Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:07:58 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Fundraising Idea Just charge extra to read any of Bob Brandenburg's postings. They are that good. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:14:16 EDT From: Ron Bright Subject: Re: Hue Miller's reply For Hue, Bob B. and radio buffs. Would it be fair to summarize that Bob B. believes it was possible for Betty to hear the Electras radio and Hue does not think it possible. The harmonics, skip, frequencies, drifting and endless analytical radio discussions are mind boggling for the lay person. Ron Bright ****************************************************** From Ric It's a complicated subject and certainly beyond my paygrade, but Hue's challenge was made publicly on the forum and Bob's response deserves the same airing - as do their respective rebuttals. The question of whether Betty could have heard AE is a crucial one. Hue has tried to make the case that it was effectively impossible. My inexpert opinion is that Bob has successfully refuted that allegation. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:16:53 EDT From: Roger Kelley Subject: For Cam Warren I agree with Ted Campbell who said, "From time to time I very much appreciate your fencing with Ric on various matters but to be truthful I get a little tired of your picking on the minutiae rather then trying to get your ideas accepted through valid "scientific "arguments and/or physical proof of your "statements of fact." I ask you Cam, are you not a member of the Amelia Earhart Society? Were you not advertised as a major participant in the AMELIA EARHART SYMPOSIUM which was held at the WESTERN AEROSPACE MUSEUM on May 17-19, 2002? Is not the mission of the Amelia Earhart Society and the Symposium which you participated in to encourage the release and conclusive determination of any additional facts surrounding the last flight of Earhart and Noonan, and their disappearance? Key words, "release and conclusive"!!! By the way, you claim the following: 1. You are a combat radio operator USN WW2., 2. You are a professional writer. 3. You are highly knowledgeable regarding radio technology. Are these claims accurate? If so, please bless us with your fully documented military history. A copy of your DD214 would suffice. Please list your publications and professional reviews of same. Please advise this forum what qualifications you have to support your claim that you are, "highly knowledgeable regarding radio technology." Are you an expert in radio technology and if so, by what standards? A list of academic degrees and your qualifications reflecting long term employment by major research institutions or prominent radio manufactures will suffice. I join with Ted and say, "Show me the money !" Roger Kelley ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:18:08 EDT From: Christian Duretete Subject: Re: PAA navigation Dan Brown wrote: > The ground stations operate on 3082.5 kc (99 meters), 5165 kc (58 > meters), and 8220 kc (36.5 meters) for communication, and on 1638 kc > (183 meters) for direction finding bearings. The frequencies are Gee: I thought it was a HF DF: in 1936 were they ONLY using 1638, from the aircraft, for DFing? Sounds strange to me... Christian D ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:22:38 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Hue Miller's reply II Bob Brandenburg wrote: > Your most recent posting requires comment. > > You refer to an undated Eitel-Mcullough article by John Reinartz as the basis > for some harmonic suppression calculations you have performed. I simply cited the article, with the worst case selectivity, giving figures for the harmonic output with one tuned circuit. > Although the disjoint > nature of your remarks makes it difficult to follow your logic, it appears > that you are once again relying on "factoids" and generalities instead of actual > analysis. Perhaps the following points will be instructive: > > (1). You quote a passage from the Reinartz paper mentioning the difficulty that > amateur transmitters had in meeting the FCC rule circa 1947, in "regard to the > reduction of radiation of harmonic frequencies to not less than 40 db below the > fundamental frequency ...". Apparently, you believe that the Western Electric > 13C transmitter was subject to the 1947 rules. I do not know how you derive "apparently" from my comments. I cited the 40 db FCC ruling, perhaps i should simply not have included that. This was merely by way of explaining the concern of the author about the contemporary 40 db figure. > That transmitter was developed > in the early 1930s, and was in commercial airline service in the United States > by 1936. If it is your position that there was an FCC rule in effect in 1936/ > 1937 specifying required quantitative reductions in harmonic radiation, then > please cite the relevant rule. If you indicate where i maintain this, THEN i will consider citing the relevant rule. > (2) You mention a paper by Labus and Roder, which appeared in the Proceedings > of the Institute of Radio Engineers in 1931, and which Reinartz apparently cited > in his paper. The full title of the the Labus and Roder paper, by the way, is > "The Suppression of Radio-Frequency Harmonics in Transmitters". That paper, > which you evidently have not read, appeared in the June 1931 issue of the > Proceedings and presents a general analysis of some of the factors associated > with suppressing harmonic radiation. One of the factors not treated in the paper > is central to the question of whether Betty could have heard Amelia on a > harmonic. Labus and Roder state ""...it may happen that the frequency of one > of the generated harmonics coincides with one of the natural harmonics of the > antenna. In this case an exceedingly strong radiation for that harmonic will > occur." Clearly, the notion of "coincides with" can be extended, without loss > of rigor, to include "is in the neighborhood of". Uh-oh. Is "in the neighborhood" something like starting with "a reasonable assumption" of harmonic power? > Since the authors use a > Thevenin circuit approach to the problem, the analysis reduces essentially to > finding the ratio of current in the amplifier plate load inductance to the > current in the antenna as a function of frequency and the values of the > impedance components in the output circuit. Yes, current by voltage in the purely resistive radiation resistance. We are talking, ultimately, about the power ratio of the harmonic power in the antenna resistance, compared to the fundamental channel power in the antenna, agreed? The factors, of course, that affect this are the series reactance of the antenna capacity, or inductance, and the parallel impedance of the plate load of the inductor and it's distributed capacitance, plus the plate trimmer capacitor, presented to the tube impedance. > (3) You quote some harmonic suppression results, without stating whether you > calculated those results or just lifted them from the