Chinese ship hears pulse signal in south Indian Ocean

Painterz
Interesting the Chinese found the needle in the haystack so quickly. I genuinely thought there was no chance of finding it before the batteries died.

Makes me wonder if the Chinese have a technological advantage in Sonar that hasn't been widely recognised.

I seriously doubt that!

I saw some video on MSM that showed these Chinese searchers listening for pings from rigid inflatables, (not from ships) and they were using some kind of listening device, (about the size of a coffee cup) taped to the end of a stick. One of the crew members was holding it over the side of the boat, just under the surface of the water. Highly advanced system if I ever saw one!

If I didn't know better, I'd say it was probably designed by Jeff Dunham after his Jalapeno on a stick.

I'm not sure what they think they heard, but I'll believe it when I see the black box.

they were using some kind of listening device, (about the size of a coffee cup) taped to the end of a stick.

Oh, the underwater version of two tin cans and a string. Sometimes simple works, especially if the stick is 9000 feet long.

Maybe this is the Chinese equipment being mentioned...

Link

I have been searching for information on the Blue Whale project this afternoon as to what frequency their satellite tracking devices, (a pinger and other abilities) operate at. The Blue Whale is/was thought to be endangered and there was/is a project studying them. When I heard about more than one signal 400 miles apart, I remembered this project. Trouble is Google is crappier than ever, so I'll look with a different engine.

reply to post by tanka418


No the UAB would not do better if it was sending out a much higher frequency than 37.5 kHz. The higher the transmission frequency, the greater the attenuation of the signal by the water. It is why a 1.8 MHz signal travels about 30 metres at most underwater and a 37.5 kHz signal can be picked up at distances of 1-2 km or more. They are even considering requiring aircraft that operate over the ocean to be equipped with a UAB that transmits at 10 kHz because that can be picked up at ranges of 7-9 km in normal conditions and more in good conditions.

reply to post by erwalker


Sorry you didn't understand what I said...

I was saying that the locator device would do better IF the 37.5kHz was RF as opposed to audio. You do understand the fundamental difference I presume.

At 37.5kHz they would be operating at about half the frequency of the underwater VLF system employed by the Navy to "ring up" a sub. That kind of system would have rather large range...far greater than an acoustic device could ever hope to have.

smurfy
I have been searching for information on the Blue Whale project this afternoon as to what frequency their satellite tracking devices, (a pinger and other abilities) operate at. The Blue Whale is/was thought to be endangered and there was/is a project studying them. When I heard about more than one signal 400 miles apart, I remembered this project. Trouble is Google is crappier than ever, so I'll look with a different engine.

edit on 6-4-2014 by smurfy because: Text.

Try here: whale.wheelock.edu...

Cool stuff...

reply to post by AnteBellum

They should of done this on day one of the search. This whole incident reeks of cover ups and conspiracy.

I saw some video on MSM that showed these Chinese searchers listening for pings from rigid inflatables, (not from ships) and they were using some kind of listening device, (about the size of a coffee cup) taped to the end of a stick. One of the crew members was holding it over the side of the boat, just under the surface of the water. Highly advanced system if I ever saw one!

I don't believe anything the media shows.

Its a lot more likely that the Chinese ship picked up the pinger on there passive ASW equipment.
But because its military equipment the Chinese would not want to show there ASW capabilities of there ships.
www.afcea.org.../509

What they showed the media and what they used are two different things.

When i was in the navy i was on a ship(YFU-39) that recovered training and air dropped test mines and we used pingers to recover the mines for reuse after the test.

tanka418

Cool! Learn about him in school, did you?

Why, yes, both my EE and physics Masters covered Maxwell quite thoroughly. Use it nearly every day.

If so, then you missed half of what the man had to say about electromagnetic radiation.

Really? I guess you're talking about the quaternion form. You know, when Heaviside restated Maxwell, the parts that went away are actually just rotational forms that are redundant. But, hey, the original quaternion form is all over the place, I've got a really nice technical book on it at the lab, and you can get copies on the net. Perhaps you can point out the original equation that allows for transmitting 1GHz signals from the bottom of the ocean and still having something left when you get to the surface. Heck, I'll even spot you the losses from the impedance transition from ocean to air.

But, I'll give that wee point to ya anyway, cause you are beginning to be correct...water does seriously attenuate EMF...(actually absorb...but that's okay for now)

No, attenuation is the correct word to use when you're discussing path loss in db/m. You're confusing cause with effect. The effect is attenuation. The cause is dissipation (not absorption).

No One wouldn't typically use a ships sonar to detect such things, but one can. You do know that sonar is little more than an underwater "speaker" and a "hydrophone array"? Right?

And unfortunately for your conjecture, sonar is in general designed to use a single frequency, or a fairly small group of frequencies. They aren't tunable to just anything you'd like. Unless you happened to have one lying about the ship that was just exactly 37.5kHz, it won't do anything for you. On top of which, there is just a crap load of processing between the hydrophone part of the sonar and the display that is purpose built for being a sonar. It's not particularly useful for just listening on a bearing.
I suppose you could redesign the entire sonar to be a hydrophone, but it's going to be faster to just go get a hydrophone.

And, actually, no...it wouldn't give up any technological data about the equipment used...this application is far too basic to "give up" any information about the equipment used. Hell man...I could do the whole thing with my pc, a transducer and a microphone.

Using interferometric fiber optic microphones at the house, are you? I think your statement here just about sums up your understanding of what's going on, but do keep going...

