正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Gemini (left) vs ChatGPT vs Claude (right) Prompt: Create an interactive HTML, CSS, and JavaScript simulation of a satellite system that transmits signals to ground receivers. The simulation should show a satellite orbiting the Earth and periodically sending signals that are received by multiple ground stations. Include realistic factors...

229,964 次观看 • 8 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

🚨 A SATELLITE JUST REVEALED SOMETHING SHOCKING: GPS JAMMING IS FAR MORE WIDESPREAD THAN ANYONE REALIZED. An experimental navigation satellite called Pulsar-0, flying just 500 km above Earth, has mapped GPS signal tampering from space for the first time and the scale surprised even the engineers who built it. As soon as the satellite passed over Europe and parts of the Middle East, its GPS receiver showed massive signal degradation. In the worst areas, signal strength dropped from a normal 40 decibels all the way down to just 10 decibels. Why this matters: • Ground-based jammers (used in conflicts like Ukraine and the Middle East) are now reaching all the way into low Earth orbit • Satellites like Starlink that rely on GPS for collision avoidance and positioning are being affected across a huge region from France to the borders of Pakistan • When GPS drops out, satellites can’t accurately point their antennas, maintain formation, or safely maneuver • This isn’t just a military problem it threatens the growing network of commercial satellites we increasingly depend on The deeper implication: We’ve long known that GPS signals on the ground can be jammed. What we didn’t fully appreciate is how far those jamming signals reach into space. Even satellites in low Earth orbit the backbone of global communications, Earth observation, and future mega-constellations are now operating in an increasingly hostile electromagnetic environment. Xona’s upcoming constellation aims to fix this with signals 100 times stronger than traditional GPS. But the bigger question remains: as more nations and groups weaponize jamming and spoofing, how resilient will our orbital infrastructure actually be? How concerned are you that GPS jamming is now reaching into space and affecting satellites? Follow for more frontier space technology and the hidden vulnerabilities of our orbital systems.

TheNewPhysics

50,100 次观看 • 1 个月前

🇷🇺 Russia’s Starlink killers showcase new era of electronic battlefield warfare Russia has ramped-up EW use to detect and jam Elon Musk’s Starlink terminals and satellites, Ukrainian media reports. 👉 Meet Russia’s key counter-Starlink systems: 🔸 Volna Kupol Garant Russia’s latest electronic warfare system reportedly uses a directed high-frequency radio beam to disrupt Starlink operations. Rather than damaging satellites orbiting roughly 500 kilometers above Earth, the system blinds them – cutting their ability to connect with ground terminals while they remain under attack. According to reports, Volna is a mobile system built around six trailers. Each carries a pair of steerable satellite dishes mounted on rotating platforms. A single battery is reportedly capable of denying Starlink coverage across an area of up to 20 sq km. Some analysts say the system was previously referenced under the designation Peresvet-M, although this has not been independently confirmed. Ukrainian sources claim Volna was first deployed during Russia's offensive in the Kharkov region in 2024. They also say its use has increased significantly in recent months. 🔸 Tobol The secretive Russian EW complex is reportedly used to disrupt signals from NATO-linked satellite networks, including GPS, Galileo, and Starlink. Reports claim that Tobol attacks satellite communications on both ends of the link – jamming downlinks from satellites to ground receivers and uplinks from Earth to orbit. Its power and range also allegedly allow it to create an electromagnetic "umbrella." 🔸 Kalinka The system is designed to hunt down satellite communications signals, including those transmitted by Starlink terminals at distances of up to 15 km. It can reportedly track and lock onto even Starshield – SpaceX’s hardened military variant of Starlink. Western media warns that while Tobol disrupts GPS signals on a broad scale, the Kalinka’s precision-targeting capabilities could pose a more direct threat to specific military operations. 🔸 Krasukha The Krasukha-S4 is designed to neutralize reconnaissance satellites, ground-based radar installations, and airborne surveillance systems. It does so by emitting powerful electronic jamming signals that disrupt key radar bands and other radio-frequency emissions. A standard Krasukha-S4 battery consists of two vehicles and has an operational range exceeding 300 kilometers. 🔸 Borshchevik The light mobile system is designed to detect and geolocate Starlink terminals within a 180-degree sector at ranges of up to 10 km, with a reported accuracy of five meters. Using direction-finding and biangulation algorithms, it can locate a target in less than three minutes at a single scanning position. The Borshchevik-2 airborne system hunts Starlink signals from the sky, with reported accuracy down to 0.4 m.

Sputnik

25,246 次观看 • 7 天前

the model in that clip has no good signal in it. it still put up +17% against the index's +5% the formula is doing the work R(t) = (Rmax / 7) · Σ s_i(t) seven separate signals, each scored, averaged into one number that's the entire model. no genius indicator anywhere in it and that's the part retail keeps missing retail hunts for the one signal that works a desk assumes every individual signal is weak and builds around that assumption here's why that assumption wins take N signals, each with sharpe s, and average them if they're uncorrelated, the combined sharpe is: s · √N seven weak signals at sharpe 0.3 each 0.3 × √7 = 0.79 nothing in that stack survives a backtest alone. together they clear the bar the noise in each signal is independent, so averaging cancels it the edge in each points the same way, so averaging keeps it that asymmetry is the whole mechanism but there's a catch, and it's the one that kills retail attempts correlation. the real formula is: s · √( N / (1 + (N−1)ρ) ) at ρ = 0.5 those same seven signals give: 0.3 × √(7 / 4) = 0.40 half the benefit, gone seven versions of momentum with different lookbacks aren't seven signals. they're one signal, repeated so the search isn't for better signals it's for signals that are wrong at different times grinold formalized this in 1989. the fundamental law of active management: IR = IC × √breadth skill per bet times the square root of how many independent bets you take you can be barely right, as long as you're barely right about many uncorrelated things renaissance doesn't run one model. it runs thousands of weak ones that's not a compromise. that's the design retail asks "is this signal good enough to trade" a desk asks "what does this add that i don't already have" the math is public. grinold's paper, every portfolio theory textbook the correlation matrix that tells you whether your signals are actually distinct is three lines of python they weren't finding better signals they were finding signals that disagree full breakdown in the article below