Labus/Roder paper. You > seem to believe that the result depends only upon the Q of the antenna. Wrong. Apparently you read the paper. You know then, that the Q factor examples cited were for the tuned circuit. I did not state otherwise. >If you had read the Labus/Roder paper, you would know that the result depends on > two other factors, one of which is a simple function of the harmonic ordinal. > The other factor is the current ratio mentioned in (2) above. If you examine > the equations in the paper, you will see that the result is critically dependent > upon the unique frequency dependent impedance characteristics of the antenna in > question. Unless the results you cite were computed specifically for the > antenna on NR16020, then they are useless for deciding how much harmonic > suppression occurred in the output circuit of the WE 13C on NR16020. > > Regarding the selectivity of the output circuit, you continue to contend that > the antenna effectively "presents ANOTHER" (emphasis mine) pole of selectivity. > Perhaps I didn't make this point clear enough in my previous response, but the > antenna was the ONLY (emphasis mine) selective element in the output circuit. > You state, correctly, that if the antenna impedance, which varies with > frequency, does not reasonably match the transmitter impedance, actual radiated > power is greatly reduced. But "greatly reduced" is not the same as "eliminated". > You are ignoring the fact that even a small current in the antenna branch could > generate a significant radiated field if the signal frequency was close to a > natural harmonic frequency of the antenna. You also are ignoring the facts that > the antenna gain at harmonic frequencies was higher than at the fundamental > frequencies, and that ionospheric propagation loss was much less than at the > fundamental frequencies. Combining these factors yields a small, but non-zero, > probability that a detectable harmonic signal could have reached Betty's > radio. I agree that only at antenna high-impedance resonance points ( multiple of 1/2 wave) will the antenna radiate to any practical degree harmonics. I do not understand your contention that the antenna is the only selective element. The plate inductor resonates with the plate trimmer capacitor and the antenna capacity. It will do this with or without an antenna connected. > Finally, regarding the matter of whether Betty's radio drifted in frequency, > you rely on "anecdotal submissions" indicating that "old timers" agree with you. > The essence your previous argument on this point was that Betty is not to be > believed, because it was impossible for her receiver not to have drifted. I > don't wish to put too fine a point on this, but unless you have documented > evidence collected by someone who was actually there with Betty, it doesn't > matter what anecdotal evidence you have. Lest you think I m being disrespectful > to "old timers", I happen to be one. I was designing and building my own > shortwave receivers before you were born. That's great. What is your comment on the likelihood of a non-drifting vacuum tube receiver at 18, 24, MHz or higher? How about the "static" at these frequencies? Like a "police scanner" ? I am willing to hear you give some idea of probabilities on these questions. I am not saying "impossible", i AM saying, "consider the likelihood." Here's another idea for you, Bob. Your analysis says even at 0.1 watt radiated power, Betty could have heard this x days out of y. My question is, with thousands of radio hams trying the trans-Pacific route, day in and day out, year after year, Betty was the only one, one blessed week in 1937, to achieve this enviable long-distance reception? I read that hams at Howland, within months of the AE disappearance, where pleased that their AM transmitter, power uncited, but definitely not in the 5 or 10 watt class, were happy to reach inland USA, not East or Gulf Coast USA. This is with numerous tries, good optimized antennas at both ends, skilled technical people. But Betty bested them all? Should they have tried more often? How much harder could they have tried? Should they have used a Zenith home antenna and a 100 foot wire? Okay, so i am in danger of becoming sarcastic here. My point is, if this was achievable in some nonzero x days out of y, WHY not more people? There certainly has not been achieved despite a number of tries. And no, we can not include in long-distance success stories, the modern records made by using SSB equipment, or digital non-voice modes. Or, have you some other examples beside Betty, of such a long distance low power reception of an AM signal? I have been trying to notice any prewar records of long distance reception at low powers in the higher HF frequencies. Purely anecdotal, so far, but what i've come up with is receptions of around 2000-3000 miles at best, with powers down to about 1.5 watts out, this with communications equipment at both ends. You may discount or ignore this, your choice, i am just telling what i have come up with, looking for examples. Overall, my argument is this: consider the probability. This includes probability questions that arise from the content of the reception. One and a half hours and you have cryptic series of numbers, live reporting of a cabin tussle between AE and FN, etc., but WHAT of significance, considering she was (supposedly) trying to summon help? She had to broadcast details of water rising, Fred shouting, them conversing, but nothing a rescuer could use? Or Betty missed the important parts, due to fading and static, where AE said where she (thought) she was, condition, next transmission time, for example? Okay, i grant the probability is nonzero. It is, in my view, however, vanishingly small. That means close enough to zero to eliminate it. Again, i have limited time to give to this very interesting topic. I do plan to take this question, the harmonic issue, elsewhere, for more expert input than mine ( or Mr. Brandenburg's ). We'll see what the larger community thinks. If i'm wrong, you'll see it here. If you're wrong, you'll need to come up with another explanation for what Betty heard. Regards, Hue Miller ************************************************************** From Ric >Okay, i grant the probability is nonzero. It is, in my view, however, >vanishingly small. That means close enough to zero to eliminate it. So after all the hoopla it comes down to "It could have happened but I don't think it did." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:33:55 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: RDF-1 I've been fascinated with the exchange regarding the RDF-1. I've tried to sort this issue out unsuccessfully. I've had a number of off forum exchanges with Cam which were all pleasant until I asked for specific confirmation that the radio was on AE's Electra. He has refused to answer any of my questions and elected to get abusive and insulting as his method of response. I have found no indication there is a living soul who has ever seen this radio if indeed it ever existed. I can find no schematics nor any specs. I've been in contact with former Bendix employees and have come up empty. Cam seems to have strong OPINIONS in this regard but absolutely no proof whatsoever that he is willing to provide. He does not seem to recognize his opinions or those of others are not proof. In addition I can find no significance in regard to the Earhart mystery whether such a radio was or was not installed. I don't see the point of the discussion. An undated photo whose location is not specified found among the deceased's effects is hardly of any significant value particularly since the equipment shown is also not identified. That AE acknowledged receiving on 7500kc does not tell which radio she had. That Vincent Bendix was a friend of the Putnams does not tell me what radio was on the plane. Anecdote that a box marked Navy was delivered to the airplane doesn't tell me what radio was on the plane. I don't know if the statement was made or if it was true or what was in the box or if what was in the box was put in the airplane or if it was a radio and if so what radio it was. I don't know what difference any of this makes. I'm out of the radio thread. Alan ***************************************************************** From Ric This HF/DF radio thread is like Prometheus chained to the rock. An eagle comes and eats out his liver, then his liver grows back and the eagle returns. Every time we go down this road with Cam it ends the same way. He makes claims that he can't substantiate with anything but his own interpretations and opinions. For a while I thought we had a chance to finally make some progress on this question by being able to make a firm identification of the box in the Sias photo, but Hue Miller has - so far - chosen not to back up his assertion that he has an identical box. I think it's time to let our liver start to heal again. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:03:57 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: RA-1 > To which the government would respond, "Vince, you're a real card. What a > swell stunt. You're just the sort of guy to whom we like to award contracts > for classified equipment." Works for me. I agree this scenario doesn't work. But could the scenario have been different. What if the test with Amelia Earhart was carried out with the full approval of US government? The idea from Bendix's point of view was not then to publicise the RA-1/RDF1 but to test it. Amelia, for her part, merely had the use of it but Bendix wanted to sell it to the US government - as he later apparently did, selling 100 sets to the US navy. The project would of course remain classified and this could explain Earhart's assertion that there were matters that she was unable to discuss. We know that Earhart was able to receive on 7500Kcs via the loop antenna. This begs the question as to why, if the loop was working as it should, she did not attempt to use the loop to receive on 3105Kcs with her WE 20B, if she was indeed in close enough proximity to Howland for it to be effective? If however the loop was dedicated to an RA-1 she would not have had the option of using it with her WE 20B and this would explain her continued use of the perhaps useless belly antenna and lack of further reception. Regards Angus. ******************************************************************** From Ric So the government wants to test this new piece of equipment and, instead of conducting tests with knowledgeable radio technicians in Army or Navy aircraft (the XC-35 pressurized Electra, for instance, was being tested by the Air Corps at this time), they give the thing to Amelia Earhart who has just ducked out of taking even a basic radio navigation test???? Maybe they wanted her to write "HF/DF For Dummies". Why didn't she use the loop to receive on 3105? I don't know, but I can guess. AE never figured out that her inability to receive was an antenna problem, not a radio problem. When she asked for a "long-count on 7500" she tuned the WE 20B to 7500 and switched, for the first time, to her loop antenna. She heard not the loung count she asked for but a string of "A"s (dit-dah, dit-dah, dit -dah,....). She rotated her loop but got no change in the signal. She transmitted on 3105 saying, "We received your signals but unable to get a minimum. Please take bearing on us and answer 3105 with voice." In other words, "Forget it. I can't get this thing to work. You take a bearing on me and tell me which way I should go." She then sends long dashes on 3105. Having abandoned the idea of using her own direction finder she tunes the receiver back to 3105 AND switches the antenna back to the missing belly antenna. In her mind the loop is only for DFing and all she had heard when using it was code, which is useless to her for communication. Had she heard a long count in voice over the loop her problems would have been solved because she would have two way voice communication, but Itasca couldn't send voice on 7500. The real tragedy of the Earhart disappearance is that it was so unnecessary. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:08:13 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Operation Sepulcher Ok, so this is not about AE and FN, but things are a little slow on the forum this week so I thought I'd pass this along from the November issue of Air Classics. Regardless of what one may think of their editorial efforts, they do have great airplane pix. Nonetheless, here is a piece about a TIGHAR-related effort. "Luftwaffe Aircraft Beneath Schoenefiled Airport?" "New claims promote interest but could be doubtful" "Researchers combing through millions of pages of documents taken from Stasi files -- the dread secret police of [the former] East Germany, indicate they have found proof that tons of WWII munitions along with complete aircraft were buried in bunkers below Schoenefeld Airport -- now a main destination for discount and charter airlines. "An airport spokesperson stated, "We became aware of the bunkers in 1993, four years dafter the fall of the Berlin Wall." The documents claims that the Soviets ordered the clearing of airfields and warehouses and that munitions and aircraft were simply slung into the numerous bunkers and covered over. Excavations will see if there is any credence to the Stasi claims." I know TIGHAR's investigation of similar claims in the early 90s did not turn up any evidence of WWII combat aircraft buried in bunkers on present day US/NATO/West German air bases. But this is another good example of how these rumor (if that is all they are) get started and how they are sustained for long periods. LTM, a former wishful thinker Dennis O. McGee #0149EC *********************************************************************** From Ric Old news. I'm surprised that it has taken Air Comics so long to get around to it. I've never been able to figure why finding rumors in STASI files makes them more credible. