![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
What is the difference? -- Hans Eo ( talk) 12:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This is just a guess: WSPR is the name for the radio protocol, WSJT is the name of the inventor's software that implements the WSPR protocol. -- anon
Meanwhile I translated this article into Esperanto and therefore came to this page and read your guess. No, both are different programs. Now two articles exist, which explain both. -- Hans Eo ( talk) 13:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I know nothing about Esperanto, but I am a radio amateur familiar with WSPR and WSJT. WSJT is a computer application developed by K1JT, Princeton Nobel Laureate Joe Taylor and associates. WSPR is one of many protocols WSJT can decode. "Anon's" guess above is correct. 2002:6167:78C9:0:0:0:0:1007 ( talk) 22:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
British sotabeam dot whatnot had the audacity to spam the page with a link to some entirely superfluous WSPR related product they sell. Is there a way for WP to sue the crap out of them? 80.187.101.95 ( talk) 06:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Not only is there no way, there's no need. Maintaining the integrity of our articles is what we do here. And in fact, the example you cite is mild misbehaviour in the extreme. On worse days we deal with actual bad-faith editing, i.e., entry-steading, wiki-stalking, and intentional vandalism. In contrast, this incident was a simple case of (possibly good faith) NPOV. Laodah 06:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't really know how to wikipedia but I made an account because I wanted to ask why the psuedoscientific MH370 claims are being stated as fact? I and most of other the radio amateurs I've talked to about this think that claiming to be able to track planes with WSPR is complete nonsense. I know that it was reported as true by news organizations so it's definitely notable enough to be included in the article. But I'm really hoping someone could change the text to be more agnostic to whether the claims themselves are true. Because they're not, and claiming that a skywave in the ionsosphere is like a laser tripwire or whatever terminology they use is misleading and doesn't reflect reality. I know original research isn't allowed but hopefully in a talk page I can at least discuss why this is wrong. Feel free to delete if it's not allowed, but I will be sad if you keep the misleading info up. I'm not trying to get my back of the envelope math into the article, I just want to add "According to so-and-so" before all of the misleading claims.
Anyway, here's my "original research". :)
If memory serves, the paper published about this technique makes no restrictions on the altitude of the planes it can track, and I believe it claims to be able to track any plane. For that to be true, the total energy of the WSPR signal would need to be spread out vertically from the ground to about 30000 feet or 9km. If you do the math, the width of the hypothetical "laser tripwire" model of a WSPR signal doesn't end up mattering too much because unless the plane is traveling right along the great circle arc between the transmitting and receiving stations, it's not actually likely to remain in the "laser tripwire" for even a single complete WSPR transmission. But for the sake of argument let's just assume the width is 3 miles/5 kilometers, and that the airplane remains in that zone for the entire two minutes a WSPR transmission is happening.
Assuming spherical airplanes, the area the airplane is capable of occluding at any given moment is approximately 31400 square feet or 2826 m^2. Unfortunately, the total cross-sectional area that the hypothetical laser tripwire occupies is 475200000 square feet, or about 45000000 m^2. The power loss represented by the occluded area of the WSPR signal would be about 0.00028698 dB. This is a really small difference, and in fact the algorithm described in the paper actually completely discards small differences like this as "noise". But that's the signal they're after, at least if radio physics worked the way they want it to, which it tragically does not.
Ellenhp93 ( talk) 02:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I think this entry should be removed, as it has been debunked.
