From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:45:58 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 17:04:58 -0400 Subject: Re: Passive Radar - Smith >From: Rob Kritkausky <robkrit.nul> >To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:39:59 -0700 (PDT) >Subject: Re: Field Research & Images >>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul> >>To: ufoupdates.nul >>Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:59:40 EDT >>Subject: Re: Field Research & Images >I have worked several evenings and days with such a Field Lab >and the equipment that such a lab includes. >We had lightening/discharge detection with a range of 40 miles, >cameras that could read the reg.#s of a helicopter 2 miles away >and even got spectral signatures of flares on the Goldwater >Range which is 60-100 miles in the distance. Great! >Field Labs would be for local observation of flap areas and not >for a continental detection system. Their value lies in the >fact that they have the potential to - and in fact do - provide >multiple data streams of information about an unidentified >object. >You are comparing the coverage or range of these two concepts or >methodologies. >Telescopes have much greater coverage than microscopes, but that >does not translate into a greater "value" from telescopic >imaging over microscopic imaging. >What we need to compare is the value of the data in terms of >providing new information or a better quality of data. . I agree with you on all points. >I love Peter's suggestion of Passive radar. I think every field >lab should have one or a similar technology..... Believe me, the >reason I have not commented on it is not because I don't share >your admiration for such a technology. I think it is even more >attainable than you realize. See below, but passive radar obviously can be done since there are reports of its use with meteor counting and such. I don't see any real benefit of passive radar over active radar except that you don't have to worry about FCC regulation with passive radar. The signal processing for passive radar seems more complex. >A friend (and source for my field lab training), who stayed as >our house guest last week, has utilized this technology for >researching anomalies. It is amazingly sensitive and can even >chart wind turbulence when calibrated to do so. The only problem I have is with your classifying this friend's radar with "passive radar". Since it is emitting a radio signal, it is active radar. Still, I think active radar is a great addition to any field station if you can afford it. Its great that he lists how to build it and everything! >This method used low power pulse UHF radio signals with great >success. I've seen the data, it is impressive. >The individual who built this is quite a sharp fellow and the >utility is undeniable. If you want to see what it looks like and >reference some real coverage specs, try this link: >http://www.itacomm.net/ph/radar/radar_e.pdf A very good report. Just the sort of report I like to see which describes the field setup up in detail and presents results (although I would like to know if any more results were generated using the system since the report was published in 2002). Also, the report is good in pointing out that even though the radar "saw" something, nothing was visible with the eyes. Also, of interest is the requirement of most active radars to rotate. The described setup antenna was fixed. >This is a great technology, but I believe the developers would >even tell you, when it comes to anomalies, what we need is >"multiple data streams". Of course.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp