Unreliable Pioneer Data in Anderson Paper

Craig Markwardt says re the doppler data tapes from Pioneer:
" For the uplink frequency, it appears that fields 113-114,
programmed start
frequency, should be used. This is the frequency of a
programmable digital
oscillator (DCO), which is then fed to the transmitter/exciter
and
multiplied by 96.

The documentation I have says that the DCO frequency should be
near 24 MHz,
however, the values printed in fields 113-114 appear to be about
twice that
value, or 48 MHz. To make the output be S-band, ~2.2 GHz, the
multiplier
should be 48 and not 96.

I have some reduced data from Anderson et al's reduction of the
Pioneer
data, and they use the DCO frequency, and not the value in field
116, which
is the transmitter/exciter frequency. Part of the reason to
avoid field 116
is that it is low precision."

So the question is how reliable are the differences in
frequencies that
Anderson et al use to make their point about an anomalous
acceleration
caused by a Kuiper belt object or a change in the curvature of
space time or
whatever?

"ralph sansbury" writes:
Craig Markwardt says re the doppler data tapes from Pioneer:
" For the uplink frequency, it appears that fields 113-114,
programmed start
frequency, should be used. This is the frequency of a
programmable digital
oscillator (DCO), which is then fed to the transmitter/exciter
and
multiplied by 96.

The documentation I have says that the DCO frequency should be
near 24 MHz,
however, the values printed in fields 113-114 appear to be about
twice that
value, or 48 MHz. To make the output be S-band, ~2.2 GHz, the
multiplier
should be 48 and not 96.

I have some reduced data from Anderson et al's reduction of the
Pioneer
data, and they use the DCO frequency, and not the value in field
116, which
is the transmitter/exciter frequency. Part of the reason to
avoid field 116
is that it is low precision."

So the question is how reliable are the differences in
frequencies that
Anderson et al use to make their point about an anomalous
acceleration
caused by a Kuiper belt object or a change in the curvature of
space time or
whatever?

After posting the web page you refer to, I received some information
from a radio science expert which explained the issue. Over the years
the components of the DSN have been upgraded. Early systems in the
70s used a voltage controlled oscillator (VCO) with a multiplier of 96
(~22 MHz x 96). When digital controlled oscillators (DCOs) were
introduced, the multiplier was changed to 48 (~44 MHz x 48). Thus,
both multipliers were in use, but in different eras. The 48 value is
correct for the data I analyzed.

As I mentioned, it's also quite obvious from the data values in the
ATDF records. For the transmitter system to be operating near 2.2
GHz, which it does, the DCO frequency multiplier must be 48.

As for the reliability, I can quote two results. First, the frequency
residuals from my solution (or Anderson et al's solution) are of order
*milli*Hertz, which is a few parts in a million million of the
baseband frequency. A factor of two problem in the baseband frequency
would result in errors of order gigahertz.

Second, the tracking data are highly sensitive to such external
factors. If one varies the speed of light by even a few parts in
million, then the tracking solution is severely degraded. The quality
of the data are so good that there is really no room for personal
subjective choice on these matters.

CM

Hi Craig,
Re the transmitter frequency subtracted from the received
frequency
to the get the doppler shift and motion of Pioneer 10 relative to
the earth
at any specific time.
If the multiplier is exactly 48 for the DCOcase but 96 earlier
and this corresponds to something
specific in the phyical circuit, that would be ok.
(What does it correspond to?)
But it sounded like you were saying the multiplier might have
been chosen simply because it gave a value
near the predicted value and that 47.9 or 49.1 etc
would not do so.
And then the reliability of the data would be based
on the theory it was supposed to confirm.
Or maybe the multiplier had to be
an integer because this is the nature of the corresponding
circuit??
A brief description of this etc would be helpful.
It was very helpful to find out the reason for the change from
96 to 48.

You say
As for the reliability, I can quote two results. First, the
frequency
residuals from my solution (or Anderson et al's solution) are
of order
*milli*Hertz, which is a few parts in a million million of the
baseband frequency. A factor of two problem in the baseband
frequency
would result in errors of order gigahertz.

