath appriciation.
Regards,

Leo Patrick


** Is there the slightest chance YOU are going to explain what your
requirements are in sufficient detail ??

Or are you just another stinking troll ??


BTW Get a bloody spell checker !!




.......... Phil

** I think he doesn't want to talk to you or I. Probly 'cos he thinks we
are fucking wankers!!

**** We are not fucking wankers!

One of us it the autistic toaster-boy from Summer Hill - so is the
other one. So go fuck yourself!!!!!!!!!??????!!!!!!!!!!




...................Phil

 

[Paul Keinanen]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:55:49 +1000, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"Mark Borgerson"
Phil Allison


** At 100 km range, that damn balloon better be up in the stratosphere
for
a free line of sight !

Huh??? An altitude of about 700 meters ought to put it above the
horizon over flat ground or water.



** I have already answered this point - twice.

Curvature of the earth is not the issue - but the local terrain is.

Imagine that from the ground receiver's position, there is a hill 50 metres
higher, sited 1 km away.

How high is your horizon out at 100 km now ?

Assuming first that the earth is flat, the horizon at 10 km would be
500 m above ground and at 100 km 5 km above ground.

Since the earth is a sphere, we have to add the horizon for a perfect
sphere at 100 km and we end up somewhere between 500-700 m depending
on some assumptions as previously calculated in this thread, thus the
required altitude would be about 5,6 km, which is not in the
stratosphere not even on the poles, even if we notice that the earth
is an ellipsoid and not a perfect sphere.

Those calculations apply for a visual contact. However, the Fresnel
zones around the direct line of sight path becomes larger at lower
frequencies. At exactly the optical horizon the lower parts of the
Fresnel zones are cut off. Assuming the hill is sharp, the knife edge
diffraction model can be applied, which yields 6 dB extra attenuation.
At angles above the optical horizon, the losses are smaller, dropping
more rapidly at higher frequencies, as the Fresnel zones are smaller.

Paul

 

[Phil Allison]

"Paul Keinanen"
"Phil Allison"

"Mark Borgerson"



** At 100 km range, that damn balloon better be up in the stratosphere
for a free line of sight !

Huh??? An altitude of about 700 meters ought to put it above the
horizon over flat ground or water.



** I have already answered this point - twice.

Curvature of the earth is not the issue - but the local terrain is.

Imagine that from the ground receiver's position, there is a hill 50
metres
higher, sited 1 km away.

How high is your horizon out at 100 km now ?


Assuming first that the earth is flat, the horizon at 10 km would be
500 m above ground and at 100 km 5 km above ground.

Since the earth is a sphere, we have to add the horizon for a perfect
sphere at 100 km and we end up somewhere between 500-700 m depending
on some assumptions as previously calculated in this thread, thus the
required altitude would be about 5,6 km,

** Which is a HELL of a lot more than 700m - fuckhead.

Those calculations apply for a visual contact.

** The phrase used was " ... free line of sight ".


(snip rest of this tedious wanker's shite )



............... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:45:15 +1000, Phil Allison wrote:

"Paul Keinanen"
"Phil Allison"
"Mark Borgerson"



** At 100 km range, that damn balloon better be up in the stratosphere
for a free line of sight !

Huh??? An altitude of about 700 meters ought to put it above the
horizon over flat ground or water.



** I have already answered this point - twice.

Curvature of the earth is not the issue - but the local terrain is.

Imagine that from the ground receiver's position, there is a hill 50
metres
higher, sited 1 km away.

How high is your horizon out at 100 km now ?


Assuming first that the earth is flat, the horizon at 10 km would be
500 m above ground and at 100 km 5 km above ground.

Since the earth is a sphere, we have to add the horizon for a perfect
sphere at 100 km and we end up somewhere between 500-700 m depending
on some assumptions as previously calculated in this thread, thus the
required altitude would be about 5,6 km,


** Which is a HELL of a lot more than 700m - fuckhead.


Those calculations apply for a visual contact.


