Ham receives ISRO Mars Orbiter

I am guessing that Cohen is just galled by the idea that the accomplishment was achieved by an amateur, which just indicates his attitude towards the ham community. As you say, he is trapped in his own arrogance and will never relent in his gratuitously insulting attacks. I have watched his behavior for a long time. The irony is, I believe, that some part of him truly wishes to be liked, but he can't help himself.

 

You may make any assumption you like. You have already made many.

If you wish to discount basic scientific background as hand waving, that's not my problem.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Again,

Paul has presented no evidence that he has confirmed orbital insertion of Mom at Mars with his alleged 3 foot chicken Wire dish. He has provided no info that in any way corroborates. Basic valid questions, as posed, he cannot, or will not answer.

The first thing about a telescope one learns is which end to look. I am not the problem here.

And am amused it is seen that way.

73
Chip W1YW

 

The Artful Dodger avoids answering Paul's question (post #102).

 

Thanks. Then perhaps that should have been explained better about ten pages ago. Otherwise all a non-specialist is seeing just looks like a little noise spike that could be anything.

 

How to make a complete fool of oneself

W1YW don't overestimate your sad role here. You are not a problem for anyone except yourself, going stubbornly straight ahead making a complete fool of yourself.

 

I am delighted to 'explain' it.

You have claimed confirmation of orbital insertion, using a 3 ft chicken wire dish. That alleged dish, on 26 Sept's (alleged)data, at least partially illuminated the earth with its wide beam of about 10 by 10 degrees (3 dB points). This occurred because the elevation of Mars at your time of observation was roughly 9-10 degrees at your location: it was about to set. So the sides of your pencil beam looked at 300 degree K ground. This is a fundamental no-no to all who have even modest knowledge of space based measurements at RF.

However, curiously, the system temparature appararently did not change, as your baseline (alleged) noise floor remained the same as the previous data shown (Sept 24), done earlier in sidereal time and at substantially higher elevation. No 'earth spillage' that.

This contradiction is not a tenable corroboration of a basic tenet of dish and sky related measurements.

One has to conclude that the info is in error, OR the data is bogus, OR the dish used is substantially larger than you claim.

Now: let's tak a look at (as you proffer):

pjm.uhf-satcom/twtr/mom_150614.jpg


This data shows 7 ! signals (alleged) , some with very difference Dopper shifts and rates. These are likely to be from at least 3 different sources. You ask us to accept that your 3 foot dish, which has a pencil beam of about 10 by 10 degrees JUST HAPPENED to see at least three 'sources', in a narrow spectral swath, in a narrow patch of sky.

If this is actual sky data, then the field of view is almost certainly far larger than your 10 by 10 degree pencil beam--probably 100 degrees by 100 degrees or more-- and is compatible with far lower GAIN antennas such as a quadrifilar helix(QF)--coincidentally shown on the website you guided us to. Such low gain antennas have a far higher chance of seeing more than one 'source' in their field of view simultaneously. A high gain antenna does not. Exceedingly low probability for a high gain antenna--go figure it out. Especially when you work out the coincidence of those 'sources' just happening to have Dopplered into your spectrum. By chance...

HOWEVER, despite the better opportunity with the QF helix, a low gain quadrifilar helix cannot be the antenna used to produce the alleged Mom carrier shown in the capture. It is incapable of detecting the signal shown , let alone at such high SWR.

Yet another contradiction you have not addressed.

You have not responded to any of the questions posed to you Paul, including to those posed by Ron NN4RH.

Why not?

73
Chip W1YW

 

Dropping Frank Drake's name every few posts shouldn't count. And if you toss out the "fractal" stuff, Google Scholar doesn't show much for N. Cohen in terms of published papers in recent years.

 

It had exhaustively been explained what it is.

 

Young man,

Reality does not succumb to insult.

Nice try though.

73,
Chip W1YW

 

W1YW in your post #112 you explain nothing but the fact you don't have the least idea of how to do a link budget calculation. And even worse, you don't need to do it by yourself it has been done at least in two posts in this thread. You only have to read it. So in the course of this thread you demonstrated that YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW IT. That's really sad!

 

Asserted but not shown. Show us what's incorrect with my estimate.

Are you also a believer that 1 sigma RMS is the applicable criteria for detection of a signal?

Also, you seem to be making identical claims to Paul. So, why dont you answer the questions posed?

 

1. Your post doesn't even contain an estimate.
2. A sufficiently precise link budget calculation was posted - no estimates needed.
3. I don't make claims, I share observations
4. I am willing to talk about details to those who demonstrate some technical understanding, this rules you out W1YW, you are just not competent enough.
5. Start playing with chicken wire dishes (non-fractal!), be surprised how far you can get (if you avoid fractals), and may be come back with a better understanding

 

Insult? Who said...

 

So, you can't answer those questions and need to fall back on insult, which has no factual basis.

Isn't ham radio in 2014 wonderful?

We used to be interested in critiquing electronics,but now, it's heart warming to know the 'camaraderie' and 'friendly spirits' of 14313 have wider reach.

At least we weren't punked by a data set--presented to us--that had a disclaimer that it may be bogus...

I see nothing in your data that supports Paul's claims of detection of Mom insertion at Mars with a 3 foot dish.