Better than GPS? BAE navigator uses Wi-Fi, radio signals

reply to post by PaperbackWriter


You need at least 3 satellites to determine your position. More satellites will give you a more accurate position.

Note that you are only receiving signals, not send them. Your GPS device knows the position of the satellites, and based on the signals you receive and the time difference between received signals, your GPS is able to determine your own position.

Note that this information is readily available on Wikipedia, so in case you feel like discussing this subject, it is advised to at least have read and understood that page.

ps. last time I was in the alps I has no problem getting a fix on my position with my GPS.

reply to post by roadgravel


This seems pretty flimsy.

en.wikipedia.org...(satellite)
I note all the artist renderings.

So does this.

www.nasaspaceflight.com...

Not that it doesn't include some marvelous detailed graphics! HA!

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
reply to post by gunblaza

 

Rain blocking it? What about the Ionosphere which would lie between the signal relay?
That would seem to be a far greater stumbling block than mere rain.

Good heavens how effiecient a system could you develop that was thwarted by something as common as rain?

In any case, some of the satellites are alleged to be situated in the Exosphere.
How do you imagine those signals would be able to be maintained in a transit from Earth to
satellite and back again through the Ionoshere without completely being degenerated into useless
static?

Rain is very dangerous to signals because it can "scatter" the higher frequency signals. Think of a prism, with light. Now imagine light going through a million prisms, what happens to the light? It scatters.

The Ionosphere does very little to the signals. Now if the satellites where in the Ionosphere, different story.

Also the lowest satellites that we have are can range from 80 miles to how ever far we want them to go. We still get signals from the Voyagers.

If you do some more research on signals and how satellites transmit/receive you would understand how everything works better.

In typical GPS operation, four or more satellites must be visible to obtain an accurate result. Four sphere surfaces typically do not intersect. [a] Because of this we can say with confidence that when we solve the navigation equations to find an intersection, this solution gives us the position of the receiver along with accurate time thereby eliminating the need for a very large, expensive, and power hungry clock. The very accurately computed time is used only for display or not at all in many GPS applications, which use only the location. A number of applications for GPS do make use of this cheap and highly accurate timing. These include time transfer, traffic signal timing, and synchronization of cell phone base stations.

Although four satellites are required for normal operation, fewer apply in special cases. If one variable is already known, a receiver can determine its position using only three satellites. For example, a ship or aircraft may have known elevation. Some GPS receivers may use additional clues or assumptions such as reusing the last known altitude, dead reckoning, inertial navigation, or including information from the vehicle computer, to give a (possibly degraded) position when fewer than four satellites are visible.

Link

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
Rain blocking it? What about the Ionosphere which would lie between the signal relay?
That would seem to be a far greater stumbling block than mere rain.

Good heavens how effiecient a system could you develop that was thwarted by something as common as rain?

We are all waiting until the day that you make the positioning system available to the public that is not affected by weather or objects, doesn't require satellites, and woks everywhere in the world. Until that that we will all have to use the inferior system we have now.

In any case, some of the satellites are alleged to be situated in the Exosphere.
How do you imagine those signals would be able to be maintained in a transit from Earth to
satellite and back again through the Ionoshere without completely being degenerated into useless
static?

They are in fact. GPS uses a technique called (cross) correlation in order to remove the noise and retrieve the signal. We only need these clever techniques because GPS is so inferior though. When will your system be released?

reply to post by roadgravel


Really? What a backwards system.
Wouldn't it be better if the person or vehicle were transmitting a signal?

This seems ridiculous that 3 satellites are sending signals that tell where they are and they intersect and
overlap so what is the liklihood that they would determine this by calculating I am this far from this satellite. that far from that satellite and this far from this satellite.

www.makeuseof.com...

It is not needed. The sat signals allow that position to be determined. Look at other nav systems.

reply to post by PaperbackWriter

So I guess that means your new and improved rain-resistant system won't be coming out anytime soon?

Why do you call Wikipedia a flimsy source and then post a worse one where the first comment points out the title isn't accurate?

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
reply to post by roadgravel

 

Really? What a backwards system.
Wouldn't it be better if the person or vehicle were transmitting a signal?

With a popular system like GPS, it is easier to have multiple receivers.

This seems ridiculous that 3 satellites are sending signals that tell where they are and they intersect and
overlap so what is the liklihood that they would determine this by calculating I am this far from this satellite. that far from that satellite and this far from this satellite.

That is why we use triangulation, 1 GPS bird will not be enough. You need at least 4, and where each signal overlaps is your position.

reply to post by gunblaza


Oh right. Rain scatters the signal but you turn around and exclaim that we are still "receiving" them from Voyager.