** The phrase used was " ... free line of sight ".


(snip rest of this tedious wanker's shite )



.............. Phil

*** Humphhh!!!????!!!!

That showed him, eh, toaster-boy. He won't want to try fooling with us
again!!!!!!!!!!????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!


** Don't know why he bothered in the first place...




...............Phil

 

[Andrew Jackson]

** Which is a ???? of a lot more than 700m - ????????.

Do you normally correspond with any customers that you may have in this
manner? Other people are responding reasonably to the OP's requests for
information and you did indeed respond in the same vein originally. Just
because you disagree with other peoples replies there is no need to descend
into personal abuse: a cogent and coherent response would be much better.
Several of the people that you have insulted have made, and continue to
make, many useful contributions to this group on a number of subjects. Your
response merely demeans you not them.

Andrew

 

[Phil Allison]

"Andrew Jackson" >>

** Which is a ???? of a lot more than 700m - ????????.

Do you normally correspond with any customers that you may have in this
manner?

** Oh lordy lordy - now we have a self appointed member of the manners
police butting his pointy nose in.

Other people are responding reasonably to the OP's requests for
information and you did indeed respond in the same vein originally.

** Who made YOU into a one man judge, jury and executioner ??

Or maybe you just puff yourself up like a toad whenever the mood takes
you - right ???

Just
because you disagree with other peoples replies there is no need to
descend
into personal abuse:

** Complaints should always be quite specific and contain no unjustified
assumptions.

Or else they are no more than mindless abuse posturing as comment.

Which is what your post is.

Several of the people that you have insulted.....

** Add yourself to the list, please.

You get my pompous, ignorant ass award.




............. Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:36:18 +1000, Phil Allison wrote:

** Add yourself to the list, please.

You get my pompous, ignorant ass award.




............ Phil

** Well, you would, but it's mine, all mine, and I'll never, ever,
give it up! So there!!!!!!!!!!! [Autistics are like that.]





................. Phil

 

[Heywood Jablome]

Leo,

What is your application? I have launched weather balloons a couple of
times for the purpose of photographing the curvature of the earth at very
high altitude. I used a mobile phone on one and radio beacon on another. A
future launch will occur in a month or so with a similar setup.

You can read about my failures and successes here:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~philpawlowski/index.htm

My email address is at the bottom of the balloon launch 2 page if you wish
to contact me. There are some issues that have to be overcome. Some of which
you may know and others you may not. Here are a few:

1. Modern GPS units only report to 18km altitude. Balloons can go over 30km
alt
2. Mobile phones don't work above a couple of hundred metres. If you want to
use one, its purpose will be limited to letting you know where the payload
is only after it has landed on the ground assuming it lands in a mobile
phone coverage area.
3. Air currents can be strong. My last balloon ended up almost in NSW. I
launched it only 10km north of melbourne CBD. Its flight time was only
around 3 hrs.
4. Flight time can be calculated rather accurately. Its a function of the
balloon size, and how much gas you put into it. So at least you will know
when your balloon will pop and descend.

There are of course many more issues including air safety etc etc.... With
regard to your specific question of data transfer, there are a number of
options. On my last balloon I had a 1mW beacon courtesy of the local beacon
finding club. It weighed about 15 grams excluding battery. It was powered by
a D size lithium cell. This would have lasted at least 2 weeks continuous TX
and contributed to most of the % of weight of the payload. It worked very
well. Anything at that altitude will work very well for hundreds of km.

For a bit of nostalgia, I will be choosing the hellschreiber (google)
technique to transmit data back to the tracking vehicle next time but of
course there are much more complex systems you can go for. The Tiny Trak may
be just what you are after if you are after a cheap and easy more or less
off the shelf approach.

Regards,
Phil


"Leo Patrick" <lp> wrote in message
news:42d49ec2$0$23890$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

Paul,

Thank you for your very informative posting.
I've read with greath appriciation.
Regards,

Leo Patrick


Just in case someone might be more interested in technical details
than in the mud slinging contest, here are some details.

