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)

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}. ) ~ RHF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doufu

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".

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)?

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.

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.

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

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