rbwinn wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
The speed of sound is only 1,087 feet per second. ?Half of that
would
only be 543.5 feet per second. ?That is not fast enough to change
the
frequency of the light enough to worry about.

Sure it is! This is how police radar and laser guns measure the speed
of
traffic, and they do so for motions ~100 times smaller. A laboratory
instrument could measure speed thousands of times better than that.

Radar does not change frequency. It is reflected from a target at the
same frequency it had before.

Dude, just look it up.

I used to work on radar. A transmitter sends out a signal, a receiver
picks up a signal reflected from a target. Unless the books about
radar the Navy gave us were incorrect, there is no appreciable
difference in frequency of the signals. There is a carrier wave of
constant frequency which is reflected from targets and received by a
radar receiver at the same frequency. The information concerning
targets is in the form of modulation of the carrier wave caused by the
reflection. Doppler radar works the same way. The carrier wave has
the same frequency whether being transmitted or received. What shows
the Doppler effect used to calculate speed are modulations of the
carrier wave.

Dude, look it up already.

That's a suggestion. I realize I've no authority to command you to do
anything.

I will point out that "look it up" does *not* mean ramble on about
what you think you know.

Given modern tools, how hard is it to check out whether Tom Roberts is
right in saying that Doppler shift "is how police radar" works, or
whether R. B. Winn is right that radar "is reflected from a target at
the same frequency it had before"? I'd say: not hard. I was pretty
confident I knew the answer, but I looked it up anyway; checked
multiple sources just to be sure. Took roughly three minutes.


--
--Bryan

On Apr 27, 6:16 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:

rbwinn wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
The speed of sound is only 1,087 feet per second. �Half of that would
only be 543.5 feet per second. �That is not fast enough to change the
frequency of the light enough to worry about.
Sure it is! This is how police radar and laser guns measure the speed of
traffic, and they do so for motions ~100 times smaller. A laboratory
instrument could measure speed thousands of times better than that.

Radar does not change frequency.  It is reflected from a target at the
same frequency it had before.

Dude, just look it up.

I used to work on radar.

 A transmitter sends out a signal, a receiver
picks up a signal reflected from a target.  Unless the books about
radar the Navy gave us were incorrect, there is no appreciable
difference in frequency of the signals.  There is a carrier wave of
constant frequency which is reflected from targets and received by a
radar receiver at the same frequency.  The information concerning
targets is in the form of modulation of the carrier wave caused by the
reflection.  Doppler radar works the same way.  The carrier wave has
the same frequency whether being transmitted or received.  What shows
the Doppler effect used to calculate speed are modulations of the
carrier wave.
Robert B. Winn

Could be. I never went to electronics school, never went to any
school on any equipment except for a two week school on the SPA-25
radar repeater. I learned everything I knew from technical manuals.
Robert B. Winn

On Apr 28, 2:46 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 27, 9:32 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

On Apr 27, 6:16 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:

rbwinn wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
The speed of sound is only 1,087 feet per second. �Half of that would
only be 543.5 feet per second. �That is not fast enough to change the
frequency of the light enough to worry about.
Sure it is! This is how police radar and laser guns measure the speed of
traffic, and they do so for motions ~100 times smaller. A laboratory
instrument could measure speed thousands of times better than that.

Radar does not change frequency.  It is reflected from a target at the
same frequency it had before.

Dude, just look it up.

I used to work on radar.

Not in any capacity relevant to the discussion since the phrase
"Doppler shift" means nothing to you and you admit not knowing about
Maxwell's equations.

You confuse "working on radar" with "I was handed a black box and told
how to use it when I was in the Navy".

No, I was not handed a black box.  I was assigned to repair old World
War II vacuum tube radar repeaters that people who had been to
electronics school did not want to work on. I did not know a thing
about electronics when I started working on them.
They also had a Doppler radar to show airspeed of planes landing, but
I did not work on it.

I do know who Doppler was and what he showed concerning sound waves.
Sound waves are conducted through air, which is why there is a Doppler
effect.  There is a Doppler effect with Doppler radar because signals
showing a radar target are also conducted through a medium, a carrier
wave of constant frequency.
Robert B. Winn

On Apr 28, 12:32 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:





On Apr 27, 6:16 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:

rbwinn wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
The speed of sound is only 1,087 feet per second. �Half of that would
only be 543.5 feet per second. �That is not fast enough to change the
frequency of the light enough to worry about.
Sure it is! This is how police radar and laser guns measure the speed of
traffic, and they do so for motions ~100 times smaller. A laboratory
instrument could measure speed thousands of times better than that.

