MajorBooBoo Posted February 19, 2002 Share Posted February 19, 2002 Originally posted by karch: Why not use the same 3rd point and measure the sound difference from there, OR just have one person getting direction from either listening point A or B. It will give you the same result. It will be horribly innacurate because of the difficulty in gauging direction, but it will be the same with 2 points or 3. .As clearly stated in the other thread, there is the issue of needing a person as a buffer to turn on the system (and for him to be a distance in front of the sensors (mics). You arent grasping the real world technical parameters and I cant keep repeating them. I dont mean to be rude but you dont have enough real world experience perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karch Posted February 19, 2002 Author Share Posted February 19, 2002 Did you ever notice you never answer other peoples questions directly. Either you can't or you know you are wrong and you won't. I understand a person is needed to turn on and off the equipment, that is irrelevant. This is getting disgustingly humerous. Please try and answer questions when they are posed to you. You aren't as bright as you think you are. Question 1) Why cant you have the recorder at listening post A and have the person there turn on the equipment once the battery starts firing. He can start the equipment and then guess which direction the guns were firing from, then you get your wild directional guess and your 2 sound readings. You wouldn't turn off and on the equipment for a single shot, you would realize when the battery started firing a mission and turn on the recorder and leave it running for a few minutes to get multiple readings. I still say it would be almost impossible for a man, however well trained, to guage within 10-30 degrees where the sound was coming from. His estimage wouldn't be worth anything, but the concept is very sound. Question 2) Why not have this man with the recording machine ALSO have a 3rd microphone, then he can dispense with guessing the angle of sound alltogether and figure out the location of the gun from the sound delay between all 3 microphones. This will be far more accurate than trying to figure out the exact direction a sound is coming from and you are using 3 points.... hmmmm sounds like EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING FOR 2 DAYS! I don'r really expect you to answer these 2 questions. You haven't answered any of my other questions and I really just post these things to polish up on my typing skills. I also want to commend you on your fine drawing skills on all the descriptive charts you've created to help illustrate you magnificent intellect to us idiots. YOU were the one that posted requests for drawings. Ah well, I'm starting to grow weary of playing with you. Please feel free to start in again when you are ready to ask direct questions, answer direct questions and help explain your ideas with drawings the way we all have. I'll leave you to your high horse and go call it a night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 19, 2002 Share Posted February 19, 2002 Originally posted by MajorBooBoo in the other thread: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> ... Is it possible to locate an enemy gun using just two sensor mics that can record a time differential? Yes, under real conditions. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_n_kelly Posted February 19, 2002 Share Posted February 19, 2002 Originally posted by Roborat: ...This technology was developed by us (Canadians) in WWI,... (Editied quote) What was the relationship between William Alfred Bragg and William Lawrence Bragg and the Canadian Corps in WWI pray tell ? Edward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted February 19, 2002 Share Posted February 19, 2002 Originally posted by edward_n_kelly: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Roborat: ...This technology was developed by us (Canadians) in WWI,... (Editied quote) What was the relationship between William Alfred Bragg and William Lawrence Bragg and the Canadian Corps in WWI pray tell ? Edward</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted February 19, 2002 Share Posted February 19, 2002 Originally posted by Simon Fox: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by edward_n_kelly: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Roborat: ...This technology was developed by us (Canadians) in WWI,... (Editied quote) What was the relationship between William Alfred Bragg and William Lawrence Bragg and the Canadian Corps in WWI pray tell ? Edward</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar Posted February 19, 2002 Share Posted February 19, 2002 I don't think that people who are claiming that a person can determine where the sound of the shots are coming from by their hearing coupled with experience have really thought the maths out. With guns 10km away, 1 degree out would put your direction off by 174m (feel free to check my maths, it's been a while since I did trig). If there is some sort of instrumentation to determine direction I could believe