1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. UK.RADIO.AMATEUR.MODERATE

  • Aircraft scatter from Amateur WSPR beacons find missing Malaysia Flight

    From Gareth Paley@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 23 08:48:45 2022
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq-d4Kl8Xh4

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From just jim dandy@21:1/5 to Gareth Paley on Thu Feb 24 11:01:45 2022
    On 23/02/2022 16:48, Gareth Paley wrote:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq-d4Kl8Xh4
    I don't believe him ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Grumps@21:1/5 to just jim dandy on Tue Apr 26 09:34:42 2022
    On 24/02/2022 11:01, just jim dandy wrote:
    On 23/02/2022 16:48, Gareth Paley wrote:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq-d4Kl8Xh4
    I don't believe him ...

    Is the science/theory wrong?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stephen Walters@21:1/5 to Grumps on Wed Apr 27 17:28:14 2022
    No, it's simpler that that. WHERE IS THE SCIENCE?
    Where is the evidence this is possible. I, for one, think it is a complete nonsense.

    regards

    G7VFY


    On Wednesday, 27 April 2022 at 00:51:59 UTC+1, Grumps wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 11:01, just jim dandy wrote:
    On 23/02/2022 16:48, Gareth Paley wrote:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq-d4Kl8Xh4
    I don't believe him ...
    Is the science/theory wrong?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Stewart ...@21:1/5 to Stephen Walters on Thu Apr 28 17:08:25 2022
    On 28/04/2022 01:28, Stephen Walters wrote:
    No, it's simpler that that. WHERE IS THE SCIENCE?
    Where is the evidence this is possible. I, for one, think it is a complete nonsense.

    regards

    G7VFY

    totly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gareth Paley@21:1/5 to superre...@gmail.com on Thu Apr 28 05:27:13 2022
    The full 124 page report is here Stephen:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/k4fn8eec4z9np0z/GDTAAA%20WSPRnet%20MH370%20Analysis%20Flight%20Path%20Report.pdf?dl=0

    Summary at https://www.mh370search.com/2022/03/14/mh370-wspr-technical-report/

    73 de M0WWS


    On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 1:48:51 AM UTC+1, superre...@gmail.com wrote:
    No, it's simpler that that. WHERE IS THE SCIENCE?
    Where is the evidence this is possible. I, for one, think it is a complete nonsense.

    regards

    G7VFY
    On Wednesday, 27 April 2022 at 00:51:59 UTC+1, Grumps wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 11:01, just jim dandy wrote:
    On 23/02/2022 16:48, Gareth Paley wrote:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq-d4Kl8Xh4
    I don't believe him ...
    Is the science/theory wrong?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Woolley@21:1/5 to Grumps on Thu Apr 28 12:22:38 2022
    On 26/04/2022 09:34, Grumps wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 11:01, just jim dandy wrote:
    On 23/02/2022 16:48, Gareth Paley wrote:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq-d4Kl8Xh4
    I don't believe him ...

    Is the science/theory wrong?

    It's possible at VHF, using broadcast station powers, and with a range
    limit of about 150km: <https://celebrate150.theiet.org/media/2934/fm-radio-based-bistatic-radar.pdf>.
    However, I would have serious doubts that you would get adequate
    signal to noise levels with non-directional aerials, extremely low
    powers, and ranges and frequencies subject to ionospheric uncertainties.

    I'd also have doubts that the detailed measurement needed would actually
    have been recorded.

    A human interest TV show isn't the best source for something like this,
    as one would be looking for detailed analyses of the errors in the system.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gareth Paley@21:1/5 to superre...@gmail.com on Thu Apr 28 05:52:54 2022
    On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 1:48:51 AM UTC+1, superre...@gmail.com wrote:
    No, it's simpler that that. WHERE IS THE SCIENCE?
    Where is the evidence this is possible. I, for one, think it is a complete nonsense.

    regards

    G7VFY
    On Wednesday, 27 April 2022 at 00:51:59 UTC+1, Grumps wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 11:01, just jim dandy wrote:
    On 23/02/2022 16:48, Gareth Paley wrote:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq-d4Kl8Xh4
    I don't believe him ...
    Is the science/theory wrong?

    Here is the science behind it:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/pkolz2mxr1rhepb/MH370%20GDTAAA%20WSPRnet%20Analysis%20Technical%20Report%2015MAR2022.pdf

    73 de M0WWS

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gareth Paley@21:1/5 to David Woolley on Fri Apr 29 14:19:28 2022
    On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 12:31:39 AM UTC+1, David Woolley wrote:
    On 26/04/2022 09:34, Grumps wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 11:01, just jim dandy wrote:
    On 23/02/2022 16:48, Gareth Paley wrote:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq-d4Kl8Xh4
    I don't believe him ...