Exactly and that is my question???? If the milliHz terms
supposedly
used to show a small anomalous acceleration would have been
changed
by using a different multiplier and there is no independent
reason for choosing
48 or 48.1 etc, then there is a problem!!!!

Another problem is how do we know the transmitter frequency was
always
exactly the same as the frequency produced by the DCO times 48?
Ralph Sansbury

----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Markwardt"
To: "Ralph Sansbury"
Cc: ; "George Dishman"

Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 2:32 PM
Subject: Pioneer data tape question



Ralph Sansbury writes:
Craig, In one of your papers you say:

"For the uplink frequency, it appears that fields 113-114,
programmed start
frequency, should be used. This is the frequency of a
programmable digital
oscillator (DCO), which is then fed to the
transmitter/exciter and
multiplied by 96.

The documentation I have says that the DCO frequency should
be near 24 MHz,
however, the values printed in fields 113-114 appear to be
about twice that
value, or 48 MHz. To make the output be S-band, ~2.2 GHz,
the multiplier
should be 48 and not 96.

I have some reduced data from Anderson et al's reduction of
the Pioneer
data, and they use the DCO frequency, and not the value in
field 116, which
is the transmitter/exciter frequency. Part of the reason to
avoid field 116
is that it is low precision."

This all sounds very vague and I wonder how reliable
the resulting
doppler shift could be.
It appears you can use any multiplier you want to come as
close as
possible to the assumed predicted difference? Right?

Mr. Sansbury--

Your presupposition is incorrect: one cannot use any multiplier
one
wants. The multiplier for the data I analyzed is 48.

After posting the web page you refer to, I received some
information
from a radio science expert which explained the issue. Over
the years
the components of the DSN have been upgraded. Early systems in
the
70s used a voltage controlled oscillator (VCO) with a
multiplier of 96
(~22 MHz x 96). When digital controlled oscillators (DCOs)
were
introduced, the multiplier was changed to 48 (~44 MHz x 48).
Thus,
both multipliers were in use, but in different eras. The 48
value is
correct for the data I analyzed.

As I mentioned, it's also quite obvious from the data values in
the
ATDF records. For the transmitter system to be operating near
2.2
GHz, which it does, the DCO frequency multiplier must be 48.



As for the reliability, I can quote two results. First, the
frequency
residuals from my solution (or Anderson et al's solution) are
of order
*milli*Hertz, which is a few parts in a million million of the
baseband frequency. A factor of two problem in the baseband
frequency
would result in errors of order gigahertz.

Second, the tracking data are highly sensitive to such external
factors. If one varies the speed of light by even a few parts
in
million, then the tracking solution is severely degraded. The
quality
of the data are so good that there is really no room for
personal
subjective choice on these matters.

CM
"Craig Markwardt" wrote in
message news

"ralph sansbury" writes:
Craig Markwardt says re the doppler data tapes from Pioneer:
" For the uplink frequency, it appears that fields 113-114,
programmed start
frequency, should be used. This is the frequency of a
programmable digital
oscillator (DCO), which is then fed to the
transmitter/exciter
and
multiplied by 96.

The documentation I have says that the DCO frequency should
be
near 24 MHz,
however, the values printed in fields 113-114 appear to be
about
twice that
value, or 48 MHz. To make the output be S-band, ~2.2 GHz,
the
multiplier
should be 48 and not 96.

I have some reduced data from Anderson et al's reduction of
the
Pioneer
data, and they use the DCO frequency, and not the value in
field
116, which
is the transmitter/exciter frequency. Part of the reason to
avoid field 116
is that it is low precision."

So the question is how reliable are the differences in
frequencies that
Anderson et al use to make their point about an anomalous
acceleration
caused by a Kuiper belt object or a change in the curvature
of
space time or
whatever?

