By way of background, because water is an incomprehensible fluid, submerged submarines can be detected, and tracked, by radar satellites, by identifying the bulges on the ocean surface, made by the submarine moving underwater. This bulge is called the Bernoulli hump, and may be detectable from a moving submarine as deep as 300 metres. Like any vessel, submarines also leave a V-shaped trail, known as a Kelvin wake, which can also be detected on the surface.
The point to note here, is that this can not be done in a "real time snapshot" of radar satellite data. Both the submarine's Bernoulli hump and Kelvin wake are extremely small and extremely difficult to detect, even under "good" ocean surface conditions. In "confused seas" it is not possible to extract the "signal" from the "noise". The technique does work under good conditions however, but it requires a great deal of signal processing, done over time, to identify and correlate detected surface disturbances, to identify a "track" of disturbances, that may be attributable to a submarine.
See http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2012/0...rines.html and http://www.popsci.com.au/tech/military/t...ing,376936 for a discussion of the above.
Aircraft move in air, which is a compressible fluid. An airliner moving at 500 knots at altitude leaves a considerable "wake" as we all know (caution wake turbulence) which finally "wraps up" into the two "wingtip vortexes" about three to five aircraft wingspans behind the aircraft, with a separation between their "core axis" of about three quarters of the wingspan.
Those vortexes are ALWAYS there, but sometimes, they are made visible to the human eye by the condensation of the water vapor produced by the combustion of fuel in the engines, (it makes no difference whether it is jet fuel or piston engine avgas) which we call contrails.
Those with binoculars, will have noticed when viewing say a 4 engine 747 flying overhead at altitude, and producing contrails, that the four individual contrails from each engine are usually visible from very close behind the engines, sometimes about level with the tail, or a little behind, but then, not too far behind the aircraft, the two on each side "merge" into one, on each side. This is caused by the wing wake "sheet" produced by the wing from the wing root to the wing tip on each side, "wrapping up" into the single vortex on each side, taking the two exhaust trails with it, as spiral wound "filaments" if you like.
The point is, those wing tip vortexes are ALWAYS produced continuously, whether visible or not. They are extremely powerful, and persist for some considerable time, until they eventually dissipate.
Their detection from space based Doppler Radar sensors, should be a "no brainer"' with existing synthetic aperture radar signal processing technology.
In the case of MH-370, fyling into the SIO, into a region with virtually no other air traffic, at the time, these wing tip vortexes from 9M-MRO should stick out "like dogs balls" in the data, which is available, both in the open, civilian, and commercial world, and of course, the "spook" world.
Moving on to the subject of the Aron Gingis proposal.
Aron is apparently suggesting that the motion of the aircraft "disturbing" the air through which it is flying, also has other, let's say "secondary effects" on the air itself, it's temperature etc, and thus these produce yet more effects, let's say "tertiary effects" (on cloud structure and dynamics) that may be detectable by "other" means, presumably by examining the data produced by multiple satellites operating and routinely collecting data in other spectral bands, eg, the infra red, and others.
He is apparently trying to protect his IP, by refusing to disclose the details of exactly how he might conduct this analysis of these secondary and tertiary effects, which I think is fair enough. For the ATSB to refuse to consider the possibilities this kind of analysis might produce, simply because he refuses to divulge his methodology, is childish.
Thus, the ATSB's bland comment “Based on the information available, the ATSB and also Geoscience Australia considered his proposal did not warrant further investigation. The ATSB still holds this view.” is quite simply, bollocks, with a CAPITAL "B".
The point to note here, is that this can not be done in a "real time snapshot" of radar satellite data. Both the submarine's Bernoulli hump and Kelvin wake are extremely small and extremely difficult to detect, even under "good" ocean surface conditions. In "confused seas" it is not possible to extract the "signal" from the "noise". The technique does work under good conditions however, but it requires a great deal of signal processing, done over time, to identify and correlate detected surface disturbances, to identify a "track" of disturbances, that may be attributable to a submarine.
See http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2012/0...rines.html and http://www.popsci.com.au/tech/military/t...ing,376936 for a discussion of the above.
Aircraft move in air, which is a compressible fluid. An airliner moving at 500 knots at altitude leaves a considerable "wake" as we all know (caution wake turbulence) which finally "wraps up" into the two "wingtip vortexes" about three to five aircraft wingspans behind the aircraft, with a separation between their "core axis" of about three quarters of the wingspan.
Those vortexes are ALWAYS there, but sometimes, they are made visible to the human eye by the condensation of the water vapor produced by the combustion of fuel in the engines, (it makes no difference whether it is jet fuel or piston engine avgas) which we call contrails.
Those with binoculars, will have noticed when viewing say a 4 engine 747 flying overhead at altitude, and producing contrails, that the four individual contrails from each engine are usually visible from very close behind the engines, sometimes about level with the tail, or a little behind, but then, not too far behind the aircraft, the two on each side "merge" into one, on each side. This is caused by the wing wake "sheet" produced by the wing from the wing root to the wing tip on each side, "wrapping up" into the single vortex on each side, taking the two exhaust trails with it, as spiral wound "filaments" if you like.
The point is, those wing tip vortexes are ALWAYS produced continuously, whether visible or not. They are extremely powerful, and persist for some considerable time, until they eventually dissipate.
Their detection from space based Doppler Radar sensors, should be a "no brainer"' with existing synthetic aperture radar signal processing technology.
In the case of MH-370, fyling into the SIO, into a region with virtually no other air traffic, at the time, these wing tip vortexes from 9M-MRO should stick out "like dogs balls" in the data, which is available, both in the open, civilian, and commercial world, and of course, the "spook" world.
Moving on to the subject of the Aron Gingis proposal.
Aron is apparently suggesting that the motion of the aircraft "disturbing" the air through which it is flying, also has other, let's say "secondary effects" on the air itself, it's temperature etc, and thus these produce yet more effects, let's say "tertiary effects" (on cloud structure and dynamics) that may be detectable by "other" means, presumably by examining the data produced by multiple satellites operating and routinely collecting data in other spectral bands, eg, the infra red, and others.
He is apparently trying to protect his IP, by refusing to disclose the details of exactly how he might conduct this analysis of these secondary and tertiary effects, which I think is fair enough. For the ATSB to refuse to consider the possibilities this kind of analysis might produce, simply because he refuses to divulge his methodology, is childish.
Thus, the ATSB's bland comment “Based on the information available, the ATSB and also Geoscience Australia considered his proposal did not warrant further investigation. The ATSB still holds this view.” is quite simply, bollocks, with a CAPITAL "B".