Pioneer 10 rx error and tx frequencies?

"ralph sansbury" writes:
Craig,
I would like to obtain the Pioneer 10 Doppler data you
obtained
and before you filtered it.

Raw data are available on-line from NSSDC. Software like GCC and IDL
are available on line for free, or for a fee. Programs and
descriptions on how to read the ATDF data are on-line.

CM

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"ralph sansbury" wrote in message
...

"George G. Dishman" wrote in
message
om...
"ralph sansbury" wrote in message
...

Or it could mean that the frequency received had more
or
less Doppler shift than predicted.

No, that would result in a single peak somewhere other
than the expected position. In fact that is the nature
of the anomaly reported by Anderson et al, the signal
at the end of 1994 was about 3Hz away from where it
was expected.

A small shift over any small time interval might be inside
the error bars but if it is sustained over many such small time
this is like the error bars of a sample mean being 1/sqrt(n)
where n is the size of the sample.


You asked about the possibility of another signal "near the
one frequency detected" implying two signals.

You say that the output of the FFT algorithm is to produce
a
graph of the power around various frequencies and that
typically
here you get a lot of power around one frequency and that
other
frequencies over a wider range have .01 of the power of this
major frequency.

The value of 0.01 was a single example Craig gave (I think).
The ratio would be much higher when Pioneer was closer to
Earth and was approaching 1:1 when it was lost a year or two
ago.

You say that you get a normal curve with the peak at this
frequency and that you integrate under the curve to get the
power
and that would seem to imply your summands or integrands
include
power associated with greater and lesser frequencies around
the
central frequency.

Jitter turns a high narrow peak into a smaller, broader peak

Jitter connotes interference of parts of the circuitry on
one
another and a small back and forth movement of a distinct wave
form on the scope ie small eg .1 cycle symmetric changes in phase
of a distinct wave.
Here the wave form on the scope is not distinct since the true
waveform is embedded in noise

The total power is just that fraction of what was transmitted
that impinges on the receive anntenna.

plus all sorts of other noisy radiation and noise within the
receiver circuitry.

This says to me that the peak frequency is the most likely
frequency in this particular "sample" but that a .99
confidence
interval for the "population" frequency would be plus or
minus 3
standard deviations around this sample frequency.
The SAMPLING of the population here could be regarded as
many
hypothetical repetitions of the receiving of radiation
procedure
over the same time interval.

It is more complex.
What is complex is the way you are jumping to another
but related viewpoint:
A decision procedure that will give for the long term a certain
number
of rejections of frequency estimates when they are true and
acceptance
of frequency estimates when they are false


For random noise you have a distibution
of component amplitudes and the probability of getting a
false detection depends on how far above the mean level you
set the threshold. There are two factors, the noise has to
be much higher than average and the signal has to be much
lower than the average, both rare events anway, before the
noise can exceed the signal.


Again though, such a false detection is incredibly unlikely
to be repeated at the same frequency on the repeat test done
some time later on a new set of samples, the PLL would not
lock on, the sub-carrier would not be present and the data
correction would indicate an unusable Bit Error Rate.


Maybe but what are the reasons? I sense that over billions
or millions of repetitions of zero crossings at the same interval
or on average at the same interval with small symmetric jitter
like
deviations at each interval imposed on the observed sequence
of voltage values that such a specific frequency is analagous to
a specific sample mean of billions or millions of individual
samples and
so the true frequency confidence interval of plus or minus 3
standard
deviations divided by the sqrt(a billion).
What would this be in Hz?

Ralph

Craig, Could not find doppler data or programs and compilers
from your vague answer. I'll ask you a third time send me the
unfiltered Pioneer 10 doppler data for 87 and 88 that I can
import to an excell spread sheet.
Ralph

"Craig Markwardt" wrote in
message news

"ralph sansbury" writes:
Craig,
I would like to obtain the Pioneer 10 Doppler data you
obtained
and before you filtered it.

Raw data are available on-line from NSSDC. Software like GCC
and IDL
are available on line for free, or for a fee. Programs and
descriptions on how to read the ATDF data are on-line.

CM

In article ,
ralph sansbury wrote:
Craig, Could not find doppler data or programs and compilers
from your vague answer.

Gee, from his "vague" answer I was able to find the data in less than
30 seconds.

Why don't you try
http://nssdcftp.gsfc.nasa.gov/spacec...tdf/atdf_data/

No offense, but you appear to need to be spoon fed.