After posting the web page you refer to, I received some
information
from a radio science expert which explained the issue. Over
the years
the components of the DSN have been upgraded. Early systems in
the
70s used a voltage controlled oscillator (VCO) with a
multiplier of 96
(~22 MHz x 96). When digital controlled oscillators (DCOs)
were
introduced, the multiplier was changed to 48 (~44 MHz x 48).
Thus,
both multipliers were in use, but in different eras. The 48
value is
correct for the data I analyzed.

As I mentioned, it's also quite obvious from the data values in
the
ATDF records. For the transmitter system to be operating near
2.2
GHz, which it does, the DCO frequency multiplier must be 48.

As for the reliability, I can quote two results. First, the
frequency
residuals from my solution (or Anderson et al's solution) are
of order
*milli*Hertz, which is a few parts in a million million of the
baseband frequency. A factor of two problem in the baseband
frequency
would result in errors of order gigahertz.

Second, the tracking data are highly sensitive to such external
factors. If one varies the speed of light by even a few parts
in
million, then the tracking solution is severely degraded. The
quality
of the data are so good that there is really no room for
personal
subjective choice on these matters.

CM

"ralph sansbury" writes:

Hi Craig,
Re the transmitter frequency subtracted from the received
frequency
to the get the doppler shift and motion of Pioneer 10 relative to
the earth
at any specific time.
If the multiplier is exactly 48 for the DCOcase but 96 earlier
and this corresponds to something
specific in the phyical circuit, that would be ok.
(What does it correspond to?)


The hardware has a fixed integer multiplier between the reference
oscillator and the transmitted frequency. For the VCO the multiplier
was 96, for the DCO it was 48. This is not a tunable parameter,
i.e. it is fixed exactly by the electronics and microwave components
of the oscillator and amplifier.

The "choice" of 48 vs. 96 comes in the modeling software. The
multiplier in the software must match the multiplier used in the
hardware. There is no subjective choice involved.


You say
As for the reliability, I can quote two results. First, the
frequency
residuals from my solution (or Anderson et al's solution) are
of order
*milli*Hertz, which is a few parts in a million million of the
baseband frequency. A factor of two problem in the baseband
frequency
would result in errors of order gigahertz.

Exactly and that is my question???? If the milliHz terms
supposedly
used to show a small anomalous acceleration would have been
changed
by using a different multiplier and there is no independent
reason for choosing
48 or 48.1 etc, then there is a problem!!!!


If the frequency computations were off by 1 GHz, there would have been
no "solution" to begin with... But that is silly. The Doppler
modulations due to the earth's motion and rotation are all imprinted
on the signal, and are known to far better than 1 GHz, and are easily
checked by inspection of the data. A 1 GHz error would be caught
immediately.

And, to reiterate, there is no fitting or tuning involved in the DCO
multiplier.

Another problem is how do we know the transmitter frequency was
always
exactly the same as the frequency produced by the DCO times 48?

Because that is how the system was designed, tested and productively
used for more than a decade.

CM

In message , ralph sansbury
writes


Hi Craig,
Re the transmitter frequency subtracted from the received
frequency
to the get the doppler shift and motion of Pioneer 10 relative to
the earth
at any specific time.
If the multiplier is exactly 48 for the DCOcase but 96 earlier
and this corresponds to something
specific in the phyical circuit, that would be ok.
(What does it correspond to?)
But it sounded like you were saying the multiplier might have
been chosen simply because it gave a value
near the predicted value and that 47.9 or 49.1 etc
would not do so.
And then the reliability of the data would be based
on the theory it was supposed to confirm.
Or maybe the multiplier had to be
an integer because this is the nature of the corresponding
circuit??
A brief description of this etc would be helpful.
It was very helpful to find out the reason for the change from
96 to 48.

You say
As for the reliability, I can quote two results. First, the
frequency
residuals from my solution (or Anderson et al's solution) are
of order
*milli*Hertz, which is a few parts in a million million of the
baseband frequency. A factor of two problem in the baseband
frequency
would result in errors of order gigahertz.

Exactly and that is my question???? If the milliHz terms
supposedly
used to show a small anomalous acceleration would have been
changed
by using a different multiplier and there is no independent
reason for choosing
48 or 48.1 etc, then there is a problem!!!!