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:10:58 EDT From: Alfred Hendrickson Subject: The Color of Money I just got Bob Lee's note. Is there currently a fundraising thread open? LTM, Alfred Hendrickson #2583 ******************************************************** From Ric Surely you jest. The fundraising thread is ALWAYS open. (I know, I know, don't call you Surely.) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 14:56:48 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: For Cam Warren I recognize the frustrations some have with Cam but I don't think getting into a credentials thread will resolve the problem. I will take Cam at his word for whatever his background is. All I really want out of Cam is the answers to the questions folks put to him. Cam believes the radio controversy is a highly significant issue. No one has shown me why that is so but if it is and Cam thinks the RDF-1 was installed on the plane he needs to show his proof or admit it is just his well measured opinion. To battle back and forth like this is getting no where. I don't know whether a RDF-1 was installed on the Electra or not but I have come to the conclusion neither Cam nor anyone else can offer proof that it was. Alan *************************************************************** From Ed Dear Roger, I would say "give me the money", "show me" doesn't put skin in the game. LTM Ed Of Psl #2415 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:18:31 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: RA-1 > So the government wants to test this new piece of equipment and, instead of > conducting tests with knowledgeable radio technicians in Army or Navy aircraft > (the XC-35 pressurized Electra, for instance, was being tested by the Air Corps > at this time), they give the thing to Amelia Earhart who has just ducked out > of taking even a basic radio navigation test???? Maybe they wanted her to > write "HF/DF For Dummies". If it was purely the government doing the testing I'm sure that AE would never have got so much as a whiff of hot paxolin from an RA-1. However we have to remember that Vincent Bendix was a sponsor. Here was an opportunity to do some very basic long distance testing for no cost and also to make a contribution to the Earhart flight that would actually cost the company little, especially if the set was purely on loan, as I would expect. The maximum loss to the company in the event of accident would only be the set itself if the matter were classified. Bendix may have been quite prepared that nothing useful would be learned. On the other hand if the flight were successful Bendix would be able to say to the US navy: "Look - even a woman can use it!" He had nothing to lose. There were also other considerations than operational characteristics that could be tested such as durability under vibration, condensation and corrosion proofing, component reliability etc that did not depend on AE's technical operational skills. Regards Angus. ************************************************************** From Ric If I understand you correctly you're suggesting that Bendix gave Earhart the radio to use with the government's blessing. That's fine as speculation but I know of nothing to support it. If she had such a new and unusual receiver aboard don't you find it just a bit odd that there is no indication that she attempted any DF navigation on the World Flight until the (unsuccessful) test flight at Lae on July 1st? Isn't it a bit strange that nobody who worked on her radios during the World Flight and was later questioned (Sgt. Stan Rose who fixed a blown fuse in Darwin and the Guinea Airways radio technician who checked all her radios and made a report that is included in the Chater letter) never said anything about a second receiver? If it was worth carrying the weight of the thing two-thirds of the way around the world, and if testing it was one of the purposes of the flight, why did Earhart only try to take a bearing on the Itasca as a last ditch effort after she failed in repeated attempts to get them to take a bearing on her? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:19:46 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: RA-1 Alan said : "No one has shown me why that is so but if it is and Cam thinks the RDF-1 was installed on the plane he needs to show his proof or admit it is just his well measured opinion." Ric and the Forum have asked Cam that question on several issues over the years and we get the same answer . . .silence. I sincerely appreciate and admire Cam's tenacity and dogged persistence in tracking down his leads -- he probably would have made a great cop -- but he always comes up short on providing proof. Lots of talk, no walk; lots of show, no go; lots of promise, no product; a vaporware specialist. LTM, who remains forever hopeful Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:48:38 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: RA-1, again Angus said: >There were also other considerations than operational >characteristics that could be tested such as durability under vibration, >condensation and corrosion proofing, component reliability etc that did not >depend on AE's technical operational skills AE may not have planned this trip very well, but I really can't see her voluntarily hauling around the world a piece of relatively heavy equipment that she did not know how to operate just to test its durability etc. Surely all of that testing could be conducted faster, cheaper, and more accurately in Bendix's own labs, I would think. LTM, who is occasionally testy Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ******************************************************************** From Angus Ric asked: > If she had such a new and unusual receiver aboard don't you find it just a > bit odd that there is no indication that she attempted any DF navigation on the > World Flight until the (unsuccessful) test flight at Lae on July 1st? No I don't. I think AE was a bit of a technophobe when it came to radios. Airplanes yes, radios no. The plane was hyped as a flying laboratory and one reason may have been that such a receiver was supposedly on test. There was not a lot else to test. My guess is that perhaps AE was simply not interested in using it unless absolutely necessary. You pointed out that she dodged out of the radio navigation test. The last thing she wanted to do was to try to use some newfangled piece of wizardry that she knew nothing about. Only when things started to look bleak did she fire it up. AE may well have felt obliged to have it along as Bendix was a sponsor, but she wasn't about to use it without a very good reason. >Isn't it a bit strange that nobody who worked on her radios during the World > Flight and was later questioned (Sgt. Stan Rose who fixed a blown fuse in Darwin > and the Guinea Airways radio technician who checked all her radios and made a > report that is included in the Chater letter) never said anything about a > second receiver? If it was classified, they may well have been asked by AE to say nothing about it. Even if it was