From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Move to The Buzzer[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. CodeCat (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

UVB-76The Buzzer – The callsign of this station is not confirmed, and it might not even be a callsign. On the other hand, the nickname "The Buzzer" is widely known and used. Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC) CodeCat (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. It's widely known as UVB-76.Secretlondon (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
True, but it's not even sure if that is an official name or not, and it seems to be an older name even if it is. On the other hand, the station has always been called the Buzzer, and because it's a nickname, there is no problem. We also name other mystery stations by their nicknames, like The Pip, Lincolnshire Poacher and so on. CodeCat (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The official name does not matter, and in any case there is only speculation on this. The current name is the common name. Andrewa (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Partial oppose; apart from whichever name is most common among sources, I think we have to consider disambiguation problems. If moved to The Buzzer I'd imagine more readers would arrive here who had wanted a very different article... bobrayner (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The Buzzer already redirects to this article, so nothing would change in that regard. CodeCat (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.  — TORTOISEWRATH 03:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:Andrewa. SV1XV (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm retracting this nomination per WP:SNOW. CodeCat (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Purpose of buzzer is officially known[edit]

All mentions of unknown purpose, etc. should be edited to mention it as a Russian army station. Operators of a sister station have used it to broadcast cleartext army order (see Pip's Talk page) --TotoCZ 03:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotoCZ (talkcontribs)

'Station down'[edit]

As this has seemingly only happened today, the significance is unknown - a longer period of absence would be required for comment. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article seems to attract a lot of WP:NOTNEWS-like content, with people reporting on events as soon as they happen even if they are completely insignificant. It should probably be removed. CodeCat (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
'Category of information which might be of significance, and which should actually be noted on the talk page to be looked into subsequently.' (As it is sometimes useful to have such things flagged.) Jackiespeel (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yes well traffic analysis suggests it is used for military. It sent coded messages at the time of the crimea annexation, and also when putin declared WW 3 was imminent. The coded message at this later time was probably "Ignore putin, he's a nutter !". (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Which is very, very interesting as it coincided with a certain election campaign in a different country, following accusation that this and that candidate will "certainly" bring on said WW3. It almost look like as if the said tranmissions were some election campaign synchro pulses (and guidance, advice), has anyone noticed? (for deep mole operators) Connect the dots between campaign statements, actions and these transmissions. Simple.

Can anyone put the dates from these transmissions on the timeline of the election? Seems most interesting, the dates when it was "written" and transmitted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Speculation in text[edit]

"It is also speculated that " ... " cheap, reliable, secure communication via the Internet". This doesn't belong in the article, as it's a combination of speculation and fiction on part of the paragraph author. E.g.: Internet communication is not ubiquitous, does not reach everywhere, and is neither cheap, reliable, or secure. -- Anonymous, 2015-03-20 09:47 UTC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

External links[edit]

I came here for my regular (~yearly) check and noticed that mentions of the Dead Hand have disappeared, but otherwise nothing really concrete about the purpose of the station took their place. On the other hand, the link mentioned below seems to offer quite reasonable and organized information. It's also richer than the current Wikipedia version and offers plausible explanations about why it's not part of the Dead Hand, so I'm not sure exactly why "it should be removed because we have a good article". (Let's keep it in place.) (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Should remove "History and Info on The Buzzer" and link to strange 'smegma' site Reason: we have good article in this amazing site: Here same info as in wiki. Orlando Avare (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on UVB-76. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Data format encoding.[edit]

Here I talk about "bits", but I mean individual frequency bands (nibbles, lol) on the left and right of the center frequency.

The bandwidth around which the transmission is based could be marked down (19 bits on the USB) and may I suggest alternative uses? Since this station is sweep-modulated, and it uses slightly different encoding for each message, it can be used as a type of a) radar signal, or at least b) radar-assist signal. The first has been confirmed by the link to the ionosphere signal propagation study. That also means that space-borne threats are detectable with this method with powerful antennas. The method is similar/identical as here:

The modulation pause is fixed, so it is used as a reset signal. Talking about this: The USB and LSB are NOT mirroring each other, so a mathematician would first need to confirm that the LSB doesn't have any significance. There is a mathematical relationship and as we see the intensity of the USB bits changing randomly, but the LSB does not mirror it!!! It is possible that the LSB band is used as a secondary data carrier, or is just an artifact of the strong bit selection in the USB, but as I said, we need math to prove or disprove that. Out of my ability or competence.

The first USB bit isn't random, it is strong/weak alternation only.

