Researchers send 'wireless' message using neutrinos

DeltaV · Post by **DeltaV** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:04 am

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-wir ... rinos.html

Not yet UAV-ready. A fixed "comm station" for passing subs might be doable now.

kunkmiester · Post by **kunkmiester** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:04 am

Replace undersea cables maybe? You could deal with larger, more complex equipment with less hassle, I think submarines is jumping the gun a little.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:41 pm

If you can send a message through the earth, then you can use it to communicate with submarines which would be awesome, because it would solve one of the big issues submarines have been plagued with for a while.
Now if only we could use these neutrinos like a radar underwater...

krenshala · Post by **krenshala** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:03 pm

Doesn't their effectiveness as a communications method (goes through just about everything) make them equally ineffective for a radar equivalent purpose?

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:36 pm

Skipjack wrote:If you can send a message through the earth, then you can use it to communicate with submarines which would be awesome, because it would solve one of the big issues submarines have been plagued with for a while.
Now if only we could use these neutrinos like a radar underwater...

Going through the Earth is fine and dandy, but you're stuck with a whole new issue and that's targetting. Unfortunately you have to target the submarines detecting/receiving device pretty precisely and thats a big issue. I wouldn't mind seeing a web-like network through the Earth to transfer data though, that definitely has its advantages.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:59 pm

Going through the Earth is fine and dandy, but you're stuck with a whole new issue and that's targetting. Unfortunately you have to target the submarines detecting/receiving device pretty precisely and thats a big issue. I wouldn't mind seeing a web-like network through the Earth to transfer data though, that definitely has its advantages.

Well, you can always do it the other way round first. Let the submarine target the sender first and request, data ( e.g. in regular intervals) providing the position in addition to that. Then the fixed position station can send back to the submarine. Of course for security reasons, it may be good to make sure these coms are secure.

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:54 pm

Skipjack wrote:
Going through the Earth is fine and dandy, but you're stuck with a whole new issue and that's targetting. Unfortunately you have to target the submarines detecting/receiving device pretty precisely and thats a big issue. I wouldn't mind seeing a web-like network through the Earth to transfer data though, that definitely has its advantages.
Well, you can always do it the other way round first. Let the submarine target the sender first and request, data ( e.g. in regular intervals) providing the position in addition to that. Then the fixed position station can send back to the submarine. Of course for security reasons, it may be good to make sure these coms are secure.

A 2 way connection is not establish because the sub can successfully target the home base. The home base will still need to target the sub to send back information and its targetting would need a precision of mm on a moving target (assuming currents if engines are idle...etc). I don't see it likely for this application. It's great for straight lines, not so much for moving targets.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:49 pm

and its targetting would need a precision of mm

Uhm, why mm? The submarine is big, I would assume you could have multiple sensors spread over a larger area.
I am pretty sure that modern submarines can establish their position pretty well and just send that to the fixed station via a quick impulse.
Or you have two fixed stations that the sub contacts and that can then triangulate the sub.
Sure they are moving due to currents etc, but I would assume that you dont have to target things at the size of a mm.
Maybe one could also use something like the SOSUS network as a relay with multiple units targeting the same sub.

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:19 pm

Skipjack wrote:
and its targetting would need a precision of mm
Uhm, why mm? The submarine is big, I would assume you could have multiple sensors spread over a larger area.
I am pretty sure that modern submarines can establish their position pretty well and just send that to the fixed station via a quick impulse.
Or you have two fixed stations that the sub contacts and that can then triangulate the sub.
Sure they are moving due to currents etc, but I would assume that you dont have to target things at the size of a mm.
Maybe one could also use something like the SOSUS network as a relay with multiple units targeting the same sub.

I don't think I can explain it well without an example. Take an empty 2 liter of coke and put its cap on. Take a magic marker and put a single dot on the side of the bottle. Put the bottle in the center of an Olympic size pool and allow 2 swimmers to swim laps on either side of it. Now take a laser pointer and try to position the laser on that dot without ever leaving that dot and tell me how successful you were with this experiment.

As for using multiple detectors, I suppose you could dot the bottle all over, but I have two issues with that idea. First, I think you lose major tactical advantages by covering your sub in detectors, since you're taking up valuable real estate. Second, by convention, even radio antennas are relatively small and thin, as well as cheap. Why change to an expensive technology when you get pretty close to equivalent response from pre-existing and much cheaper technology?

kunkmiester · Post by **kunkmiester** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:04 pm

we've been using extremely low hertz waves to communicate with subs for a while now anyway. This is really only practical for that if you can boost the bandwidth enough.

How big of a detector would we be looking at anyway? For a reasonably powered beam, I doubt you'd be able to fit a detector in a sub regardless.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:08 pm

" A submarine is big"... ha, ha, ha, ha ha ha ha, har, ho ho ho ha...

snif, gasp.

You ever been in the radio room of a submarine? I think you'd have a tough time fitting those things.

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:17 pm

Once took a tour when they had one in SF. It was a very humbling experience when you realize how close you are....to everyone.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:28 am

You ever been in the radio room of a submarine? I think you'd have a tough time fitting those things.

Submarines are already covered in sensors, at least some of them. The whole passive sonar is often along the side of the sub.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:21 am

How big is the neutrino "detector"? The sonar "detector" is maybe a cubic inch of total volume and there are arrays of them all over the outside of the subs. How big was this detector? More to the point though is how big was the TRANSMITTER. A radio is a receiver AND a transmitter.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:47 pm

I am finding this thread funny.

It is not viable to add this as current tech or near future tech to exisitng boats. The real-estate is just not there. Maybe you could try a rig on an Ohio, but, again, you would give up space being used for other stuff.
Why not just go with an entanglement comm system?

In any event, LF, VLF, ELF, SUS, SLOTs and other systems work just fine for doing what needs to be done. For high bandwidth narrow beam, Lasers are looking pretty darn useful.