Radar does not change frequency.  It is reflected from a target at the
same frequency it had before.

Dude, just look it up.

I used to work on radar.

One application, yes. You might want to look up Doppler radar, which
meteorologists use to look for differential velocity of moist air
masses, which would be a signal for rotation, a possible tornado. This
is a little different use of radar than ranging radar, which you might
have used in Vietnam.

On 28 abr, 16:49, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:



Could be. �I never went to electronics school, never went to any
school on any equipment except for a two week school on the SPA-25
radar repeater. �I learned everything I knew from technical manuals.
Robert B. Winn

And in which way that experience makes you qualified to write anything
about radars?

I did not even worry about being qualified, just the same as when I

On Apr 28, 9:34 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:





On Apr 28, 2:46 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 27, 9:32 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

On Apr 27, 6:16 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:

rbwinn wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
The speed of sound is only 1,087 feet per second. �Half of that would
only be 543.5 feet per second. �That is not fast enough to change the
frequency of the light enough to worry about.
Sure it is! This is how police radar and laser guns measure the speed of
traffic, and they do so for motions ~100 times smaller. A laboratory
instrument could measure speed thousands of times better than that.

Radar does not change frequency.  It is reflected from a target at the
same frequency it had before.

Dude, just look it up.

I used to work on radar.

Not in any capacity relevant to the discussion since the phrase
"Doppler shift" means nothing to you and you admit not knowing about
Maxwell's equations.

You confuse "working on radar" with "I was handed a black box and told
how to use it when I was in the Navy".

No, I was not handed a black box.  I was assigned to repair old World
War II vacuum tube radar repeaters that people who had been to
electronics school did not want to work on. I did not know a thing
about electronics when I started working on them.
They also had a Doppler radar to show airspeed of planes landing, but
I did not work on it.

Being handed a Chilton and using it to repair a car does not mean you
know how the thermodynamics of the four stroke engine works.

Well, you have been to a lot of school Eric, so why do you come to me

"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message

news:f5e13ff9-4985-4991-a01c-961023c0bd33@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 28, 11:50?am, "Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote:





"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message

news:be25c1d1-9e02-4d9b-9b89-827941bb3606@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 28, 9:05?am, "Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote:

"Bryan Olson" <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote in message

news:u2fRj.12268$GE1.8109@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...

rbwinn wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
The speed of sound is only 1,087 feet per second. ?Half of that
would
only be 543.5 feet per second. ?That is not fast enough to
change
the
frequency of the light enough to worry about.

Sure it is! This is how police radar and laser guns measure the
speed
of
traffic, and they do so for motions ~100 times smaller. A
laboratory
instrument could measure speed thousands of times better than
that.

Radar does not change frequency. ?It is reflected from a target at
the
same frequency it had before.

Dude, just look it up.

I used to work on radar. ?A transmitter sends out a signal, a
receiver
picks up a signal reflected from a target. ?Unless the books about
radar the Navy gave us were incorrect, there is no appreciable
difference in frequency of the signals. ?There is a carrier wave of
constant frequency which is reflected from targets and received by a
radar receiver at the same frequency. ?The information concerning
targets is in the form of modulation of the carrier wave caused by
the
reflection. ?Doppler radar works the same way. ?The carrier wave has
the same frequency whether being transmitted or received. ?What
shows
the Doppler effect used to calculate speed are modulations of the
carrier wave.

Dude, look it up already.

That's a suggestion. I realize I've no authority to command you to do
anything.

I will point out that "look it up" does *not* mean ramble on about
what you think you know.

Given modern tools, how hard is it to check out whether Tom Roberts is
right in saying that Doppler shift "is how police radar" works, or
whether R. B. Winn is right that radar "is reflected from a target at
the same frequency it had before"? I'd say: not hard. I was pretty
confident I knew the answer, but I looked it up anyway; checked
multiple sources just to be sure. Took roughly three minutes.

--
--Bryan

You are both correct so shake hands and come out fighting!

For example the Hawk system uses a system called Hi-Par / Low-Par
acquisition and tracking radar. which is a dual freq system using low
freq
for acquisition and a higher freq once target is acquired. Both are
non-doppler
but several other systems such as the ones used by police and several
mapping
systems uses a doppler shift system.

--http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
?I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, the ones I worked on transmitted and received on the same
frequency.
Robert B. Winn

I got that but you seemed to argue thats the way they all work.
thats just not the case. Theres even systems that do both at the
same time. Use a modulated carrier and detect the freq shift
of the subset freq and time measure the carrier. This is really good
way to target war heads with precicion.