But, seriously, that signal and its range are no better than the "radio set" contained in the system...

Sonar is not radio...but you couldn't put a good enough "radio set" in the ocean at 1GHz to get the job done.

ETA: That 37.5 kHz acoustic signal would have done much better if it were RF. Would have been a better engineering decision, and made location easier as well.

Yeah...ok. There are a number of issues with this. You don't have a nice 500 foot mast. 37.5kHz has an unfortunate 26000 foot wavelength. You could sort of get by with 500-1000 feet of aerial if you're willing to have a big final and a matching network the size of a tractor trailer, plus egregious radiation efficiency. You might put out a Watt of radiated power for 1kW input. A lack of a long long trailing wire and the sad truth that the "black box" is pretty small, and the thing has to run from a small battery for a few weeks sort of precludes having a nice matching network and a kW of drive.

Oh, and a wavelength 5 miles long sort of makes RDF a bit chancy, the surface ships would still be in the near field...

tanka418
At 37.5kHz they would be operating at about half the frequency of the underwater VLF system employed by the Navy to "ring up" a sub. That kind of system would have rather large range...far greater than an acoustic device could ever hope to have.

Well, since we use 20kHz for subs (more or less) ,it would be about twice the frequency. However, you've got way too many problems with this as I pointed out.

reply to post by AnteBellum


Those pings can be several other things besides the black box. Furthermore, that plane will NOT be found in that search area.

reply to post by Painterz


I'm always shocked at people not thinking the chinese can make anything good. They have been building things for a very long time from the western world, ranging from cheap #, to high end products. You just don't realize they are building the high end products as well. Everyone associates the garbage with china. EVERYTHING IS MADE IN CHINA. Your $1000 dewalt(Yeah it isn't made in the usa anymore), makita or milwaukee drill. Yep China, Your brand new top of the line computer... china. The electronics in your gps, cellphones, car ... china.

Now, take a country that has been producing all these products for the world, you don't think they haven't improved upon these things? You think they haven't come up with their own innovations along the way?

If there is one thing the chinese do well, it's produce product quickly and efficiently. Yes, they are also great at making cheap # for export, but keep in mind the people asking for that cheap # want it as cheap as possible. Remember the high end # you buy the next time you think of china and find out who made it.

reply to post by Hijinx


Just a quick note: Actually the products and devices you speak of are made in Taiwan, not China (proper), there really IS a difference...Mainland China doesn't quite have the tech that the West does...mostly for stupid reasons.

And, NO they, neither the Taiwanese, nor Chinese, have made any significant improvements. You'll be needing to remember, they don't do much by way of design...

Staroth
reply to post by AnteBellum

 

Those pings can be several other things besides the black box. Furthermore, that plane will NOT be found in that search area.

What makes you feel so certain?
I myself initially thought this also. I was very concerned we would find this jet minutes before it exploded in some nuclear conflagration over a middle eastern city. But now it seems the evidence is pointing in some other direction for the most part.

I don't think it's fair to post our conspiracy thoughts on this thread, there are others on here for that purpose. But I still would like to hear why you don't think it's at this location. . . misdirection, again?

ANNED

I saw some video on MSM that showed these Chinese searchers listening for pings from rigid inflatables, (not from ships) and they were using some kind of listening device, (about the size of a coffee cup) taped to the end of a stick. One of the crew members was holding it over the side of the boat, just under the surface of the water. Highly advanced system if I ever saw one!

I don't believe anything the media shows.

Its a lot more likely that the Chinese ship picked up the pinger on there passive ASW equipment.
But because its military equipment the Chinese would not want to show there ASW capabilities of there ships.
www.afcea.org.../509

What they showed the media and what they used are two different things.

When i was in the navy i was on a ship(YFU-39) that recovered training and air dropped test mines and we used pingers to recover the mines for reuse after the test.

You can believe the Chinese are super sophisticated for as long as you like but I doubt that's going to make it so.

Especially now that the Australians listened to the pinging for an hour and a half, some 350 miles north of where the Chinese supposedly detected it and this time with real equipment, as opposed to holding a chinese sailor by his feet while he sticks his head underwater so he can listen for the ping.

I'm hearing what sounds like a bit of separatism in respect to what the Chinese are doing vs. everyone else in the search area, from the media. Has anyone else heard or felt this way also? What are they worried about?

Also just took a look at the depth: (suspected orange box at @20,000ft. below)


It always fascinates me just how deep the oceans are. In this case, I don't think they are going to have much luck bringing up anything too substantial. I'm not an expert but I think they need a tether 3 times the size as the depth they are shooting for. That would be about @10 miles long! How are they going to do this?
This is almost becoming the modern day Titanic!

Flatfish
Especially now that the Australians listened to the pinging for an hour and a half, some 350 miles north of where the Chinese supposedly detected it and this time with real equipment, as opposed to holding a chinese sailor by his feet while he sticks his head underwater so he can listen for the ping.

And the Australians used a towed-array hydrophone built around this. It's a bit more elaborate than a PC and a microphone on a cord.

(warning - big but probably interesting PDF and shameless plug for my current upstream tier...)

The most likely candidate for the recorders is the ping set heard by the Australian ship. Two pings heard about 2000 meters apart.

Painterz
Interesting the Chinese found the needle in the haystack so quickly. I genuinely thought there was no chance of finding it before the batteries died.

Makes me wonder if the Chinese have a technological advantage in Sonar that hasn't been widely recognised.

or they're just wrong again like when they said they found pieces in the South China sea the week of the crash .