"ralph sansbury" writes:
Craig, Could not find doppler data or programs and compilers
from your vague answer. I'll ask you a third time send me the
unfiltered Pioneer 10 doppler data for 87 and 88 that I can
import to an excell spread sheet.
Ralph

Can you search for "pioneer atdf" or "gcc" or "idl"?

CM

"Craig Markwardt" wrote in
message news

"ralph sansbury" writes:
Craig, Could not find doppler data or programs and
compilers
from your vague answer. I'll ask you a third time send me
the
unfiltered Pioneer 10 doppler data for 87 and 88 that I can
import to an excell spread sheet.
Ralph

Can you search for "pioneer atdf" or "gcc" or "idl"?

I found and downloaded an 8Mbyte pioneer data file 87037t071.dat
and tried to read it with this gnu c++ program
but got the "eof is read or cannot open file" response. Do you
have some idl code and a specific download
site for the compiler or maybe you could modify this code so it
would work?

#include stdio.h
#include iostream.h
#include fstream.h
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
unsigned int t,j, icnt,u,ch[8]; unsigned char w;

ifstream AA("C:/87037t071.dat", ios::in | ios::binary);
if(!AA){cout " eof is read or cannot open file.\n";return 1;}
icnt=0; while(icnt7)
{
AA.get(w);u=w;icnt=icnt+1;
if(2icnt7)cout icnt;j=0;
for(t=128; t0; t=t/2)
{
if(u&t)
ch[j]=1; else ch[j]=0;
j=j+1;
}
for (j=0;j8; j=j+1) cout ch[j];
cout "w is" w"next byte is";
}
return 0;
}

"ralph sansbury" wrote in message
...

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"ralph sansbury" wrote in message
...

"George G. Dishman" wrote in
message
om...
"ralph sansbury" wrote in message
...

Or it could mean that the frequency received had more
or
less Doppler shift than predicted.

No, that would result in a single peak somewhere other
than the expected position. In fact that is the nature
of the anomaly reported by Anderson et al, the signal
at the end of 1994 was about 3Hz away from where it
was expected.

A small shift over any small time interval might be inside
the error bars but if it is sustained over many such small time
this is like the error bars of a sample mean being 1/sqrt(n)
where n is the size of the sample.

There are no "error bars". The signal just needs to be
within the band being examined. Page 10 of DSN document
209, which I keep suggesting you look at, shows that
the smallest bandwidth is 1kHz. As long as the signal
is in that or an adjacent band, it will be found.

You say that you get a normal curve with the peak at this
frequency and that you integrate under the curve to get the power
and that would seem to imply your summands or integrands include
power associated with greater and lesser frequencies around the
central frequency.

Jitter turns a high narrow peak into a smaller, broader peak

Jitter connotes interference of parts of the circuitry on one
another

No, the effect is produced by the noise included with the signal.

and a small back and forth movement of a distinct wave
form on the scope ie small eg .1 cycle symmetric changes in phase
of a distinct wave.

That's right, it describes the effect, not the cause.

Here the wave form on the scope is not distinct since the true
waveform is embedded in noise

For the example you were discussing of a signal to noise
voltage ratio of 100:1, the noise amplitude is ~1% of the
signal so the phase jitter would be around 1 degree rms.
What you would see would be completely indistinguishable
from a pure sine wave but moving slightly back and forth
as you describe.

The total power is just that fraction of what was transmitted
that impinges on the receive anntenna.

plus all sorts of other noisy radiation and noise within the
receiver circuitry.

Only that part of the received noise that falls within the
width of the peak and receiver noise is negligible due to
the LNA.

This says to me that the peak frequency is the most likely
frequency in this particular "sample" but that a .99 confidence
interval for the "population" frequency would be plus or minus 3
standard deviations around this sample frequency.
The SAMPLING of the population here could be regarded as many
hypothetical repetitions of the receiving of radiation procedure
over the same time interval.

It is more complex.
What is complex is the way you are jumping to another
but related viewpoint:
A decision procedure that will give for the long term a certain number
of rejections of frequency estimates when they are true and acceptance
of frequency estimates when they are false


For random noise you have a distibution
of component amplitudes and the probability of getting a
false detection depends on how far above the mean level you
set the threshold. There are two factors, the noise has to
be much higher than average and the signal has to be much
lower than the average, both rare events anway, before the
noise can exceed the signal.


Again though, such a false detection is incredibly unlikely
to be repeated at the same frequency on the repeat test done
some time later on a new set of samples, the PLL would not
lock on, the sub-carrier would not be present and the data
correction would indicate an unusable Bit Error Rate.


Maybe but what are the reasons?

Reasons for what? Each of the aspects I listed needs a
completely different answer. What you say next doesn't
seem related to any of the above. Can you deal with them
separately please.

I sense that over billions
or millions of repetitions of zero crossings at the same interval
or on average at the same interval with small symmetric jitter
like
deviations at each interval imposed on the observed sequence
of voltage values that such a specific frequency is analagous to
a specific sample mean of billions or millions of individual
samples and
so the true frequency confidence interval of plus or minus 3
standard
deviations divided by the sqrt(a billion).
What would this be in Hz?

George

Craig, 1)I changed my ifstream statement below with two
backward slashes instead of one and put the downloaded atdf file
in C and renamed it "test.dat" and the program seemed to read
the first 70 bytes of this file ok with some non zero binary
bytes.
2)Am concerned now about what to do when a physical eof is
encountered so as to continue reading after it and changing the
subsequent fields as before?
Hope to be able to stay with this c++ language because I have
the compiler already.
Ralph
"ralph sansbury" wrote in message news:...

"Craig Markwardt" wrote
in
message news

"ralph sansbury" writes:
Craig, Could not find doppler data or programs and
compilers
from your vague answer. I'll ask you a third time send me
the
unfiltered Pioneer 10 doppler data for 87 and 88 that I
can
import to an excell spread sheet.
Ralph

Can you search for "pioneer atdf" or "gcc" or "idl"?

I found and downloaded an 8Mbyte pioneer data file
87037t071.dat
and tried to read it with this gnu c++ program
but got the "eof is read or cannot open file" response. Do you
have some idl code and a specific download
site for the compiler or maybe you could modify this code so
it
would work?

#include stdio.h
#include iostream.h
#include fstream.h
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
unsigned int t,j, icnt,u,ch[8]; unsigned char w;

ifstream AA("C:\\ test.dat", ios::in | ios::binary);
if(!AA){cout " eof is read or cannot open file.\n";return 1;}
icnt=0; while(icnt7)
{
AA.get(w);u=w;icnt=icnt+1;
if(2icnt7)cout icnt;j=0;
for(t=128; t0; t=t/2)
{
if(u&t)
ch[j]=1; else ch[j]=0;
j=j+1;
}
for (j=0;j8; j=j+1) cout ch[j];
cout "w is" w"next byte is";
}
return 0;
}

"ralph sansbury" writes:
2)Am concerned now about what to do when a physical eof is
encountered so as to continue reading after it and changing the
subsequent fields as before?

There is no data beyond the end of the file. Do not change the
original data fields.

CM

"ralph sansbury" writes:
You and George have not clearly answered the question as to
the possibility and probability of sine functions with other
frequencies near the one frequency detected using the FFT
procedure and phase locked loops.

The probability of such an occurrence is essentially zero. Only a
spacecraft moving on Pioneer 10's trajectory, or one very near it
(within a few kilometers) and with very neary the same motion (within
1 mm/s). A different trajectory is ruled out at extremely high
confidence.

Your supposition of an unaccounted-for Doppler shift is irrelevant. A
Doppler shift would shift the whole peak. Since, by construction the
tracking hardware can detect any carrier signal within the bandpass,
the spacecraft signal would still be detected. That is, after all,
the purpose of the tracking system: to detect unaccounted-for changes
in the spacecraft motion, and based on that, apply corrections to the
spacecraft navigation.

Your supposition of a harmonic is completely unsupported. The first
harmonic of the carrier is at 4.5 GHz, which is not even in the S-band.

And, your speculation of a light travel time of a few seconds is
utterly unfounded. As I already pointed out, there are many cases
(about 30% of the data set) where the uplink transmitter was off, and
yet at the same time, high quality downlink signal and telemetry were
still received. There is no way your supposed scenario can function
in those cases.

And furthermore, assuming that the light travel time is different than
d/c completely destroys the Doppler tracking solution. Assuming that
the light travel time to a few seconds causes residuals of thousands
of Hertz. Based on the expected rms of a few mHz, that assumption is
ruled out with essentially 100% confidence. Even a change of the
speed of light by one part in one million is ruled out.

CM