not classified, it was, according to Taylor, a prototype and one can well imagine Bendix asking AE not to let anyone mess with it and not to publicise its existence for pure commercial reasons. Not only that but Rose and the technician would have been unfamiliar with it anyway and perhaps reluctant to even get involved with it. > If it was worth carrying the weight of the thing two-thirds of the > way around the world, and if testing it was one of the purposes of the flight, > why did Earhart only try to take a bearing on the Itasca as a last ditch effort > after she failed in repeated attempts to get them to take a bearing on her ? For the same reasons given above. If Itasca could give her a bearing without having to use the RA-1, well and good. In the event she had to give it a go and at least managed to receive on it, although not very suprisingly she failed to get a null. She was obviously justified in her misgivings in using it. Regards Angus ************************************************************ From Ric All we know for certain is that Earhart didn't talk about it, Bendix didn't talk about it, the radio technicians who worked on the airplane during the World Flight didn't talk about it, and neither the Coast Guard nor Putnam talked about it afterward, despite all the agonizing about how she failed to find Howland. We can't prove it wasn't there because even if Earhart failed to mention it when giving a comprehensive description of her radios (which she did in Karachi), she could have been lying. Cam says, "I don't believe in conspiracy theories, never have, never will." and yet this is a classic conspiracy theory. All sorts of people are presumed to have engaged in a subterfuge for all sorts of imagined motives and the absence of any real documentation is offered as proof of the coverup. *************************************************************** From Angus Alan wrote: > I have found no indication there is a living soul who has ever seen this > radio if indeed it ever existed. I can find no schematics nor any specs. I've > been in contact with former Bendix employees and have come up empty. It really does exist ( the RA-1 which would have been used with the RDF1 loop). I will send you a photo if you let me have your e-mail address. Regards Angus. ************************************************************* From Ric I know that the RA-1 did exist. I too have seen the photos. But my understanding has been that the RA-1 was the predecessor of the RDF-1 and that the later claim by Taylor was that the prototype for the RA-1 was aboard Earhart's Electra. So, what is an RDF-1 loop? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:49:27 EDT From: Russ Matthews Subject: Re: For Cam Warren I agree with Alan that there is no need for a credentials thread and the inevitable "my resume can beat up your resume" back and forth that would be sure to follow. The proof should be able speak for itself, regardless of the presenter's background. LTM, Russ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:58:29 EDT From: Ted Campbell Subject: AE & The Flying Laboratory Do we know who other than David E. Ross contributed funds for the purchase of AE's Lockheed? I believe there were two financial contributors in addition to the various aviation related (e.g., Bendix, Sperry, P&W, etc.) manufacturers which may have contributed hardware. *************************************************** From Ric According to Mary Lovell (The Sound of Wings), David Ross was the original and principal contributor ($50,000) to the Purdue "Amelia Earhart Fund for Aeronautical Research". J.K. Lilly, Vincent Bendix, Western Electric, Goodrich, Goodyear and other manufacturers put up money and equipment totaling another $30,000. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:09:52 EDT From: Julie Subject: Dutch roll- last gasp Dutch Roll is a phenomenon of swept wings. I don't believe jets with straight wings suffer from it. Having only flown swept wing jet transports I can't comment on straight wing jets. The auto-pilots of swept wing jets have yaw dampers built into the auto-pilot systems to take care of it. It is interesting to note that the wonderful DC-3 also has a slight Dutch roll as the wing is slightly swept. Obviously way ahead of its time. Cheers. Julie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:11:13 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Hue Miller's reply II Ric wrote: > So after all the hoopla it comes down to "It could have happened but I don't > think it did." Don't misread me, Ric. I mean close enough to zero, to be zero, for this real world. But as i said, it's time for me to seek other input. Hue ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:50:18 EDT From: Rich Young Subject: immaculate reception Since we seem to be in a credential mood these days, I'll throw my limited bona fides up front - I am a no-code Tech Ham licensed radio operator - I have been involved in long-distance AM and SSB radio transmission off and on since the 1970's. I am also an amateur electronics technician - I have scratch-built tube audio amplifiers, and repaired tube and solid state communications equipment. Further, radio communications of both voice and digital data were areas of concern for me in a previous government job. Lastly, I have been an old radio aficionado since I was a small child - living in an apartment, my collection is necessarily modest right now, but includes a Silvertone am receiver, and a Philco am-sw receiver, both pre-war. Submitted for your approval are my highly subjective opinions about Betty's receptions. 1. I do not believe that Betty would deliberately mislead us - I am convinced she is sincere in what she believes she heard. 2. I accept Betty's notebook as a contemporary record of what she believed she heard. 3. The subject matter that she has recorded in her notebook is less consistent with an actual broadcast from an aviator in peril than it is with a hoax, a drama, or dramatic news re-enactment. 4. The behavior of her receiver, (specifically the lack of retuning and apparent signal to noise ratio) is less consistent with multiple thousands of miles skip reception of a sub-watt harmonic at high frequency than it is with a broadcast band signal of robust wattage being received at a moderately long distance from the transmitter, possibly with intervening bad weather. 5. The conditions reported to be existing regarding the aircraft, (landed, rising water, etc.) are, at a minimum, much less than ideal for transmission on the fundamental, much less a fractional-watt harmonic, if indeed any transmission at all is possible, due to dynamotor and battery location. 6. Unless an alleged post-loss reception is reported by more than one listener, agreeing as to content and time of broadcast, the validity of the reception must be seriously questioned. 7. Even an event satisfying number 6 could be deliberate fraud or hoax, or an accidental misunderstanding. 