Am I right in thinking that having failed to impress anyone with your
idea that Venus radar data is the result of choosing the right signal
and throwing the rest away, you are now saying the same approach can be
used for the Pioneer anomaly?
Which are the spacecraft that are supposed to have failed because NASA
did not allow for the speed-of-light delay?
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Thanks Craig for the clarification that the transmitter
frequency for all transmissions to Pioneer 10 was the same and
produced by a circuit that multiplied 96 in the early days;48,
later, times a very precise 24 MHz local oscillator frequency.
And that this then could produce a very reliable difference in
the received frequency and the transmitted frequency.
Jonathan, My interest in this question is not to show that
only data confirming some theoretical position is accepted and
the rest is thrown away. But rather to understand how it was
possible to detect such small changes in frequency and so such
small changes in velocity of the spacecraft upon which the
Pioneer anomolous acceleration was based.
The process is impressive and fascinating as is the process
of analysing the radar reflections over Earth-Venus distances. In
the latter case
the process permitted the possibility of choosing different
starting times in the received voltage oscillations and choosing
the starting time and sequence that
was least random looking and most compatible with variations in
delay due to surface variations as one might have expected.
The process in this case as I understand it involved the
representation of nanosecond voltage variations as a Fourier
series with the largest weighted sine component of frequency
around 2292MHz and the other sine components much smaller.
The specific phase and frequency is detected using filters,Fast
Fourier Transforms and Phase Locked Loops. And if you subtracted
the received voltage values at each nanosecond or fraction of a
nanosecond from those predicted by the detected frequency and
phase, you would get a set of numbers that was normally
distributed around zero indicating that these differences were
noise.
Of course if the component of frequency in the expected range
has the same weight as those in other ranges then this would
indicate that it too was noise also.
If the sum of squares of the observed around a predicted set of
values is as great as the sum of squares about the mean of the
set of values then the predicted set of values is worthless and I
suppose some sort of criteria is the basis for saying that the
receptions from Pioneer 10 are now lost in noise.
It would be nice to get a little more clarification on this
point eg What is ratio of error sum of squares around the
selected frequency to the sum of squares around the mean?

"Jonathan Silverlight"
wrote in message
...
In message , ralph sansbury
writes


Hi Craig,
Re the transmitter frequency subtracted from the received
frequency
to the get the doppler shift and motion of Pioneer 10 relative
to
the earth
at any specific time.
If the multiplier is exactly 48 for the DCOcase but 96
earlier
and this corresponds to something
specific in the phyical circuit, that would be ok.
(What does it correspond to?)
But it sounded like you were saying the multiplier might
have
been chosen simply because it gave a value
near the predicted value and that 47.9 or 49.1 etc
would not do so.
And then the reliability of the data would be based
on the theory it was supposed to confirm.
Or maybe the multiplier had to be
an integer because this is the nature of the corresponding
circuit??
A brief description of this etc would be helpful.
It was very helpful to find out the reason for the change
from
96 to 48.

You say
As for the reliability, I can quote two results. First, the
frequency
residuals from my solution (or Anderson et al's solution)
are
of order
*milli*Hertz, which is a few parts in a million million of
the
baseband frequency. A factor of two problem in the baseband
frequency
would result in errors of order gigahertz.

Exactly and that is my question???? If the milliHz terms
supposedly
used to show a small anomalous acceleration would have been
changed
by using a different multiplier and there is no independent
reason for choosing
48 or 48.1 etc, then there is a problem!!!!

