Greetings I wonder if anyone has delved into the arcania of the DSP algorithm used in the W7PAU (if I remember right) moon echo experiment? I just wonder exactly what he did with the signal processing. I know there was an integration phase, I remember 18 minutes. Is there a usenet group for this? comp.dsp might be an idea.
In any case, the signal xmit power was 1.2 Watt, and the calculated strength at the receiver was -170 dB!
Of course, this is not a distance record, as the Mars Rover was 1 Watt, and the distance was 140 million miles. But for a bounce, .5 million miles is to me, mind boggling.
I wonder if this has any lessons for weak signal measurements in optics, etc.
It is impressive how good an RF link can be. I can unlock my Audi from almost a block away, with the little key fob transmitter, and no visible receive antenna.
Radar bounce has been done on other planets, Venus and Mars I think.
One should be able to put up an antenna and detect the moonbounce of, say, a TV station signal. It would take some signal averaging.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
Bit of a daft question, I know, but what sort of range would say a 10W transmitter in free space orbiting the moon have at the optimum frequency for maximum range and a practically feasible beam antenna (or an isotropic radiator if there are no figures available for anything fancier)?
I forget what power level, but the Pioneer and Voyager probes aren't far from that range (directional antenna, probably a few watts), and obviously, much more distant than the Moon. They're still being picked up (what ones are still transmitting, anyway), albeit by rather elaborate receivers. The signals are deep in the noise floor, recovered partly due to their low bandwidth and high stability, and through long integration times and interferometry across multiple receivers.
I recall hearing that aliens won't be knowing about us after all, because after a good 50 light years or so, there really just isn't enough left to detect. Even if you know what you're looking for (correlating against, say, a known perfect recording of a given vintage transmission), the SNR from that integration time just doesn't give enough confidence interval to say so. And that's already having the transmission, which defeats the purpose of looking for it anymore. :)
The "unlocking" distance is heavily influenced by the RF pollution. That is, the receiver in the car doesn't have much filtering. Your distance can be reduced greatly if you are in the present of one of those Navy 380MHz land mobile radio systems.
-170 dB under Tx power about -170 dBW = -140 dBm ?
The noise density for 300 K noise temperature is -174 dBm/Hz.
Since the data to be transferred is about 100 bits to be transferred in 18 minutes or about 1000 seconds, so th effective data rate is about 0.1 bits/s and hence the required bandwidth in the order of 0.1 Hz and the thermal noise in that bandwidth -184 dBm.
That would be the case with a simple white noise channel. However, the EME path is quite nasty, first of all, there is the libration fading due to the elliptic orbit of the Moon and hence the Moon does not _exactly_ turn the same side to earth (there is about +/-5 degree variation).
The other is the relative motion of the Moon and rotation of the Earth, causing Doppler shift (easily predictable) and the issues with transmitter and receiver frequency stability and accuracy.
One way to get around these is to use some form of direct sequence spread spectrum signals, but again, the Rx bandwidth after despreading is still well below 1 Hz to reach such sensitivity levels.
Of course it helps if the antenna beamwidth is so narrow that the dark part of the lunar disk can be used during the first quarter, since after a two week lunar night, those areas are about 150 K, reducing the thermal noise.
Ham radio operators have been known to do it with ~kW class transmitters and beep and nothing very special on the receiver.
That isn't so good. A bad guy with one of the Russian digital lock code grabbers can snatch your cryptokey if they are inside the key fob range. Mine is good for about 50m I think the car antenna is hidden in the rear view mirror since not all models have a bluetooth fin on top.
And imaging grade delay-Doppler on loads of asteroids since then. See:
formatting link
Basically they transmit exotic almost orthogonal waveforms so that the ground based correlator can obtain exquisite temporal resolution and signal to noise of the echo profile from the target.
I knew a radio ham who used to do it for a demo Morse code. Crude ~2kW xmit fairly directional aerial and a moderately sensitive reciever.
Optimum frequency is answerable assuming no new super low noise technologies have emerged since 1985 (probably they have). 2.5-4GHz with a 15K HEMT (fancy MESFET) best or a 4K maser front end.
Noise floor limited by galactic noise at any lower frequency, microwave background in band and amplifier system noise above about 5GHz.
You'd probably want to transmit inside the radio astronomy protected band if you wanted to be seen from the maximum distance. There is a lot of background noise from WiFi etc at some otherwise good frequencies.
I'll give you the definition of the Jansky and let you try plugging in a few numbers:
formatting link
Back in the 1980s it was possible to say that the entirety of all the signal that had ever been observed from pulsars was less than the energy released by dropping a match head 1mm. These days it is probably an order of magnitude more in total as many more ultra faint pulsars have since been discovered using realtime FFT hardware.
Depends what waveband you are measuring in and whether the moon is like a black body at the relevant frequency. A typical big dish ground based antenna telescope like the VLA has a system noise temperature of ~20K if it is a Cassegrain design with the sensitive bits facing cold sky.
Penzias and Wilson worked at 4.08GHz and with their big horn got:
The difference 6.7 - 3.2 = 3.5K got them a Nobel Prize (after they had cleaned every last trace of "dielectric material" aka pigeon shit out).
formatting link
Telescopes where the receiver is at the prime mirror focus and so facing the ground have much worse noise performance since there is always some sidelobe sensitivity from the ground at ~300K.
No idea off hand.
I expect it is related to the dielectric constant of green cheese.
One should always remember that EME records are two way contacts, in which case one station might be using a huge antenna (e.g. VE3ONT using the Alconquin 46 m dish) and a large transmitter power. Thus the other (your home) station can be quite low power with small antennas.
A few years ago, it was possible to exchange call signs (about 100 bits in an half hour period) with 100 W Tx power on VHF and a single yagi antenna at both ends with some advanced signal processing.
Unfortunately the Moon (even new Moon) is quite hot (more than 150 K), compared to the cosmic background (2.7 K) or the galactic background radiation in the Milky Way plane.
Receiving data from Voyagers etc. is "easier" at least when they are outside of the noisy galactic plane.
I have a TV on, I have WinTV on one computer, an internet radio streaming WSM, and reading newsgroups at the same time. I an keep all four of them separate. I need the multiple sound sources to mask my Tinitius.
--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 4:48:43 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@downunder.com wr ote:
in the
what he
I
e an idea.
ngth at the receiver was -170 dB!
Yes thanks.Frankly, I am not versed in the BW-SNR-dB way of thinking, and I plan to study it more. In the case of the 1 watt, it was a bounce using a
10 foot dish as xmitter-receiver. I am not so much engrossed by the math, a s the 1/R-Squarish fall-off in energy suffered by the signal. The signal to the moon was directed by the dish, and even that is gotta have large diver gence after 240,000 miles. Then when it bounces, the fall-off is inverse R- squared-ish. That pony is well buried in the manure! So I use a simple ment al tool to think about it, using a simple assumption of the inverse squared fall off. And if were waving my arms like that guy in the polyester pants on TV (Carl Sagan), what envelope arithmetic would I use? The dimensions of miles seems too large, let's use feet. 240,000 miles is around 10exp9 feet ,so the square would be 10exp-18 energy. And suppose the falloff was 1/1000 on the first xmit leg, then the energy returned is 10ex-21. in feet. Now I realize that I am doing violence to a proper calc, but I assume the d B figure, which I just parroted from w7pau website, is dB below the noise l evel.
Let me know, anyone, what the dB figure means and what it says about receiv ed energy. The dB definition says it is 10 x the exponent base 10 of a powe r difference. How would this relate to the return intensity i this case?
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.