delost

27,591 次观看 • 14 天前

[Discrete Fourier Transform] by Hand ✍️ In signal processing, the Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) is no doubt the most important method. But the math involved is extremely complex, literally, involving a summation over a complex number term e^(-iwt). I developed this exercise to demonstrate that underneath such complexity, DFT is just a series of matrix multiplications you can calculate by hand. ✍️ Once you see that, it should not surprise you that a deep neural network, which is also a series of matrix multiplications, with activation functions in-between, can learn to perform DFT to process and analyze signals so effectively. How does DFT work? [1] Given ↳ Signals A, B, and C in the 🟧 frequency domain: ◦ A = cos(w) + 2cos(2w) ◦ B = cos(w) + cos(3w) + cos(4w) ◦ C = -cos(2w) + cos(3w) ◦ Each signal is a weighed sum of four cosine waves at frequencies 1w, 2w, 3w, and 4w. ◦ We will apply Inverse DFT to convert the signals to time domain representations, and then demonstrate DFT can convert back to their original frequency domain representations. ↳ Signal X in the 🟩 time domain. X is sampled at 10 time points 1t, 2t, …, 10t: ◦ X = [-2.5, -1.8, 3, -0.7, -1.0, -0.7, 3, -1.8, -2.5, 5] ◦ Suppose X is also a weighted sum of the same four cosine waves, but we don’t already know their weights. We will apply DFT to discover them. [2] 🟧 Frequency Matrix (F) ↳ Write the coefficients of A, B, C as a matrix F. Each signal is a row. Each frequency is a column. ↳ A → [1, 2, 0, 0] ↳ B → [1, 0, 1, 1] ↳ C → [0, 1-, 1, 0] [3] Cosine → Discrete ↳ Sample from the continuous cosine waves at discrete time points 1t, 2t, 3t, to 10t. [4] Cosine Matrix (W) ↳ Write the samples as a matrix, Each frequency is a row. Each time point is a column. [5] Inverse DFT: 🟧 Frequency → 🟩 Time ↳ Multiply the frequency matrix F and the cosine matrix W. ↳ The meaning of this multiplication is to linearly combine the four cosine waves (rows in W) into time-domain signals (rows in T) using the weights specified in F. ↳ The result is matrix T, which are signals A, B, C converted to the time domain. Each signal is a row. Each time point is a column. [6] Transpose ↳ Transpose T, converting each signal’s time domain representation from a row to a column. [7] DFT: 🟩 Time → 🟧 Frequency ↳ Multiply the cosine matrix W with the transpose of matrix T. ↳ The purpose of this multiplication is to take a dot-product between each time-domain signal (columns in the transpose of T) and each cosine wave (rows in W), which has the effect of projecting the signal onto a cosine wave to determine how much they are correlated. Zero means not correlated at all. ↳ The result is an intermediate version of the “recovered” frequency matrix where each column corresponds to a signal and each row corresponds to a frequency. ↳ Compared to the original frequency matrix F, this intermediate matrix has non-zero weights in the correct places, but scaled up by a factor of 5 (n/2, n=10). For example, signal A, originally [1,2,0,0], is recovered at [5,10,0,0]. [8] Scale ↳ Multiply each value by 2/n = 1/5 to scale down the intermediate matrix to match the magnitude of the original frequency matrix F. [9] Transpose ↳ Transpose the recovered frequency matrix back to the same orientation of the original frequency matrix F. ↳ Like magic 🪄, the result is identical to the original F, which means DFT successfully recovered the frequency components of signals A, B, C. [10] Apply DFT to X: 🟩 Time → 🟧 Frequency ↳ Now that we have some confidence in DFT’s ability to recover frequency components, we apply DFT to X’s time-domain representation by multiplying W with X. ↳ The result is the an intermediate matrix. [11] Scale ↳ Similarly, we scale down by a factor of 5 to obtain the recovered frequency components of X (a column). [12] Transpose ↳ Similarly, we transpose the recovered column to row to match the orientation of the frequency matrix. ↳ Using the coefficients [0,0,3,2], we can write the equation of X as 3cos(3w) + 2cos(4w). Notes: I hope this by hand exercise helps you understand the essence of DFT. But there is more technical details, such as: • Sine: The complete DFT math also includes sine waves that follow a similar calculation process. • Phase: Here, we assume all the cosine waves are aligned at the origin, namely, phase is 0. If a phase p is added, for example, cos(w+p), we will need to calculate the sine component and use their ratio to figure out what p is. • Magnitude: If phase is not zero, the magnitude will need to be calculated by combining both cosine and sine terms.

Tom Yeh

116,622 次观看 • 2 年前