Could be. �I never went to electronics school, never went to any
school on any equipment except for a two week school on the SPA-25
radar repeater. �I learned everything I knew from technical manuals.
Robert B. Winn

OK Then.. �May I ask why in the heck would you enter into
a discussion on a subject that by your own admission you
know almost nothing about? �I know I get crap all the time
by some that think my views are from a limited knowledge
base but they have no idea of my background, and I like
it that way, but you admit to 2 weeks AIT training and you
want to argue with that fellow about how it works. I find that
very interesting for some pathological reason...

Well, I was very good at doing what I did. They used to take me from

"Bryan Olson" <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote in message

news:u2fRj.12268$GE1.8109@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...





rbwinn wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
The speed of sound is only 1,087 feet per second. ?Half of that
would
only be 543.5 feet per second. ?That is not fast enough to change
the
frequency of the light enough to worry about.

Sure it is! This is how police radar and laser guns measure the
speed
of
traffic, and they do so for motions ~100 times smaller. A
laboratory
instrument could measure speed thousands of times better than that.

Radar does not change frequency. ?It is reflected from a target at
the
same frequency it had before.

Dude, just look it up.

I used to work on radar. ?A transmitter sends out a signal, a receiver
picks up a signal reflected from a target. ?Unless the books about
radar the Navy gave us were incorrect, there is no appreciable
difference in frequency of the signals. ?There is a carrier wave of
constant frequency which is reflected from targets and received by a
radar receiver at the same frequency. ?The information concerning
targets is in the form of modulation of the carrier wave caused by the
reflection. ?Doppler radar works the same way. ?The carrier wave has
the same frequency whether being transmitted or received. ?What shows
the Doppler effect used to calculate speed are modulations of the
carrier wave.

Dude, look it up already.

That's a suggestion. I realize I've no authority to command you to do
anything.

I will point out that "look it up" does *not* mean ramble on about
what you think you know.

Given modern tools, how hard is it to check out whether Tom Roberts is
right in saying that Doppler shift "is how police radar" works, or
whether R. B. Winn is right that radar "is reflected from a target at
the same frequency it had before"? I'd say: not hard. I was pretty
confident I knew the answer, but I looked it up anyway; checked
multiple sources just to be sure. Took roughly three minutes.

--
--Bryan

You are both correct so shake hands and come out fighting!

For example the Hawk system uses a system called Hi-Par / Low-Par
acquisition and tracking radar. which is a dual freq system using low freq
for acquisition and a higher freq once target is acquired. Both are
non-doppler
but several other systems such as the ones used by police and several
mapping
systems uses a doppler shift system.

--http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
?I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 28, 3:57 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 28, 9:34 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

On Apr 28, 2:46 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 27, 9:32 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

On Apr 27, 6:16 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:

rbwinn wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
The speed of sound is only 1,087 feet per second. �Half of that would
only be 543.5 feet per second. �That is not fast enough to change the
frequency of the light enough to worry about.
Sure it is! This is how police radar and laser guns measure the speed of
traffic, and they do so for motions ~100 times smaller. A laboratory
instrument could measure speed thousands of times better than that.

Radar does not change frequency.  It is reflected from a target at the
same frequency it had before.

Dude, just look it up.

I used to work on radar.

Not in any capacity relevant to the discussion since the phrase
"Doppler shift" means nothing to you and you admit not knowing about
Maxwell's equations.

You confuse "working on radar" with "I was handed a black box and told
how to use it when I was in the Navy".

No, I was not handed a black box.  I was assigned to repair old World
War II vacuum tube radar repeaters that people who had been to
electronics school did not want to work on. I did not know a thing
about electronics when I started working on them.
They also had a Doppler radar to show airspeed of planes landing, but
I did not work on it.

Being handed a Chilton and using it to repair a car does not mean you
know how the thermodynamics of the four stroke engine works.

Well, you have been to a lot of school Eric, so why do you come to me
and ask what frame of reference S' is doing relative to frame of
reference S in the Galilean transformation equations?

I can tell you why I make statements to scientists about radar.
Robert B. Winn

On Apr 28, 3:23 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:





On Apr 28, 3:57 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 28, 9:34 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

On Apr 28, 2:46 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 27, 9:32 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

On Apr 27, 6:16 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:

rbwinn wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
The speed of sound is only 1,087 feet per second. �Half of that would
only be 543.5 feet per second. �That is not fast enough to change the
frequency of the light enough to worry about.
Sure it is! This is how police radar and laser guns measure the speed of
traffic, and they do so for motions ~100 times smaller. A laboratory
instrument could measure speed thousands of times better than that.