Am I right in thinking that having failed to impress anyone
with your
idea that Venus radar data is the result of choosing the right
signal
and throwing the rest away, you are now saying the same
approach can be
used for the Pioneer anomaly?
Which are the spacecraft that are supposed to have failed
because NASA
did not allow for the speed-of-light delay?
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

In message , ralph sansbury
writes
Jonathan, My interest in this question is not to show that
only data confirming some theoretical position is accepted and
the rest is thrown away. But rather to understand how it was
possible to detect such small changes in frequency and so such
small changes in velocity of the spacecraft upon which the
Pioneer anomolous acceleration was based.
The process is impressive and fascinating as is the process
of analysing the radar reflections over Earth-Venus distances. In
the latter case
the process permitted the possibility of choosing different
starting times in the received voltage oscillations and choosing
the starting time and sequence that
was least random looking and most compatible with variations in
delay due to surface variations as one might have expected.
The process in this case as I understand it involved the
representation of nanosecond voltage variations as a Fourier
series with the largest weighted sine component of frequency
around 2292MHz and the other sine components much smaller.
The specific phase and frequency is detected using filters,Fast
Fourier Transforms and Phase Locked Loops. And if you subtracted
the received voltage values at each nanosecond or fraction of a
nanosecond from those predicted by the detected frequency and
phase, you would get a set of numbers that was normally
distributed around zero indicating that these differences were
noise.
Of course if the component of frequency in the expected range
has the same weight as those in other ranges then this would
indicate that it too was noise also.

Instead of posting your nonsense here, why not try contacting the
various groups who have been mapping Venus by radar since the 1960s? You
will have quite a choice - Arecibo, the Russians, the Pioneer Venus
team, and the Magellan team have all produced similar results from very
different equipment.
I also pointed you toward mapping of asteroids such as Kleopatra.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Thanks Craig for the clarification that the transmitter
frequency for all transmissions to Pioneer 10 was the same
and produced by a circuit that multiplied 96 in the early
days;48, later, times a very precise 24 MHz local oscillator
frequency.
And that this then could produce a very reliable difference in
the received frequency and the transmitted frequency.
The process in this case as I understand it involved the
representation of nanosecond voltage variations as a Fourier
series with the largest weighted sine component of frequency
around 2292MHz and the other sine components much smaller.
The specific phase and frequency is detected using filters,
Fast Fourier Transforms and Phase Locked Loops. And if you
subtracted
the received voltage values at each nanosecond or fraction of a
nanosecond from those predicted by the detected frequency and
phase, you would get a set of numbers that was normally
distributed around zero indicating that these differences were
noise.
Of course if the component of frequency in the expected range
has the same weight as those in other ranges then this would
indicate that it too was noise also.
If the sum of squares of the observed around a predicted set of
values is as great as the sum of squares about the mean of the
set of values then the predicted set of values is worthless and I
suppose some sort of criteria is the basis for saying that the
receptions from Pioneer 10 are now lost in noise.
It would be nice to get a little more clarification on this
point eg What is ratio of error sum of squares around the
selected frequency to the sum of squares around the mean?
Does item 101 Average Doppler Residual have something
to do with the numerator of this ratio eg 3 times the sq rt of
numerator would lead to a 99percent confidence interval for
the true received doppler shift?
Ralph Sansbury





"Craig Markwardt" wrote in
message news





"ralph sansbury" writes:

Hi Craig,
Re the transmitter frequency subtracted from the received
frequency
to the get the doppler shift and motion of Pioneer 10
relative to
the earth
at any specific time.
If the multiplier is exactly 48 for the DCOcase but 96
earlier
and this corresponds to something
specific in the phyical circuit, that would be ok.
(What does it correspond to?)


The hardware has a fixed integer multiplier between the
reference
oscillator and the transmitted frequency. For the VCO the
multiplier
was 96, for the DCO it was 48. This is not a tunable
parameter,
i.e. it is fixed exactly by the electronics and microwave
components
of the oscillator and amplifier.

The "choice" of 48 vs. 96 comes in the modeling software. The
multiplier in the software must match the multiplier used in
the
hardware. There is no subjective choice involved.


Exactly and that is my question???? If the milliHz terms
supposedly
used to show a small anomalous acceleration would have been
changed
by using a different multiplier and there is no independent
reason for choosing
48 or 48.1 etc, then there is a problem!!!!



And, to reiterate, there is no fitting or tuning involved in
the DCO
multiplier.

