1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

SixtoReport: D12 Satellite Info in Post#1 - Live!

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by Sixto, Jul 27, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. May 6, 2010 #8541 of 10270

    DogLover Hall Of Fame

    Mar 18, 2007
    I would think that the people responsible for moving and parking the satellite are a different group than those repsonsible for uploading test signals and beginning the process of making the satellite carry channels.
  2. May 6, 2010 #8542 of 10270

    raoul5788 Guest

    May 13, 2006
  3. May 6, 2010 #8543 of 10270

    Indiana627 Hall Of Fame

    Nov 18, 2005
    Well since I don't have that now, I guess I'll probably being calling for an alignment, but I'll wait till D12 is active just to see what kind of signals I'm getting.

    Oh man I'd love those signal strengths!

  4. May 6, 2010 #8544 of 10270

    Sixto Well-Known Member

    Nov 18, 2005
    After D10 launched, needed to have my Dish re-aligned, improved greatly.

    No need to wait for D12. D10/D11 are a great reference.
  5. May 6, 2010 #8545 of 10270

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    Sep 8, 2006
    But is it true that what we consider the hours, days, months and years, are all specific to Earthly-bound beings? I recall when our earthly beings worked long hours with those Mars Rovers, some of them stopped growing facial hair when they should have, others started to grow facial hair when they should not have. My memory is fuzzy but I recall the reason was because the Rovers on Mars had different hours, days, months and years.

    Before I go too far off the topic, let me talk about D12. Assume D12 is in space, therefore not an Earthly-bound being, can we assume it does not conform to our “work hours”? Remember I said, before those sats are shipped out in space, the clocks on them have to be adjusted so they do not run at the same speed as clocks on Earth, else the clocks on the sats and the clocks on Earth will not sync? If I recall it is called General Relativity.

    Fascinating stuff you know.
  6. May 6, 2010 #8546 of 10270

    oldfantom Icon

    Mar 13, 2006
    Can anyone show this math? With no basis for the guess, i would think the difference would be less than a second per year. The satellite has a long way to go to approach the speed of light
  7. May 6, 2010 #8547 of 10270
    Doug Brott

    Doug Brott Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    Jul 12, 2006
    Los Angeles
    Exactly why would the clock be different? Aren't both the satellite and earth rotating at the same degree change/second? Also, aren't they both rotating round the Sun at the same speed/velocity/fluxcapacity?

    And thirdly (or is it fourthly) .. do we care?
  8. May 6, 2010 #8548 of 10270
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    Unfortunately for you, there is a few guys with spectrum analyzers ( or/and PC based PCI card - BLSA) who would have the info BEFORE your receiver will have any blip on the screen ! :p
    I could post those pictures again for D12, BUT I did reach my limit of uploads volume long time ago. So, check old D10 and D11 threads for first signals.
  9. May 6, 2010 #8549 of 10270

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    Jul 28, 2004
    My signal levels for 1010 were in the low 90's and 103 low 80's (83 average) for 103 prior to my service call (protection plan) this week. As I stated earlier, I got a call from DirecTV regarding my levels - I did not call them. In any case...moving up to 98 on 1010 and 95 on 103 as averages is a good thing. To get there, they replaced my 5 /12 year old AT-9 "sidecar" Dish, and installed a Slimline 3. The alignment took all of 10 minutes.

    As Sixto indicated...if your 103 101 levels are good now....there's no reason to be concerned about D12 - it should be fine.

    In the mean time...D12 moves on past the 95.6 mark this afternoon...trekking along at 2 miles per second... :)
  10. May 6, 2010 #8550 of 10270
    Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    Jun 19, 2006
    I believe the fluxcapacity is slightly different.
  11. May 6, 2010 #8551 of 10270

    smiddy Tain't ogre til its ogre

    Apr 5, 2006
    HD is coming, HD is coming, to a D12 near you! :p
  12. May 6, 2010 #8552 of 10270

    jefbal99 Hall Of Fame

    Sep 7, 2007
    I thought D12 was an SD IRD ;)
  13. May 6, 2010 #8553 of 10270

    DodgerKing Hall Of Fame

    Apr 28, 2008
    I care. I find it rather fascinating

    He and Einstein are correct. This has been proven with other satellites.

    The faster one travels the slower time is to them...hence, they travel into the future. This would mean that the clocks on the birds will be slower than those on earth as the satellites are traveling into the future relative to earth time.

    Even though rotational distance is the same, linear speed of the satellites is much faster than that of the earth. Remember the satellites have to travel over a larger circumference at the same rotational speed as the earth, meaning they have to travel at a greater linear rate in order to keep up.
  14. May 6, 2010 #8554 of 10270

    swyman18 Legend

    Jan 12, 2009
    Hope I won't have an issue here in Hawaii... the best we could get on 103 is mid to upper 70's, with a couple of transponders in the low 80's.
  15. May 6, 2010 #8555 of 10270

    JeffBowser blah blah blah

    Dec 21, 2006
    I always assumed satellites didn't have a "clock" per se, but merely output a timing signal from a stunningly accurate atomic clock on board.

  16. May 6, 2010 #8556 of 10270

    raoul5788 Guest

    May 13, 2006
    The outside edge of a record is going faster than nearer to the center.
  17. May 6, 2010 #8557 of 10270

    DodgerKing Hall Of Fame

    Apr 28, 2008
    I don't know exactly what they use or if all of them use the same thing. I just read about one of the ways they have proven Relativity and time travel (into the future only) is by comparing the times of satellites traveling at thousands of miles/hr to those on earth.
  18. May 6, 2010 #8558 of 10270
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    Jun 18, 2006
    However, the power consumed is still 1.21GW.
  19. May 6, 2010 #8559 of 10270

    oldfantom Icon

    Mar 13, 2006
    OK, my degree was Psychology, but as I understand it... Movement and speed are relative to the position of the observer. Looking down from space along the axis of rotation, neither you or your satellite are stationary. To remain stationary relative to the viewer on the ground, the satellite has to move faster than the Earth bound observer. If that is true then the satellite is closer to the speed of light than the observer. It is like the old experiment of dropping a ball on a train. The person on the train sees it fall straight. The person on the side of the tracks sees the ball move forward.

    Do we care, maybe not.

    During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip ... Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks."
  20. May 6, 2010 #8560 of 10270

    DodgerKing Hall Of Fame

    Apr 28, 2008
    Yep. This is also how gears work. If this was not so, then one would not be able to change gears, and rotational speed, on their bikes.

    Also, time on the moon (using earth time) is relatively slower than that on earth, thus someone living on the moon can actually live longer than if they lived on earth (by only a few seconds though)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page