https://dk8ok.org/2021/12/06/mh370-and-wspr-aircraft-scatter-on-hf-a-critical-review/
As Ellenhp93 says, there is reporting in mainstream sources so it is a notable topic. Does anyone have reliable sources that refute Richard Godfrey's claims? I found [1], [2], [3], [4] which dispute or question Godfrey's claims but the perceived reliablity of these sources is in a lower league than the ones currently citing the material in the article. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Godfrey's background seems to be in avionics and control systems, not HF propogation. Everything he's put out with regard to this is self-published at [5] https://mh370search.com. So for the work done with WSPR, reliability can be best described as a self-published non-expert. Non-scientific media reports on it don't add to this credibility, so we are well within policy guidelines from WP:UNDO to clarify this, even if we don't have the sources to debunk it within the article. Juan el Demografo ( talk) 17:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I've tried to clean up the MH370 section so it presents the theory in a more concise and neutral manner. This seems a reasonable compromise to me but I'm no expert. Servalo ( talk) 13:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
References
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
What is the difference? -- Hans Eo ( talk) 12:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This is just a guess: WSPR is the name for the radio protocol, WSJT is the name of the inventor's software that implements the WSPR protocol. -- anon
Meanwhile I translated this article into Esperanto and therefore came to this page and read your guess. No, both are different programs. Now two articles exist, which explain both. -- Hans Eo ( talk) 13:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I know nothing about Esperanto, but I am a radio amateur familiar with WSPR and WSJT. WSJT is a computer application developed by K1JT, Princeton Nobel Laureate Joe Taylor and associates. WSPR is one of many protocols WSJT can decode. "Anon's" guess above is correct. 2002:6167:78C9:0:0:0:0:1007 ( talk) 22:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
British sotabeam dot whatnot had the audacity to spam the page with a link to some entirely superfluous WSPR related product they sell. Is there a way for WP to sue the crap out of them? 80.187.101.95 ( talk) 06:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Not only is there no way, there's no need. Maintaining the integrity of our articles is what we do here. And in fact, the example you cite is mild misbehaviour in the extreme. On worse days we deal with actual bad-faith editing, i.e., entry-steading, wiki-stalking, and intentional vandalism. In contrast, this incident was a simple case of (possibly good faith) NPOV. Laodah 06:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't really know how to wikipedia but I made an account because I wanted to ask why the psuedoscientific MH370 claims are being stated as fact? I and most of other the radio amateurs I've talked to about this think that claiming to be able to track planes with WSPR is complete nonsense. I know that it was reported as true by news organizations so it's definitely notable enough to be included in the article. But I'm really hoping someone could change the text to be more agnostic to whether the claims themselves are true. Because they're not, and claiming that a skywave in the ionsosphere is like a laser tripwire or whatever terminology they use is misleading and doesn't reflect reality. I know original research isn't allowed but hopefully in a talk page I can at least discuss why this is wrong. Feel free to delete if it's not allowed, but I will be sad if you keep the misleading info up. I'm not trying to get my back of the envelope math into the article, I just want to add "According to so-and-so" before all of the misleading claims.
Anyway, here's my "original research". :)
If memory serves, the paper published about this technique makes no restrictions on the altitude of the planes it can track, and I believe it claims to be able to track any plane. For that to be true, the total energy of the WSPR signal would need to be spread out vertically from the ground to about 30000 feet or 9km. If you do the math, the width of the hypothetical "laser tripwire" model of a WSPR signal doesn't end up mattering too much because unless the plane is traveling right along the great circle arc between the transmitting and receiving stations, it's not actually likely to remain in the "laser tripwire" for even a single complete WSPR transmission. But for the sake of argument let's just assume the width is 3 miles/5 kilometers, and that the airplane remains in that zone for the entire two minutes a WSPR transmission is happening.
Assuming spherical airplanes, the area the airplane is capable of occluding at any given moment is approximately 31400 square feet or 2826 m^2. Unfortunately, the total cross-sectional area that the hypothetical laser tripwire occupies is 475200000 square feet, or about 45000000 m^2. The power loss represented by the occluded area of the WSPR signal would be about 0.00028698 dB. This is a really small difference, and in fact the algorithm described in the paper actually completely discards small differences like this as "noise". But that's the signal they're after, at least if radio physics worked the way they want it to, which it tragically does not.
Ellenhp93 ( talk) 02:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I think this entry should be removed, as it has been debunked.
https://dk8ok.org/2021/12/06/mh370-and-wspr-aircraft-scatter-on-hf-a-critical-review/
As Ellenhp93 says, there is reporting in mainstream sources so it is a notable topic. Does anyone have reliable sources that refute Richard Godfrey's claims? I found [1], [2], [3], [4] which dispute or question Godfrey's claims but the perceived reliablity of these sources is in a lower league than the ones currently citing the material in the article. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Godfrey's background seems to be in avionics and control systems, not HF propogation. Everything he's put out with regard to this is self-published at [5] https://mh370search.com. So for the work done with WSPR, reliability can be best described as a self-published non-expert. Non-scientific media reports on it don't add to this credibility, so we are well within policy guidelines from WP:UNDO to clarify this, even if we don't have the sources to debunk it within the article. Juan el Demografo ( talk) 17:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I've tried to clean up the MH370 section so it presents the theory in a more concise and neutral manner. This seems a reasonable compromise to me but I'm no expert. Servalo ( talk) 13:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
References