As if.

It is not that I do not understand so cease with the patronization.
I just want someone to tell me how a signal transmitted from EARTH would determine whether it should bounce off a satellite at 500 miles, 1000 miles, 10,000 miles or 25,000 miles or just bend at the Ionosphere and return radio waves do.

Tell me how a signal would maintain it's beam without scattering and being deteriorated in the Exosphere by gamma radiation and other solar radiation interference for these high orbital satellites.
And since that is the case, how it is that an alleged signal from Voyager defeats solar radiation and the Exosphere and the Ionosphere to return to Earth?

That's all.

If we are relying on satellites, why the need for the propagation of so many cell towers?

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
Really? What a backwards system.
Wouldn't it be better if the person or vehicle were transmitting a signal?

No, this would require either a lot of power or a directional antenna and still quite some power. Not useful for mobile devices. It would also require the satellite to have a huge bandwidth to be able to handle all requests. And you gain nothing with it. So it is in fact a extremely bad idea.

My position is that we still bounce signals off the ionosphere and it is only the receivers modulation and range that has increased to more channels.

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
If we are relying on satellites, why the need for the propagation of so many cell towers?

I already answered that:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What part of that don't you understand?

reply to post by -PLB-


Skype?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
If we are relying on satellites, why the need for the propagation of so many cell towers?

I already answered that:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What part of that don't you understand?

You only addressed one line of the post. Sort of.

Here is the rest of my query:


"Oh right. Rain scatters the signal but you turn around and exclaim that we are still "receiving" them from Voyager.

As if.

It is not that I do not understand so cease with the patronization.
I just want someone to tell me how a signal transmitted from EARTH would determine whether it should bounce off a satellite at 500 miles, 1000 miles, 10,000 miles or 25,000 miles or just bend at the Ionosphere and return radio waves do.

Tell me how a signal would maintain it's beam without scattering and being deteriorated in the Exosphere by gamma radiation and other solar radiation interference for these high orbital satellites.
And since that is the case, how it is that an alleged signal from Voyager defeats solar radiation and the Exosphere and the Ionosphere to return to Earth?

That's all.

If we are relying on satellites, why the need for the propagation of so many cell towers? "

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
reply to post by gunblaza

 

Oh right. Rain scatters the signal but you turn around and exclaim that we are still "receiving" them from Voyager.

As if.

It is not that I do not understand so cease with the patronization.
I just want someone to tell me how a signal transmitted from EARTH would determine whether it should bounce off a satellite at 500 miles, 1000 miles, 10,000 miles or 25,000 miles or just bend at the Ionosphere and return radio waves do.

Tell me how a signal would maintain it's beam without scattering and being deteriorated in the Exosphere by gamma radiation and other solar radiation interference for these high orbital satellites.
And since that is the case, how it is that an alleged signal from Voyager defeats solar radiation and the Exosphere and the Ionosphere to return to Earth?

That's all.

Each carrier has an unique baseband which contains a key for each sat system, that is how satellites receive a specific signal and accept it. Also signals will continue through space, no matter the distance.

Signals do get interference, signals can be interrupted, and we have multiple types of signals for different situations.

Also each receiver has a signal processor that has multiple filters, that then removes common waves created by, lets say the Ionosphere. But also will recreate the original signal by receiving the copied signal, then look for similarities that will contain data.

You can also look up Amplitude Modulation, Frequency Modulation, and Phase Modulation. Also look up UHF, SHF, and EHF.

I am trying to explain it in the easiest ways possible haha.

If we are relying on satellites, why the need for the propagation of so many cell towers?

Money and time. One satellite takes at least 10 years for production and cost millions or billions.

reply to post by PaperbackWriter


Your questions are uninspiring and the answers are readily available on Wikipedia. Even better would be to buy a good book.

Start here: en.wikipedia.org...


and try to understand this image:

reply to post by gunblaza


What you have written about explains the receiver's ability to accept a broader band of signls it does not really
say how or why the use of satellites is even necessary given as you say not only the millions to develop,
but also the cost of rockets to deliver.

It's absurd especially when you consider that not nearly enough rockets have ever been to launched to account for the alleged number of satellites. How they are parked? Where the rocket goes after deployment.

It's an unwieldy and absurd premise to receive radio, TV and phone communication which could still be carried over standard radio waves as was always done.
Ham radio is wireless.

Do you get what I am saying?

reply to post by -PLB-


If you find them so uninspiring feel free to abandon the thread.

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter

It's an unwieldy and absurd premise to receive radio, TV and phone communication which could still be carried over standard radio waves as was always done.

No it is not. (see how easily unsubstantiated claims can be dismissed?)