. . .
. . .
One other interesting observation of wireless products advertised by
various vendors is that in order to get the distances claimed, the
station would have to be in orbiting satellites, preferably on the far
side of the Moon , to avoid the noise and interference from other
stations in the same frequency band.

Paul

 

[The Real Andy]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:47:57 +1000, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"Mark Harriss"

They seek him high, they seek him low....
They mistakenly think he's somewhere in Brisbane.
Hmm time for a better packet tracer Phil?


** So you even lied about that.

Beware Fuckwit - the cops can get your home address from you ISP in
about ten
minutes.




.......... Phil

YOu cunts need to get a life.. For fucks sake, how long has this shit
been going on?? Sounds like primary school to me...

 

[Mark Harriss]

Sounds like a cool experiment, there used to be a
CAA regulation ages ago about banning photos within a certain
angle of vertical, I'm not sure what the reason was but it
may pay to check if it still exists.


Regards
Mark Harriss

 

[Lanarcam]

Andrew Jackson wrote:

** Which is a ???? of a lot more than 700m - ????????.

Do you normally correspond with any customers that you may have in this
manner? Other people are responding reasonably to the OP's requests for
information and you did indeed respond in the same vein originally. Just
because you disagree with other peoples replies there is no need to descend
into personal abuse: a cogent and coherent response would be much better.
Several of the people that you have insulted have made, and continue to
make, many useful contributions to this group on a number of subjects. Your
response merely demeans you not them.

<bad joke>
Methylphenidate or clonidine could help here but
in definitive nothing can be achieved if the
person is not willing to cooperate.

It is said also that behavioural therapy can alleviate
these problems.
</bad joke>

This is really tragic for parents and for the persons
who suffer from that syndrome so this is a bad joke hopefuly.

 

[Poxy]

Mark Harriss wrote:

Sounds like a cool experiment, there used to be a
CAA regulation ages ago about banning photos within a certain
angle of vertical, I'm not sure what the reason was but it
may pay to check if it still exists.

In a similar vein to hat Phil (not Allison) wrote, from the few
high-altitude balloon things I've seen on the net, it seems more common to
rely on data-logging based on the idea that you can locate the balloon when
it returns to earth.

 

[Paul Keinanen]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:09:31 +1000, "Leo Patrick" <lp> wrote:

My intented implementation in the original posting/question is a
semi-controlled baloon. Because of the very limited weight carrying
capability of the baloon, we can not carry big, high power transceivers.

A few suggestions:

- Contact your aviation authorities early in the project. You might
get some useful hints.

- Contact your telecom authorities early in the project. You might get
good suggestions of what kind of systems to use and what _not_ to use.
If this is a one off launch, you might even get dedicated frequencies
for the launch with generous power limits etc.

- I would suggest keeping the command and telemetry circuits separate,
i.e. keeping both unidirectional at the protocol level, i.e. no ACKs
transmitted back at the protocol level.

If the telemetry is constantly transmitted, try to grab as much as
possible, but do not expect 100 % capture.

The telemetry could be sent on a license free band (check your local
telecommunication authority if this is acceptable for airborne
systems) and use a steerable high gain receiving antenna to recover
the telemetry. There is no limitation on the receive only antenna gain
that can be used and thus it is easy to attenuate any local noise
source from similar equipment in the same band.

Use some telemetry inputs to monitor the command receiver outputs.

When you want to command the balloon, blindly and repeatedly send
commands to the balloon and monitor the telemetry for the command
receiver outputs. When the command receiver output has changed, you
can stop sending that command.

If the balloon is going to ascend to say 10 km, the radio horizon will
be about 400 km away and practically any station within that 500000
square kilometers (larger than most European countries) will be in
LOS path. If you are using some shared frequency bands, be prepared to
compete with all other transmitters within that frequency range. Thus,
I would _strongly_ suggest that you get a dedicated command frequency
for your balloon.

