Using historical WSPR data to try and track MH370…

My instinctive view is :

@bloor

There is a third option which is to use it as a test for known aircraft tracks and see how well it's works.

I suspect this has already been done 😉

@simonzerafa yes I believe this is what the newer paper has done. I really should read it.

My preconception is it will be drawing targets around bullet holes. But maybe that preconception will prove wrong.

@bloor @simonzerafa
The ‘author’ tried that a number of times.
He had previously built a flight path prediction tool. Using regularly operated routes, which generally follow airways (perhaps with offsets), and knowing weather (head/xwinds), paths could be predicted but a number of times his predictions/alleged WSPR derived tracks were contradicted by ADS-C data logged at adsbexchange.

@guardeddon @bloor

How accurate is ASD-C and what was the margin of error when compared with WSPR? 🤔

@simonzerafa @bloor ADS-C is typically involves reports every 15mins (C = contract, the contracted reporting period may vary, ANSP to ANSP). The reports are generated by the FMS using its inertial source, at very worst a few 100m from GNSS.
The ‘author’ alleged that he’d tracked a QF B787 from Sth Africa to Aus. Cross referencing what his WSPR mining had divined to ADS-C reports, errors in ‘4D’. IIRC it was about 50nm.

@simonzerafa @bloor
I’d need to review my notes. I likely commented about it at mh370.radiantphysics.com.
A number of individuals have experimented with techniques to detect reflections of HF by aircraft. It was only possible with very high powered transmitters, and within very limited range of the transmitter and aircraft. A secondary problem was the reflection was subject to doppler, to an extent that a WSPR receiver could not possibly demod/decode a reflection.
It’s an exercise in maintaining relevance, abetted by a small number of similarly minded individuals.