Radar does not change frequency.  It is reflected from a target at the
same frequency it had before.

Dude, just look it up.

I used to work on radar.

Not in any capacity relevant to the discussion since the phrase
"Doppler shift" means nothing to you and you admit not knowing about
Maxwell's equations.

You confuse "working on radar" with "I was handed a black box and told
how to use it when I was in the Navy".

No, I was not handed a black box.  I was assigned to repair old World
War II vacuum tube radar repeaters that people who had been to
electronics school did not want to work on. I did not know a thing
about electronics when I started working on them.
They also had a Doppler radar to show airspeed of planes landing, but
I did not work on it.

Being handed a Chilton and using it to repair a car does not mean you
know how the thermodynamics of the four stroke engine works.

Well, you have been to a lot of school Eric, so why do you come to me
and ask what frame of reference S' is doing relative to frame of
reference S in the Galilean transformation equations?

I never asked what they were doing in the Galilean transformation
equations, I asked them what they were doing in your arbitrary and
poorly explained scenarios.



I can tell you why I make statements to scientists about radar.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

There is nothing poorly explained about these equations.

On Apr 26, 5:06 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
What I am going to do is use sound to measure the doppler shift of light.

Let us all pause for a minute and enjoy this satement.

[snip]

       n'=t(1-v/c)

Well, it is nice to have relativity all explained.  Sorry about all of
the problems you scientists are having.  Well, have a good summer.
Robert B. Winn

Given modern tools, how hard is it to check out whether Tom Roberts is
right in saying that Doppler shift "is how police radar" works, or
whether R. B. Winn is right that radar "is reflected from a target at
the same frequency it had before"? I'd say: not hard. I was pretty
confident I knew the answer, but I looked it up anyway; checked
multiple sources just to be sure. Took roughly three minutes.

"rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message

news:be25c1d1-9e02-4d9b-9b89-827941bb3606@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 28, 9:05?am, "Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote:





"Bryan Olson" <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote in message

news:u2fRj.12268$GE1.8109@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...

rbwinn wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
The speed of sound is only 1,087 feet per second. ?Half of that
would
only be 543.5 feet per second. ?That is not fast enough to
change
the
frequency of the light enough to worry about.

Sure it is! This is how police radar and laser guns measure the
speed
of
traffic, and they do so for motions ~100 times smaller. A
laboratory
instrument could measure speed thousands of times better than
that.

Radar does not change frequency. ?It is reflected from a target at
the
same frequency it had before.

Dude, just look it up.

I used to work on radar. ?A transmitter sends out a signal, a
receiver
picks up a signal reflected from a target. ?Unless the books about
radar the Navy gave us were incorrect, there is no appreciable
difference in frequency of the signals. ?There is a carrier wave of
constant frequency which is reflected from targets and received by a
radar receiver at the same frequency. ?The information concerning
targets is in the form of modulation of the carrier wave caused by
the
reflection. ?Doppler radar works the same way. ?The carrier wave has
the same frequency whether being transmitted or received. ?What
shows
the Doppler effect used to calculate speed are modulations of the
carrier wave.

Dude, look it up already.

That's a suggestion. I realize I've no authority to command you to do
anything.

I will point out that "look it up" does *not* mean ramble on about
what you think you know.

Given modern tools, how hard is it to check out whether Tom Roberts is
right in saying that Doppler shift "is how police radar" works, or
whether R. B. Winn is right that radar "is reflected from a target at
the same frequency it had before"? I'd say: not hard. I was pretty
confident I knew the answer, but I looked it up anyway; checked
multiple sources just to be sure. Took roughly three minutes.

--
--Bryan

You are both correct so shake hands and come out fighting!

For example the Hawk system uses a system called Hi-Par / Low-Par
acquisition and tracking radar. which is a dual freq system using low
freq
for acquisition and a higher freq once target is acquired. Both are
non-doppler
but several other systems such as the ones used by police and several
mapping
systems uses a doppler shift system.

--http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
?I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, the ones I worked on transmitted and received on the same
frequency.
Robert B. Winn

I got that but you seemed to argue thats the way they all work.
thats just not the case. Theres even systems that do both at the
same time. Use a modulated carrier and detect the freq shift
of the subset freq and time measure the carrier. This is really good
way to target war heads with precicion.