    Is the science/theory wrong?
    It's possible at VHF, using broadcast station powers, and with a range
    limit of about 150km: <https://celebrate150.theiet.org/media/2934/fm-radio-based-bistatic-radar.pdf>.
    However, I would have serious doubts that you would get adequate
    signal to noise levels with non-directional aerials, extremely low
    powers, and ranges and frequencies subject to ionospheric uncertainties.

    I'd also have doubts that the detailed measurement needed would actually
    have been recorded.

    A human interest TV show isn't the best source for something like this,
    as one would be looking for detailed analyses of the errors in the system.

    Seems it's possible at HF and way over the horizon too David:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/pkolz2mxr1rhepb/MH370%20GDTAAA%20WSPRnet%20Analysis%20Technical%20Report%2015MAR2022.pdf

    page 6 gives a list of research papers which seem to back it up.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gareth Paley@21:1/5 to Gareth Paley on Fri Jul 22 15:40:26 2022
    An update:

    Victor Iannello, AJ4AQ, comprehensively debunks the idea that WSPR data can be used to track aircraft over long distances in his article here:

    https://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2021/12/19/wspr-cant-find-mh370/

    He asked Professor Joe Taylor K1JT, Nobel Prize laureate and inventor of WSJT/WSPR protocol for a comment on the material covered in the article. Here was his response: "As I’ve written several times before, it’s crazy to think that historical WSPR
    data could be used to track the course of ill-fated flight MH370. Or, for that matter, any other aircraft flight… I don’t choose to waste my time arguing with pseudo-scientists who don’t understand what they are doing". Pretty conclusive I'd say. I
    stand corrected

    de M0WWS
    https://www.qrz.com/db/M0WWS



    On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 11:59:56 PM UTC+1, Gareth Paley wrote:
    On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 12:31:39 AM UTC+1, David Woolley wrote:
    On 26/04/2022 09:34, Grumps wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 11:01, just jim dandy wrote:
    On 23/02/2022 16:48, Gareth Paley wrote:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq-d4Kl8Xh4
    I don't believe him ...

    Is the science/theory wrong?
    It's possible at VHF, using broadcast station powers, and with a range limit of about 150km: <https://celebrate150.theiet.org/media/2934/fm-radio-based-bistatic-radar.pdf>.
    However, I would have serious doubts that you would get adequate
    signal to noise levels with non-directional aerials, extremely low
    powers, and ranges and frequencies subject to ionospheric uncertainties.

    I'd also have doubts that the detailed measurement needed would actually have been recorded.

    A human interest TV show isn't the best source for something like this,
    as one would be looking for detailed analyses of the errors in the system.
    Seems it's possible at HF and way over the horizon too David:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/pkolz2mxr1rhepb/MH370%20GDTAAA%20WSPRnet%20Analysis%20Technical%20Report%2015MAR2022.pdf

    page 6 gives a list of research papers which seem to back it up.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Harry Bloomfield Esq@21:1/5 to Gareth Paley on Mon Aug 1 16:48:37 2022
    On 23/02/2022 16:48, Gareth Paley wrote:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq-d4Kl8Xh4

    I would like to see his theory double checked, by his tracking aircraft
    who GPS track is known.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gareth Paley@21:1/5 to Harry Bloomfield Esq on Tue Aug 2 17:47:02 2022
    On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 12:03:19 AM UTC+1, Harry Bloomfield Esq wrote:
    On 23/02/2022 16:48, Gareth Paley wrote:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq-d4Kl8Xh4
    I would like to see his theory double checked, by his tracking aircraft
    who GPS track is known.

    An update:

    Victor Iannello, AJ4AQ, comprehensively debunks the idea that WSPR data can be used to track aircraft over long distances in his article here:

    https://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2021/12/19/wspr-cant-find-mh370/

    He asked Professor Joe Taylor K1JT, Nobel Prize laureate and inventor of WSJT/WSPR protocol for a comment on the material covered in the article. Here was his response: "As I’ve written several times before, it’s crazy to think that historical WSPR
    data could be used to track the course of ill-fated flight MH370. Or, for that matter, any other aircraft flight… I don’t choose to waste my time arguing with pseudo-scientists who don’t understand what they are doing". Pretty conclusive I'd say. I
    stand corrected

    de M0WWS
    https://www.qrz.com/db/M0WWS

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)