The data could be encoding the length of the pulse, which would allow you to use the signal as radar, if the signal and timing had a good timing source (atomic clock, for example.) But still, rather than an OTH radar, it would be an "overrhear radar" for passing satellites, up to 23.5 Earth diameters distance. Which seems plausible, or at least semi-semi plausible. It the end, you could be radaring the ionosphere, but that is useful for the accuracy correction of GPS signals.

So, the USB and LSB could be encoding different message stream, or be somehow complimentary. The modulation length could be PWM signal giving the message as well. Or encoding time, date, anything. Or defcon status. Encoding in the USB starting with bit 20 is weaker, but math needs to confirm if it carries independent data or not.

Another data: bit -6 has constant very narrow signal. It has no purpose, unless you want to align the receiver to separately receive and decode the 6 narrow bands from bits -2.2 to +2.2, these seem to be very, very intentionally selected to avoid coinciding with the bit locations. The constant signal at bit -6 can also be used to fine-tune the receiver in the era before our current digital receivers, so that it sits exactly right. These can be just the transmission hardware artifacts, and telling us how the germanium transistors feel, but you never know.

Most interesting part of this transmission is in how many ways it carries meaningful data. Second, it has some kind of significance, since we can reasonably believe that countless receivers are tuned to it constantly and processing the time and frequency domain modulation it sends. Also, the slight upsweep can be processed for Doppler-generated information.

Since turbo codes were not invented back in the days this station started, it's not likely this transmission was designed around full matrix soft-bit modulation (data bit ranging from 0 to 1), and the keying length modulation must be resistant enough for even very, very crudely made electro-mechanical receiving equipment. That could also explain the upsweep. Seriously, what kind of arm-lever-drum device generates upsweep? Or is it just to compensate the self-resonanve of a leaf spring as it gets bend during the duration of its movement? This is the puzzling part, in the receiver this upsweep makes perfect sense without any ultra-complicated design. First use would be moving objects (aircraft), which could compensate the relatively static Doppler shift, but I'm unsure if this makes any sense.

From a research standpoint, this makes so much sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: the length of the pulse + pause make it useful not only for ionospheric propagation observations, but also for EME (earth-moon-earth) reflection where you could see how the bounced signal off the moon travelled. Knowing and understanding how signals from your command base propagate trough ionosphere is of critical importance, and would be useful as a simple tool for "space weather" observation. If this station wasn't ever used for any other purpose, being used as a pre-coded beacon to see how the ionospheric layers behave and if there are any significant changes has its real value. As we do not know the receiving stations of their equipment, we can't confirm with final validity, but studying the paper on ionosphere which used this transmitter as the source would tell more hints about its purpose. For any researchers: use that as the starting point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia cannot include such original research (WP:OR). The article can only report on what reliable, ideally secondary, sources (WP:RS) say. PaleoNeonate (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Experienced opinion:beacons[edit]

I spent years listening to HF radio when it was still a major carrier for a lot of 'utility' communications, both voice and data modes, narrow and wideband. HF propagation is a very iffy thing, which is why many so-called 'shortwave broadcast stations' operate on multiple frequencies.

If you want to know whether propagation is 'open' on a particular band of frequencies, you can turn to the frequencies of known 'propagation beacons'. There were, and still are, hundreds of them... legaland illegal. If you are at point A, and can hear the beacon at point B, the circuit is 'open' and you are likely to be able to communicate, in that direction at least, on that frequency. They are still commonly used by radio amateurs.

Consider the cost of keeping 10kW stations operating 24/7 for decades. You might want to use them occasionally for other purposes, but the major benefit would be in knowing which HF frequencies are available for 2-way communications ... always. IMO they are primarily beacons. Twang (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Official name[edit]

I tagged the official name as needing a cite [1]. I originally wondered if it was vandalism but the editor User:DaniWert23 looks to be sincere. However unless a citation is forthcoming and the fact one was asked for a long time ago suggests it won't be, it should IMO be removed because as I've said, our article seems to imply basically nothing is known officially about it and all the info comes from listening to it (and analysing the transmission) and possibly one log book, I don't see how it has a known official name (as distinct from hypothesised call signs from listening to the transmissions. Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Russian-language wiki has lots more detail[edit]

Using Google Translate I was able to read the Russian version of this page, it doesn't seem to be such a mysterious thing, the russian-language wikipedians have documented it. Maybe a kind bilingual soul could take some of that info and bring it to the English version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)