8. Even an event satisfying number 6 should be parsed for expected content - location, aircraft state, health of aircrew, estimated maximum food & water and radio duration, radio frequencies and listening and broadcast times, signal fire or flare descriptions, marker panel descriptions, etc. 9. Any "non-zero" finding of harmonic transmission possibility has to be tempered with real-world experience. After all, there is a "non-zero" chance that I will build a replica Model 10E out of empty beer cans and fly it around the world, but please don't send me your empties. I look forward to the post-loss reception matrix, but I must regretfully conclude that Betty did NOT here Amelia on her dad's radio set. For what it's worth. LTM, (who tunes into Paul Harvey) Rich Young ******************************************************************** From Ric You're entitled to your opinion but in making your case you have presented the best evidence against your own conclusion. You believe Betty is sincere and that the notebook is a genuine contemporary record of what she heard. So far, we agree. Then you say: >The subject matter that she has recorded in her notebook is less >consistent with an actual broadcast from an aviator in peril than it is with >a hoax, a drama, or dramatic news re-enactment. You may have access to sources I have not seen but I know of no other record of a transmission from an aviator in a similar situation. If you do, please share it with us. I would also love to see the script of a radio drama that resembles Betty's transcription. Our examinations, to date, of radio dramas from that era have shown them to be very different from what Betty heard - no station breaks or commercials over a 1.75 hour period, no narrator or announcer, no music, etc.. If it was a drama/hoax that Betty found so convincing it seems odd that no one else seems to have heard the broadcast. That contradiction is reinforced by your opinion that what Betty heard was consistent with "a broadcast band signal of robust wattage being received at a moderately long distance from the transmitter, possibly with intervening bad weather." Many, many people should have heard such a broadcast. The same problem arises with your statement: >Unless an alleged post-loss reception is reported by more than one >listener, agreeing as to content and time of broadcast, the validity of the >reception must be seriously questioned. The same is surely even more true if the signal is not a genuine very low-probability reception but "a broadcast band signal of robust wattage". If Betty is not lying, which we agree she is not, then what she heard was either a genuine distress call or a very elaborate and convincing hoax or drama. Orson Wells' radio dramatization of War of the Worlds was less convincing but caused a national panic. The dramatization that Betty heard must have gotten very poor ratings indeed. You want to dictate what Amelia should have said and, because Betty heard something else, it couldn't have been Amelia. Like Hue Miller, you want to treat "highly unusual" as "impossible", and yet Betty's notebook is ONLY credible if her reception of a distress call from Earhart was one of those freakish, highly-improbable events that happen to somebody, somewhere every day. Betty's chances of hearing a distress call from AE were probably better than any forum subscriber's chances of winning the lottery but people win lotteries every day. And now you know the rest of the story... LTM Ric ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:52:48 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: RA-1, Wild Speculation I've hopefully made my position clear on this -- I don't believe she had the radio on the fateful trip. HOWEVER I am willing to wildly speculate that it COULD have been part of the original flight which was to proceed on a western heading. If the Navy and Bendix were agreeable to let this be used for the Howland leg on that initial flight and then be removed for the remainder of the flight I might be willing to believe that. Once the initial flight had been abandoned and the route changed, the idea of including the radio was dropped. Bob ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:56:47 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: RA-1, again > Surely all > of that testing could be conducted faster, cheaper, and more accurately in > Bendix's own labs, I would think. A lab test NEVER duplicates field conditions. Ric said: > But my > understanding has been that the RA-1 was the predecessor of the RDF-1 and > that the later claim by Taylor was that the prototype for the RA-1 was aboard > Earhart's Electra. > So, what is an RDF-1 loop? The RDF-1 was only part of the system, a loop/tuner/pre-amp or coupler NOT a receiver. The RA-1 was a DF receiver. The two things are as different as chalk and cheese but the RDF-1 could be used in conjunction with the RA-1. Regards Angus. ********************************************************************* From Ric So you're saying that the receiver was the RA-1 and that the RDF-1 was some component (you don't seem sure which) that could be used with the RA-1. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:17:13 EDT From: Bob Sherman Subject: WAS THERE A BENDIX? Not as an argument but to point out that Elgen Long mentions a Bendix twice on P. 170. A conversation with Sgt. Rose at Darwin on why she did not respond to their DF procedure. Long says in effect: Sgt. Rose questioned AE on radio procedure and she admited that her recver had not been working properly since she left the United States. Sgt. Rose later advised her that he had replaced a fuse in her Bendix receiver. She went with him to the plane to check the Bendix Receiver. He showed her how to replace a fuse; they put on earphones and he tuned to a local station that came in loud and clear. Long may tell us where he got the Rose details and why he said Bendix when she had a WE recvr. Was her DF test at Lae on some Low Freq. Beacon, or Lae's HF Comm. radio? Point being, is there any record of her having heard anything on whatever HF radio she may have had? ['7500' from the Itasca excepted] As for the LF bands, she could easily have done without them because Tower light signals for taxiing, take-off and landing was more commonly used than radio at airports in those days. RC 941 *************************************************************************** From Ric You will note that from the notes in the book that Long attributes his description of what Rose did to an interview he had with Rose in 1976. Long does not quote Rose directly nor does he provide a transcript of the interview so we don't have any way of knowing whether or not Rose ever referred to a "Bendix receiver". Even if he did, anything he said in 1976 would be a 39 year old recollection. The only contemporaneous source we have for what Rose did is a letter dated August 3, 1937 to the American Consul in Sydney, Australia from the Administrator of the Northern Territory which includes a statement from the Aircraft Inspector and Officer-in-Charge of the