this, but to get in the ~25m accuracy quoted you have to be accurate to 1/7th of a degree. How difficult is it to determine direction of low freq sound any way. Consider where you put your bass speakers. All the reports of distant gunfire that I have heard have described it as a rumbling sound. That would indicate low freq and therefor hard to determine direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar Posted February 19, 2002 Share Posted February 19, 2002 Doble post [ February 19, 2002, 04:05 AM: Message edited by: Caesar ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted February 19, 2002 Share Posted February 19, 2002 Originally posted by Caesar: IWith guns 10km away, 1 degree out would put your direction off by 174m (feel free to check my maths, it's been a while since I did trig).Very correct! A true challenge for the Über-Listening-Post! Regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted February 19, 2002 Share Posted February 19, 2002 Originally posted by Rollstoy: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Caesar: IWith guns 10km away, 1 degree out would put your direction off by 174m (feel free to check my maths, it's been a while since I did trig).Very correct! A true challenge for the Über-Listening-Post! </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 19, 2002 Share Posted February 19, 2002 Originally posted by JonS: In this reply Booboo, you state unequivocally that all one requires is two sensor mikes. Do you stand by this statement you made? Because if you do, you are wrong. A slight correction: you can do with two sensor teams if one of them wanders from the second to the third observation point. You need three points, but only two at a time. Not that it changes anything about MBB's style of discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted February 19, 2002 Share Posted February 19, 2002 Originally posted by tero: You can get the area downsized by using more thwn two LP's. But you can make do with twoSo suddenly our listeners have 1 degree directional resolution?? Before we had what? 45 degrees? Since you insist that it was possible in real life ... do you have any proof??? We have seen plenty of evidence that three or four listening posts were employed! Where is the historical support for two posts achieving the same? And, by the way: are you SURE that you do not mistake sound spotting with flash spotting, were accuracies of 1 degree should indeed be possible?!?! Regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted February 19, 2002 Share Posted February 19, 2002 Originally posted by Rollstoy: So suddenly our listeners have 1 degree directional resolution?? Before we had what? 45 degrees? I was going with the example given. And if you remember I think I did mention that for a LP the resolution could be up to 45º. It could be less. The whole thing depends if the mikes had any directional features in them. The sound detectors used for detecting incoming planes had it. I am not sure the technology was advanced enough for observing arty. A human observer could use a direction wheel to get a reading on what he thinks is the bearing to the source. But he can not reliably give the exact time of the observation. A human observer accompanied by a mechanical unit can get the timing right and the direction down to an acceptable margin (ie. ruling out some of the possible positions). Since you insist that it was possible in real life ... do you have any proof??? We have seen plenty of evidence that three or four listening posts were employed! Indeed. And I do argee that more than two give more reliable results. But what was the barest minimum required for the formula to work ? I say you can make do with two LP's. Where is the historical support for two posts achieving the same? Working on it.... And, by the way: are you SURE that you do not mistake sound spotting with flash spotting, were accuracies of 1 degree should indeed be possible?!?! I'm actually working on the assumption both were used in unison rather than being used separately. Then again the Ozzie and the überFinnish experience seems to be contradictory. Seems there is a considerable difference depending on who you are surveying against. http://www.winterwar.com/Numbers/FinArmy/FINartiller.htm#Survey It was noticed that it was nearly impossible to pinpoint individual batteries, if the enemy artillery was firing 'en masse'. But as soon as the bombardment settled down, leaving only one or two batteries still keeping up the bombardment, it was possible to measure the direction and distance to the firing batteries. The survey batteries used both sonic and flash-ranging as the means of locating the enemy. In all, the batteries both proved successful in pinpointing enemy batteries. E.g. the 1.Mitt.Ptri located 301 enemy firing positions or batteries during the Winter War (some 50% by flash-ranging), and after the results were compared to aerial photographs, taken in February, some 80 % of the coordinates proved to be correct. http://www.riv.co.nz/rnza/rf/ww2/36s.htm In the Orsogna operations Sergeant Keppell had similarly kept a post in operation for 40 