Note: This calculator is still VERY beta-version... I re-wrote many of the formulas from scratch, therefore your results may not be correct. See below...

Azimuth values are NOT corrected for magnetic deviation (yet...)

v0.9.1 April 10, 2003

Presets:

ExpressVu dual-satellite
Dish500 dual-satellite

Dual Satellite (20" Echostar dish)

Satellite One:   ° West

Satellite Two:   ° West

Deg/Min/Sec

Decimal Degrees

True Azimuth:  

Elevation:  

Skew Angle:  

North Latitude:

°  "
° N

West Longitude:

°  "
° W

Testing has shown that Elevation/Azimuth is accurate to several decimal places, but the skew angles this calculator generates vary by 1-5° from the values quoted by ExpressVu's install guide. I believe that ExpressVu calculates the skew by calculating the polarization tilt at 86.5° W, whereas my formula calculates the look angle to each satellite, then calculates the angle between the two. I think some trial and error is needed to see which calculation provides the best signal on both satellites.

At my location, my calculator gives me an angle 2.3° different than the angle provided by Bell. Using their skew angle, I get signal strengths of 87% on 91° and 67% on 82°, peaked using 91°. Using the angle provided by my calculator, I get signal strengths of 87% on 91° and 73% on 82°, peaked using 91°. Because I peaked to 91° it's signal was always at it's highest, however, a 6% increase on 82° is signifcant, and could be helpful in some situations. It would appear that this calculator works better, however your results may differ.

For comparison, try this: http://www.satsig.net/ssazelm.htm
The results generated there agree with Bell's install guide. (For skew angle, enter the midway point between 2 satellites for "Satellite Longitude" i.e. 86.5° for ExpressVu, resulting "Polarization Tilt" = skew angle)

 

Version History:

v0.9.0 March 28, 2003: Original Release

v0.9.1 April 10, 2003: Fixed Skew angle for locations that look west to the satellites, i.e. Ottawa... for Dish500 it would read 61.1°, really should read 118.9° (just a simple operator change, but thanks to Steven S. for pointing it out...)