airport at Darwin. He says that Earhart blamed her failure to communicate with Darwin while inbound from Timor on the failure of her "D/F receiver" (singular). No mention of whether it was Bendix or Western Electric, but had she had two receivers aboard the airplane she would have had to experience failures in both in order to be unable to hear transmissions from Darwin. He says that Sgt. Rose "discovered that the fuse for the D/F generator was blown". It seems, therefore, to be the case that there was only one receiver aboard the Electra at that time and that it was being used for voice communications but was also capable of D/F. While in Karachi, earlier in the trip, Earhart specifically said that the Western Electric receiver was under the co-pilot's seat. Everything we know about the July 1st test is in the Chater letter which is on the TIGHAR website. "At 6.35 a.m., July 1st, Miss Earhart carried out a 30 minute air test of the machine when two way telephone communication was established between the ground station at Lae and the plane. The Operator was requested to send a long dash while Miss Earhart endeavoured to get a minimum on her direction finder. On landing Miss Earhart informed us that she had been unable to obtain a minimum and that she considered this was because the Lae station was too powerful and too close." I don't know what frequency they were using but it had to a voice frequency. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:29:53 EDT From: Dave Bush Subject: Re: RA-1, again Regarding AE's use of a top secret or even prototype receiver. I cannot personally see why they (the manufacturer) would bother to put it in the airplane if they didn't believe it would get a good trial showing its viability for use in everyday flying. IMHO it would seem that they would even want it used as much as possible throughout the trip to show that she could more directly navigate to her destination, taking less time and using less fuel than would be consumed using less accurate methods. Thus, again in IMHO, she had no such device and the device she had was unusable due to her lack of training. Too bad, she could have been the most famous woman aviator for a lot more than having gotten lost. At least Wrong Way Corrigan returned to the world of the living to enjoy his moment in the limelight. LTM, Dave Bush *********************************************************************** From Alan Angus Murray wrote: >The RDF-1 was only part of the system, a loop/tuner/pre-amp or coupler NOT a >receiver. Angus, disregard my off forum request. You are answering my question here. I assume you will amplify your response if you know more about it. What I'm thinking is you might be able to say what the RDF-1 provided AE in addition to the RA-1 if anything or maybe just did it better. If that is clear. Alan ****************************************************************** From Angus Ric wrote: > So you're saying that the receiver was the RA-1 and that the RDF-1 was some > component (you don't seem sure which) that could be used with the RA-1. Not quite. The standard "RDF1" in toto consisted of the loop and "coupler" (tuner) and receiver. (The tuner, independent from the receiver, helped to improve the poor sensitivity of a loop compared to a wire antenna). So the RDF-1 loop was just a part of the RDF-1 system. AE's radio direction finding system as a whole was then comprised (we speculate) of the RDF-1 system loop and coupler and the (non-standard) RA-1 receiver - if we are to believe Taylor et al. (It is of course is by no means certain that this was the arrangement that AE carried). It seems possible that AE was offered the complete system but only took the RDF-1 loop and coupler, having established that she could use it with her WE 20B and save weight. This would explain why a number of people were convinced that the RA-1was carried on the World Flight. It was sent but never used. The news that she had fitted a replacement direction finder was misinterpreted as meaning that the whole system had been fitted. Regards Angus *********************************************************************** From Ric Okay, but I find it odd that there is no mention of the "RDF-1" nomenclature in the August 1937 Aero Digest article headlined "Bendix D-Fs". It describes the various Bendix loops (MN-1, MN-3, MN-5 and MN-7) and it talks about the RA-1 receiver and the fact that Bendix loops can be used with other receivers. I wonder if the RDF-1 terminology came along later. *********************************************************************** From Jon Watson Ric wrote: > So, what is an RDF-1 loop? It's when you discuss this into the ground ... then start over and do it again ... and again ... and - well you get the idea...Sorry Ric, I couldn't help myself ltm jon ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:31:57 EDT From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: Dutch roll- last gasp I have been having computer problems so I have missed some days of the forum. What does "Dutch Roll" have to do with A.E.? The last time I looked at the Lockheed Electra has straight wings. As usual I am in the dark, will someone turn on the light? ************************************************************* From Ric Dutch Roll has nothing to do with AE and I'm not posting any more messages about it. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:33:22 EDT From: Peter Boor Subject: Re: Wind direction, speed and sea state I have used driftmeters (Type B3) in my days as a navigator in the '50s. The B3 was gyro stabilized, and acted like a downward periscope, with the ability to direct the line-of-sight from 17* before to 87* behind the vertical (ref AF Manual 51-40). To read drift of the aircraft, the device must be boresighted to the aircraft centerline. The operator then views stationary objects on the ground, and rotates the B3 until the objects track the reticle lines of the instrument as the aircraft moves. Drift angle is then read directly. The B3 LOS rotation permitted groundspeed measurements to be taken also, but I doubt that FN's instrument could do that. There was also a B5 Driftmeter at the time - a much simpler device that I never saw, that was likely much closer to FN's instrument, I suspect. In the B-36 and B-47, the K-3A Bombing System had a periscope that allowed the operator to measure drift in the proper mode, just as with the B3 Driftmeter. We were taught that over water, whitecaps could be considered as stationary objects, and that is how I measured drift on long overwater trips. No whitecaps, no drift readings. It took many readings to get a good handle on drift, and I would guess that we were able to be within a couple of degrees. I never used smoke - the point source of the smoke might be considered a stationary ground object to use, and at any cruising altitude, the wind is likely to be quite different than the wind on the ground blowing the smoke. This is navigational information only - not likely to move the mystery ball forward. And