I live currently in the Philippines.
Yes some people here do not have internet. But most do. On their 3g or the new LTE equiped phones where they ALL have access to the FREE Facebook that the phone companies provide here.
For the people in the Philippines that do not have internet, what COMPELLING CONTENT is Outernet going to offer as a ONE_WAY data service that would Justify a $100 Outernet hardware purchase. (Phones here start at $30 US for a entry level smart phone.)
I did fail to mention that also in those parts of the world where the internet or phone service is lacking, there also likely is much less terrestrial interference, and it is possible that additional shielding parts may not be needed. The situation we are working with here would not necessarily be solved with an amplifier; there is plenty of signal available. My LNBF will receive a -76 signal without the additional shield. However, that is with an SNR of -14 and a bit rate of around 6500, 60% valid packets. I believe most of that is due to a tremendous amount of wifi in use, mesh networking, etc. in my particular neighborhood. Yes, I can reduce the SNR to -4 or -5, 100% valid packets with a 21000 bit rate, by using a small dish. Using the “cone” shield demonstrated above, I have had to trade that -76 for a -82, but get a good bit rate. Using the bean can I demonstrated earlier, I had an SNR of -11 to -12 with 100% valid packets and a bit rate over 20000. I don’t believe that for the areas we are targeting with the Outernet project, that we will find the same SNR situation due to the difference in the RF environment, and we possibly would not need the shielding at all. But the information we are gathering now could help those in the field later on if it is needed. I cannot speak with authority beyond this, however, someone such as @kenbarbi or @Seasalt who live, or have lived in the remote areas can. Incidentally, I do this with an attitude for the good of my fellow man, it is no fuss to me, I do it gladly with hope that it can be useful, perhaps even profitable for others somewhere, somehow…
I noticed the clamp mentioned in your materials, it is somewhat different from mine, however very likely will work. I personally like the one I am using because it is not rigid. Incidentally, the two rubber stoppers in the picture were not used–they are for the ends of the pipe to keep out insects, only, and no other practical reason.
The received signal strength is more than sufficient for the radio, so an amplifier won’t provide any benefit. Keep in mind that we are dealing with a signal that is below the noise floor due to inteferance in the channel. Co-channel interference is mitigated by reducing the number of interfering sources, which the cone-extensions do by increasing antenna aperture and gain. The other way to mitigate co-channel interference is through processing, which we already do to a certain extent. We can increase the spreading factor, but that will further reduce the bitrate. But the point I’d like to make is that a low-noise-amplifier in the receive chain will not provide any additional advantages, with respect to SNR.
then ill have to agree with you then @Syed if we had a way to make a easy cone extension to make or buy would prob be the best option in my book my only issue is it has to look nice like panted all white 
what about foil … layers of foil could make a good wave guide… laminate it together like Paper Mache…
Jerry makes excellent points in this post.
Although I live outside of Washington, DC, with a 30 Mbps internet connection and all sorts of information feeds, when I travel to remote parts of the world, I see Outernet’s relevance. Even here in North America, there are “dark territories” (areas with no satellite TV or cellular service) - - surprise!!
The previous L-band system worked flawlessly there, and was a real game changer. No doubt the current Ku-band will also be a game changer, but it has to be flushed out. By that I mean antennas, pointing, tracking, etc. have to tried in those areas.
@Seasalt, in the Philippines, reports much greater usage of cellular phones with 3G and LTE access at costs lower than a $100 Outernet package are happening now. How will that play out in other parts of the world?
So maybe 4 billion people don’t have internet access - - only 2 billion which is still allot. Ken
It sounds like a good platform for experimenting. I have noticed that a lot of C band LNB units have large concentric rings/cones near the end of the unit. Perhaps we can move that direction with some testing and devise something small such as @tylerhoot suggests, that we could manufacture inexpensively and sell with the units.
the MK1 LNB is a corrugated horn LNB, so it makes sense to “copy paste” that internal step size to the extender cone (theoretically)
Corrugated horn – A horn with parallel slots or grooves, small compared with a wavelength, covering the inside surface of the horn, transverse to the axis. Corrugated horns have wider bandwidth and smaller sidelobes and cross-polarization, and are widely used as feed horns for satellite dishes and radio telescopes.