days. For this and his work on Trocchio he won an immediate MM. When the Battery withdrew to Venafro its record of flash-spotting and sound-ranging locations throughout the period of 52 days was excellent. Flash-spotting locations averaged seven per day and sound-ranging 7.4 per day. Moreover, they were to a considerable extent complementary rather than repetitive, since most flash-spotting locations were obtained when 5th Army guns were extremely active and no sound-ranging locations could be obtained, while most sound-ranging locations were of guns using flashless powder or in positions of good flash cover. Of particular interes is the 50/50 share the flash ranging seems to be getting in both cases. [ February 19, 2002, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: tero ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 19, 2002 Share Posted February 19, 2002 Originally posted by tero: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rollstoy: Moreover, they were to a considerable extent complementary rather than repetitive, since most flash-spotting locations were obtained when 5th Army guns were extremely active and no sound-ranging locations could be obtained, while most sound-ranging locations were of guns using flashless powder or in positions of good flash cover. Of particular interes is the 50/50 share the flash ranging seems to be getting in both cases.[/QB]</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorBooBoo Posted February 20, 2002 Share Posted February 20, 2002 I dont feel that theres a need for me to answer any more of these "Calculation demand" type questions. No one is addressing the issues I bring up so theres no need for me to bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radar Posted February 20, 2002 Share Posted February 20, 2002 Originally posted by redwolf: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS: In this reply Booboo, you state unequivocally that all one requires is two sensor mikes. Do you stand by this statement you made? Because if you do, you are wrong. A slight correction: you can do with two sensor teams if one of them wanders from the second to the third observation point. You need three points, but only two at a time. Not that it changes anything about MBB's style of discussion.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar Posted February 20, 2002 Share Posted February 20, 2002 The Aircraft sound detecting equipment has advantages over the gun detecting equipment. The Aircraft are higher up so you can detect the high freq sounds of the motor and thus you can get a better directional fix. I have my doubts that achieving anything better than 5 - 10 degrees of accuracy would be possible by ear alone. Consider that the sound is a low frequency rumble (at least that is what I have read that it sounded like, I certainly don't claim any experience here). The only reason I think that they would have used directional sound sensors would be to eliminate some of the backround noise (like the sound of the shells landing for instance) For anyone who has done hunting, how accurately would you say you could place a distant hunter firing, within 1 degree?? Anything over 1 (maybe 2) degrees and the maths make it self envident that you will need more sensors to increase the accuracy to useful levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roborat Posted February 20, 2002 Share Posted February 20, 2002 Originally posted by edward_n_kelly: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Roborat: ...This technology was developed by us (Canadians) in WWI,... (Editied quote) What was the relationship between William Alfred Bragg and William Lawrence Bragg and the Canadian Corps in WWI pray tell ? Edward</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_n_kelly Posted February 20, 2002 Share Posted February 20, 2002 Originally posted by Roborat: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by edward_n_kelly: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Roborat: ...This technology was developed by us (Canadians) in WWI,... (Editied quote) What was the relationship between William Alfred Bragg and William Lawrence Bragg and the Canadian Corps in WWI pray tell ? Edward</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asok Posted February 20, 2002 Share Posted February 20, 2002 Originally posted by MajorBooBoo: I will make an attempt.. Here goes: I was demonstrating how someone in the other thread SHOULD have deduced mathematically why I was "wrong". Get it? No, I don't. In mathematics, a counterexample is considered sufficient proof that something is wrong. I, and several others, presented counterexamples. Then you very clearly claimed that I was incorrect. What gives? We don't need any particular technique to show that the two mikes are not enough. regards, Asok (edited since quote != /quote) [ February 20, 2002, 03:58 AM: Message edited by: Asok ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HVAP Posted February 20, 2002 Share Posted February 20, 2002 ehhhhh sound is gamey anyway don't get all worked up on this stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts