Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Ultrasounds and White Noise
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 20:06:44 +1000
Keith Johnson writes:

> >something using an ultraound sight or sensor. So then he starts packing
> >a white noie jammer and is inviable. What are your thoughts
> >
> It's my thought that a white noise generator would set off
> an ultrasound (any type of sonic) detector.
>
> White noise generators don't damped or make less of noise,
> they put out variable frequency sound that allegedly
> harmonicises bugs. So the little bugs transceiver goes
> crazy.

If the guy has a white noise generator, then he is conducting an ECM defence
against the ultrasound detector. Unfortunately, it is going to alert the
owner of the detector. The white noise generator will just fill the area
around the guy with random meaningless noise, which will all be picked up
by the detector. Sure, they won't be able to pinpoint him exactly, but
they'll sure as hell know he's there somewhere (to within a certain radius
at least). It won't make him invisible, in fact it'll probably alert
everyone to his presence, but it will make it difficult to work out his
exact location (but, hey, what do you think grenades/rockets/missiles etc
are for? :-)).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 2
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ultrasounds and White Noise
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 12:51:39 -0800
On Thu, 23 Mar 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> by the detector. Sure, they won't be able to pinpoint him exactly, but

Actually, it will be trivial to pinpoint the location of the
white noise generator by triangulation. Since sound is a longitudinal
wave (unlike EM radiation) the amount of energy dissipated in the medium
(i.e., air). By sampling two areas in the white noise zone one can
calculate the range, direction and original intensity of the emitted
sound.
Of course, this process is not yet perfect, but the sound ranging
arrays the U.S. Army uses is good enough to give counterbattery artillery
a decent sized "beaten zone" for counterbattery fire.

> Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/getchell.html
Message no. 3
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Ultrasounds and White Noise
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 23:22:08 +1000
Adam Getchell writes:

> Actually, it will be trivial to pinpoint the location of the
> white noise generator by triangulation. Since sound is a longitudinal
> wave (unlike EM radiation) the amount of energy dissipated in the medium
> (i.e., air). By sampling two areas in the white noise zone one can
> calculate the range, direction and original intensity of the emitted
> sound.

Yep, I agree, you have me there. However, someone with an ultrasound sight
will be a little stretched to do this kind of calculation in the middle of
combat to determine the precise location of the person with the white noise
generator using the above method (unless they have a tac computer and they
move around really really fast). :-)

--
Damion Milliken Nominee for the title of _Shadowrun Guru_ adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a18 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 4
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Ultrasounds and White Noise
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 07:58:58 +0930
Damion Milliken wrote:
>
> Yep, I agree, you have me there. However, someone with an ultrasound sight
> will be a little stretched to do this kind of calculation in the middle of
> combat to determine the precise location of the person with the white noise
> generator using the above method (unless they have a tac computer and they
> move around really really fast). :-)
>

The ultrasound sight probably already does this to an extent, though. One
sound source, two receivers for the echoes, to give a depth effect. It may
not be all that precise, but it should work.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Finger me for my geek code
Message no. 5
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Ultrasounds and White Noise
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 02:35:12 -6200
Robert Watkins writes:

> The ultrasound sight probably already does this to an extent, though. One
> sound source, two receivers for the echoes, to give a depth effect. It may
> not be all that precise, but it should work.

All it needs is something to measure the relative energy loss of the
waveforms at each detector, and a hunk of computing power to crunch the
calculations, and you could probably do it, yeah.

--
Damion Milliken Nominee for the title of _Shadowrun Guru_ adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 6
From: Keith Johnson <jrsnyder@********.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ultrasounds and White Noise
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 12:10:44 -0600
Damion Milliken Nominee for the title of _Shadowrun Guru_ writes:

>Adam Getchell writes:
>
[white noise stuff deleted]
>
[stuff about agreement deleted]
>

I'm just curious whether anyone out there
has some actual experience with white noise
generators in 'real life?'

Keith
Message no. 7
From: Keith Johnson <jrsnyder@********.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ultrasounds and White Noise
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 12:18:06 -0600
Damion Milliken Nominee for the title of _Shadowrun Guru_ writes:

>Robert Watkins writes:

[stuff about white noise being triangulated]

>All it needs is something to measure the relative energy loss of the
>waveforms at each detector, and a hunk of computing power to crunch the
>calculations, and you could probably do it, yeah.
>

It would take some awfully specific hardware and software.

Keith
Message no. 8
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Ultrasounds and White Noise
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 23:03:56 +0930
Keith Johnson wrote:
>
> Damion Milliken Nominee for the title of _Shadowrun Guru_ writes:
>
> >All it needs is something to measure the relative energy loss of the
> >waveforms at each detector, and a hunk of computing power to crunch the
> >calculations, and you could probably do it, yeah.
> >
>
> It would take some awfully specific hardware and software.

But it's probably there already in the ultrasound sight... I know I'd like
to have stereoscopic vision. (The hardware isn't too specific, BTW Keith...
just two sensitive, directional detectors. Look at your ears for an
example.)

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Finger me for my geek code
Message no. 9
From: Keith Johnson <jrsnyder@********.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ultrasounds and White Noise
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 12:26:03 -0600
Robert Watkins writes:

>Keith Johnson wrote:
>>
>> Damion Milliken Nominee for the title of _Shadowrun Guru_ writes:
>>
>>>[stuff about detecting the source of white noise]
>>>
>>
>>[statement about hardware and software]
>
>But it's probably there already in the ultrasound sight... I know I'd like
>to have stereoscopic vision. (The hardware isn't too specific, BTW Keith...
>just two sensitive, directional detectors. Look at your ears for an
>example.)
>

That's why I asked about anyone with 'real life' experience
in white noise generators and jamming technology...

I think you are all underestimating the physics of jamming tech.

Keith
Message no. 10
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Ultrasounds and White Noise
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 12:42:33 +1000
Robert Watkins writes:

> > It would take some awfully specific hardware and software.
>
> But it's probably there already in the ultrasound sight... I know I'd like
> to have stereoscopic vision. (The hardware isn't too specific, BTW Keith...
> just two sensitive, directional detectors. Look at your ears for an
> example.)

Well, your ears work on a simple time delay principle. They measure the time
difference between receiving the same signal, and do a bit of processing to
determine the direction from which the signal must've come (in this way, if
you were totally blinded, you couldn't tell the differecne from a sound
directly in front of you and a sound directly behind you). An ultrasound
sight works by similar principles, it uses its own waveforms to throw out
and then detect, like sonar or radar. What you are proposing is that an
ultrasound detector has sufficient detailed and sophisticated electronics
and detectors to measure the energy of the two (or three etc depending on
howe many detectors you have) waveforms at the detectors. This would require
a heck of a lot more sophisticated devices than merely measuring the time
difference which is what currently happens. I think Keith is right when he
says it requires awfully specific hardware and softeare, as I doubt any
ultrasound detectors have the kind of systems you are suggesting.

--
Damion Milliken Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 11
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ultrasounds and White Noise
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 14:43:51 -0700
On Tue, 4 Apr 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> > Robert Watkins writes:
> >
> > But it's probably there already in the ultrasound sight... I know I'd like
> > to have stereoscopic vision. (The hardware isn't too specific, BTW Keith...
> > just two sensitive, directional detectors. Look at your ears for an
> > example.)

Absolutely correct.

> ultrasound detector has sufficient detailed and sophisticated electronics
> and detectors to measure the energy of the two (or three etc depending on

This is trivial because looking at physics, we know that energy
in the (ultra)sound wave is proportionate to the intensity of the sound.
Now, the decibel scale is logarithmic but this means that one can
calculate the energy by sampling. No "sophisticated" devices at all. An
oscilloscope could tell you.
Which is why Robert is correct when he says look at your ears for
an example. There is a base intensity I0 which the human ear can detect,
something like 10E-12 Watts/meter^2. Something with 10 times as much
energy sounds about twice as loud or so, which is how the human ear can
detect a wide range of sound energies from a rock concert to a whisper.
So you see, how loud the sound is tells you its energy, automatically.

> Damion Milliken Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/getchell.html
Message no. 12
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Ultrasounds and White Noise
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 20:23:24 +1000
Adam Getchell writes:

> There is a base intensity I0 which the human ear can detect, something
> like 10E-12 Watts/meter^2. Something with 10 times as much energy sounds
> about twice as loud or so, which is how the human ear can detect a wide
> range of sound energies from a rock concert to a whisper. So you see, how
> loud the sound is tells you its energy, automatically.

So you're saying that the ultrasound sight could be used to (what is it,
"triangulate"?) the source of the ECM jamming? Assuming that ultrasound
sights must mave more than a single receptor to actually get a 3-D image,
and that they are spaced far enough apart to be able to resolve this image -
I remember the debate a while back on this topic [if I got it a little
wrong, you know what I mean anyway I hope] then these same detectors could
instead sample the relative energies of the jamming signal, and a bit of
calculation could be done to determine the origin of the signal. Right?
[Here we veer way of topic, buuut...] So could a submarine, using sonar, get
around active jamming by another submarine using the same technique (or more
to the point, do they)?

--
Damion Milliken Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 13
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Ultrasounds and White Noise
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 19:59:51 +0930
Damion Milliken wrote:
>
> [Here we veer way of topic, buuut...] So could a submarine, using sonar, get
> around active jamming by another submarine using the same technique (or more
> to the point, do they)?

While far from being an expert on this... the only jamming techniques for
sonar I've heard of involves creating echoes. You're definetely still
detected, but some other things might be as well. Depending on the
acoustics, this may or may not work. Also, many of these tricks would be
harder (if not impossible) to pull off in air.

White noise generators aren't there to try to hide you... they are there to
try and mask you. Different story altogether. To get around ultrasound, I'd
use a sonic variation on the invisibility spell, to warp sound waves around
you, or (better yet) through you.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
Finger me for my geek code

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Ultrasounds and White Noise, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!