I am now waiting on the unit to arrive … a co-worker gave me an old king dome auto scan now that Direct TV has changed and it might be perfect for use with the unit… I was going to try and use it to track satellites for ham use but could not seem to figure out what the tilt sensor is (that gold package and it is from 2004) I am still learning the in and outs of above UHF… so forgive me if my questions seem a bit daft… prob would scrap all of the electronics and make it just a base unit for the DC3 would be handy to have a portable lol (this thing is huge but forgiving… its light weight) unit for teaching and demonstrations to others and buff out the king dome and put outernet on the the outside…
@zoltan, I had similar thoughts, following the rings out farther. This afternoon I took a 7" funnel that I got at O’reilly Auto Parts and trimmed it to fit my LNB mount, lined it inside and out with aluminum duct tape. From this combination, I am currently receiving a -84 Rssi at -10.75 SNR, 86% valid, bitrate 20124 as shown below. I will line the inside of a 4" funnel in the next few days with this same duct tape and attach it inside the larger funnel with sticky mounting tape and again report the result.
Is anyone interested in trying to get the Dreamcatcher mesh networking?
Using a slightly different USB WiFi connector it might be possible to get this to run?
Normal users would need to use it without an antenna to keep within power limits, Hams (in some legal jurisdictions) could add an antenna for even more range.
It would open up the possibility of covering a much larger area with one dream catcher.
Interesting concept. My experience with a mesh network and Dreamcatcher (well the L-Band version) was the stock WiFi worked fine as long as you connected it to the correct local WiFi. One of the South African tent camps I stayed at last year had a small mesh.
Did I miss something here? Conceptually, in a small village, you could connect a single Dreamcatcher to the mesh for large volumes of incoming traffic, and a port on the main router to a BGAN terminal for low data outgoing traffic. Ken
Jerry, did you do a before and after comparison to see what kind of gain improvements in SNR was? Konrad and I are using a martini shaker sized cone which provides a narrower shielded look angle up to the satellite, and have seen 2 to 3 dB increases in SNR. Ken
Hi @kenbarbi Ken, yes, the improvements were upwards of 4dB SNR. Without anything on a bare LNB, we are seeing -14.25 to -13 on the average. Yesterday it was raining, and had just stopped raining when we put the funnel device to work and got it aimed properly. My 8-inch cone project is similar to the one you and @Konrad_Roeder Konrad have built. This morning, I am seeing that there is .001 packet error now and that looks better. I was not able to get above about .021 using the aluminum cone.
One thought to make it travel ready (so it fits in a suitcase or backpack) is to use a more flexible dish form, and then fold it up in on itself. I’m thinking of some sort of pliable plastic dish material wrapped with the aluminum tape. Ken
@kenbarbi You can also make the cones in a pyramidal shape, which lends itself to collapsing at the corner.
@maxboysdad Is pointing considerably more difficult with the cone? Based on your increased SNR, the beamwidth should be decreased by half.
That’s a great idea. I can cut aluminum flashing into the correct shape (maybe four 2" x 4" x 8" trapezoids), and use aluminum duct tape to hold them together easily folding them up for transport. I’ll try that approach. Ken
This is what they look like, in case you haven’t seen them before.
https://www.pasternack.com/10-ghz-to-15-ghz-wr75-standard-gain-horn-antennas-category.aspx
Here’s my waterproof Sunday Home Brew (8"x2"x4") aluminum flashing pyramid taped together with aluminum duct tape (weight 1.6 oz) - -
The stock Maverick with a clear sky view gives a 4 dB improvement in SNR from a bare LNB at -12.5 dB lowest reading to a -8.5 dB lowest reading with the pyramid over LNB.
What surprised me more was bringing the setup next to my house with an obstructed view of sky
I was able to get a reliable low SNR of -10.5 dB which put me on the Frame Lock Status Map with a double balloon over NYC (my VPN location). However, without the pyramid, I had no frame lock.
I have to figure out the attachment procedure. For this test, I just taped the pyramid onto the LNB. To make it fit tighter, I need to expand my 2" dimension to 2.25" and use 3/8" galvanized mesh wire to accommodate wind problems. That way I can squeeze the wire to snug it down on the LNB and snugly tape it in place (might even consider using 4 small screws into the LNB cover). Ken