Regarding the problem of a hill 50 m high at 1 km distance as someone
pointed out, I actually live 1 km from a sandy ridge created by the
Ice Age, which is 50 m higher than my balcony and 70 m above a nearby
lake. It is one of the steepest hills within a few hundred kilometers.
While I agree that it is hard to get any signals from that direction,
I am also very happy, since by climbing that hill, I can make VHF/UHF
contacts from 100-300 km with 2-5 W transmitter power and a 10 dB yagi
antenna.

If one would be fortunate enough to have such a hill close by, I would
strongly suggest moving the balloon telemetry station on such hill.

Paul

 

[Heywood Jablome]

"Mark Harriss" <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42d508c9$0$841$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com
..au...

Sounds like a cool experiment, there used to be a
CAA regulation ages ago about banning photos within a certain
angle of vertical, I'm not sure what the reason was but it
may pay to check if it still exists.


Regards
Mark Harriss

I cant for the life of me figure out why this rule would be there. I would
ignore it anyway. It's a free country.

 

[Tauno Voipio]

Heywood Jablome wrote:

"Mark Harriss" <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42d508c9$0$841$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com
.au...


Sounds like a cool experiment, there used to be a
CAA regulation ages ago about banning photos within a certain
angle of vertical, I'm not sure what the reason was but it
may pay to check if it still exists.


Regards
Mark Harriss


I cant for the life of me figure out why this rule would be there. I would
ignore it anyway. It's a free country.

It is common in the aviation regulations in many countries.

Probably the reason is to prevent unauthorized map creation.

--

Tauno Voipio (commercial pilot & instructor)
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

 

[Heywood Jablome]

"Tauno Voipio" <tauno.voipio@iki.fi.NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:wdaCe.209$SE1.75@read3.inet.fi...

Heywood Jablome wrote:
"Mark Harriss" <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote in message

news:42d508c9$0$841$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com
.au...


Sounds like a cool experiment, there used to be a
CAA regulation ages ago about banning photos within a certain
angle of vertical, I'm not sure what the reason was but it
may pay to check if it still exists.


Regards
Mark Harriss


I cant for the life of me figure out why this rule would be there. I
would
ignore it anyway. It's a free country.

It is common in the aviation regulations in many countries.

Probably the reason is to prevent unauthorized map creation.

--

Tauno Voipio (commercial pilot & instructor)
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

I'd be interested in researching this further. Do you have a reference? I
find the rule preposterous, and highly insulting - even impeding on my- or
anyone elses- free will. Unauthorised maps? Who needs to authorise maps?

 

[Chris Hills]

In article <wdaCe.209$SE1.75@read3.inet.fi>, Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@
iki.fi.NOSPAM.invalid> writes

Heywood Jablome wrote:
"Mark Harriss" <billy@blartco.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42d508c9$0$841$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com
.au...


Sounds like a cool experiment, there used to be a
CAA regulation ages ago about banning photos within a certain
angle of vertical, I'm not sure what the reason was but it
may pay to check if it still exists.


Regards
Mark Harriss


I cant for the life of me figure out why this rule would be there. I would
ignore it anyway. It's a free country.

It is common in the aviation regulations in many countries.

Probably the reason is to prevent unauthorized map creation.

There are many regulations in many countries. Also the air regs vary
from place to place in the same country. You need to consult the air
maps.

You may be able to do "anything" where you live but try flying anything
over the residence of your local head of state and see what happens.
(survivors may like to re-tell their experiences here

What may be fine for photoing an archaeological sight is a field will
get you arrested (at best) when you balloon strays a km and finds itself
over an unmarked military installation. Some places are more sensitive
than others and they don't always tell you beforehand.

This all stems from a surveying trip I was going on the ruins of the
fort were, we discovered, not to far from a "secret" military staging
area. We were foreigners in the country


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/