Another problem is how do we know the transmitter frequency
was
always
exactly the same as the frequency produced by the DCO times
48?

Because that is how the system was designed, tested and
productively
used for more than a decade.

"Jonathan Silverlight"
wrote in message
...
In message , ralph sansbury
writes
Jonathan, My interest in this question is not to show that
only data confirming some theoretical position is accepted and
the rest is thrown away. But rather to understand how it was
possible to detect such small changes in frequency and so such
small changes in velocity of the spacecraft upon which the
Pioneer anomolous acceleration was based.
The process is impressive and fascinating as is the
process
of analysing the radar reflections over Earth-Venus distances.
In
the latter case
the process permitted the possibility of choosing different
starting times in the received voltage oscillations and
choosing
the starting time and sequence that
was least random looking and most compatible with variations
in
delay due to surface variations as one might have expected.

This method was completely different than the method
involved
in digging signal out of noise in the spacecraft doppler case.

The process in this Pioneer 10 case as I understand it
involved the
representation of nanosecond voltage variations as a Fourier
series with the largest weighted sine component of frequency
around 2292MHz and the other sine components much smaller.
The specific phase and frequency is detected using
filters,Fast
Fourier Transforms and Phase Locked Loops. And if you
subtracted
the received voltage values at each nanosecond or fraction of
a
nanosecond from those predicted by the detected frequency and
phase, you would get a set of numbers that was normally
distributed around zero indicating that these differences were
noise.
Of course if the component of frequency in the expected
range
has the same weight as those in other ranges then this would
indicate that it too was noise also.

Instead of posting your nonsense here, why not try contacting
the
various groups who have been mapping Venus by radar since the
1960s? You
will have quite a choice - Arecibo, the Russians, the Pioneer
Venus
team, and the Magellan team have all produced similar results
from very
different equipment.
I also pointed you toward mapping of asteroids such as
Kleopatra.
--

I have. And unlike you they know something about the
process that
was used to derive radar maps from very weak radar reflections as
opposed
to less questionable radar maps from stronger radar reflections.
There is reason to question the weaker signals and the method
used to dig
them out of noise see http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury. The
method can
sometimes be valid but it can be stretched to point where
legitimate questions
can be raised as to the validity of the results. This applies to
the earth venus case.
I think you, or someone like you said that the earth venus
reflections
were compared with the spacecraft venus reflections eg pixel by
pixel and the
original noisy radar map was shown to be an accurate
representation of
the more believable spacecraft map. But that is baloney and you
both know it.

In message , ralph sansbury
writes

"Jonathan Silverlight"
wrote in message
...

Instead of posting your nonsense here, why not try contacting
the
various groups who have been mapping Venus by radar since the
1960s? You
will have quite a choice - Arecibo, the Russians, the Pioneer
Venus
team, and the Magellan team have all produced similar results
from very
different equipment.
I also pointed you toward mapping of asteroids such as
Kleopatra.
--

I have. And unlike you they know something about the
process that
was used to derive radar maps from very weak radar reflections as
opposed
to less questionable radar maps from stronger radar reflections.
There is reason to question the weaker signals and the method
used to dig
them out of noise see http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury. The
method can
sometimes be valid but it can be stretched to point where
legitimate questions
can be raised as to the validity of the results. This applies to
the earth venus case.
I think you, or someone like you said that the earth venus
reflections
were compared with the spacecraft venus reflections eg pixel by
pixel and the
original noisy radar map was shown to be an accurate
representation of
the more believable spacecraft map. But that is baloney and you
both know it.

I didn't say "pixel by pixel" or if I did, I overstated it. The first
maps of Venus were more crude than the first pictures of the far side of
the Moon. But they did show Alpha Regio and Beta Regio, where all
subsequent studies have shown them with increasing detail.
But I did make one mistake. The first work by R M Goldstein and S Zohar
of JPL was done at Goldstone; the Arecibo results are good enough to
compare directly with Magellan. See
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA00207, for instance.
I don't see anything on your web page about radar or signal processing.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.