if anyone is interested in more Dutch Roll discussions, I have some things to share on that subject. Like where the name comes from (ah, trivia). Peter Boor #856C ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:56:33 EDT From: Rich Young Subject: immaculate reception II "You may have access to sources I have not seen but I know of no other record of a transmission from an aviator in a similar situation." Submitted for your approval the story of "My Gal Sal", an B-17E and her crew who went down on the glacial icepack of Greenland after running out of fuel trying to locate their landing field as part of "Operation Bolero", along with two other B-17s, on June 27th, 1942, at latitude 65.21'N longitude 45.53'W. The crew , using a hacksaw, shortened the propellor blades of one of the engines equipped with a generator so it could be run in order to transmit over the radio. Aircraft down, crew in peril in a hostile environment - this is as close as I can come up with off of the top of my head. The crew transmitted their location and status, and after air drops of food, water, and survival gear, were rescued via PBY from a nearby temporary lake formed by melting snow. "If it was a drama/hoax that Betty found so convincing it seems odd that no one else seems to have heard the broadcast....Many, many people should have heard such a broadcast." We don't KNOW nobody else heard the broadcast - perhaps many people did, but were not fooled into thinking they were actual Earhart transmissions, and so, did not record or report them. What WOULD be odd, if it's a true A.E. distress call, is that Betty and ONLY Betty heard and logged the transmission. "Betty's notebook is ONLY credible if her reception of a distress call from Earhart was one of those freakish, highly-improbable events that happen to somebody, somewhere every day." - or she is mistaken. We have two competing explanations for an event - one requires a feat of electronic communication that hasn't been approached, much less achieved, by experts using high quality equipment designed for such work, directional antennae, and pre-arranged transmission schedules being accomplished by accident on a harmonic by a teenager on a home shortwave set, (and ONLY her...) OR...a teenager made a mistake. Which one would Occum's razor lean toward? LTM (who uses Neat) Rich Young ************************************************************************ From Ric Occam's Razor says we should test the easiest to test hypothesis first - which is what we have done. Did Betty hear the March of Time broadcast (the only known radio dramatization relating to the Earhart disappearance)? No, she did not. What she heard was nothing like the March of Time broadcast. Next hypothesis. Because Betty listened for an hour and three-quarters and heard no station identification breaks required of commercial broadcasts by FCC regulations, did she hear a privately perpetrated hoax? Such an elaborate hoax should have been heard and believed by many people (it has fooled many of us here on the forum) but there is no indication that anyone but Betty heard it. Other people at other times (Nina Paxton, Thelma Lovelace, and Mabel Duncklee) reported hearing transmissions from Earhart that describe hearing messages from Earhart describing very similar situations, but none of these overlap in time. Do we then have at least four hoax transmissions at different times that heard by only one person? You suggest that it is more likely that Betty (and presumably the other women) were mistaken. By all means, let us have your correction of their mistake. What did they hear? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:10:48 EDT From: Dennis McGee Subject: Betty's logs Ric said: "Other people at other times (Nina Paxton, Thelma Lovelace, and Mabel Duncklee) reported hearing transmissions from Earhart that describe hearing messages from Earhart describing very similar situations, but none of these overlap in time [with Betty's]." Yes, and Betty's is the only "documented" event that was transcribed in real-time and reported almost immediately. Do we know if Paxton, Lovelace and Duncklee wrote anything down when their "events" occurred? And when did they report them? My point is, Betty wrote hers immediately, the others may have not mentioned anything for years after their events. In the case of Paxton, et. el, the lapse of time between the event and when it was recorded could've forced them to rely on imperfect and fading memories. LTM, who misses The Man in Black Dennis O. McGee #0149EC ********************************************************************** From Ric Paxton claimed to have heard Earhart on July 3rd but for some reason did not contact her local paper until July 9. Her statements, as quoted in the resulting article "Ashland Lady Hears Earhart", are the closest thing we have to a contemporaneous account of what she heard. When Mrs. Paxton next came forward it was 1943 and both the world and her story had changed. Thelma Lovelace made a note of the lat/long position she heard Earhart give and saved it for many years, but it was eventually lost after the family moved several times. Like Betty, she initially went to the authorities with her story but was laughed at. Like John Hathaway did on Betty's behalf, Thelma made an attempt during the Japanese -capture hysteria in the 1960s to get someone to pay attention to her story, but got nowhere. She contacted TIGHAR in 1991 after seeing me on "Unsolved Mysteries". Mabel Duncklee also made notes of what she heard Earhart say but these too were lost over the years. She said that her family decided not to discuss the matter with anyone in accordance with a request they were under the impression President Roosevelt had made. Mabel contacted TIGHAR in 1990 after seeing press coverage of our work. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:11:57 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: RA-1, again Ric said: > I wonder if the RDF-1 terminology came along later. This seems very possible. RDF-1 derives pretty obviously from Radio Direction Finder number one. Obviously Bendix had to create the various components of the system before he could give it a name. The Aero Digest article may well have been written several months before publication and it seems possible that at that time, the components were very new and had not as yet been given a name when assembled as a system. The MN-5 loop may in fact be one and the same as the loop used in the RDF-1 system. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:16:49 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Hue Miller's reply II For Hue Miller > I simply cited the article, with the worst case selectivity, giving figures > for the harmonic output with one tuned circuit. But you neglected to mention whether the results are based on your own calculations of the output circuit parameters for the transmitter on board NR16020, or whether you lifted them from the Reinartz paper without consideration of whether they were applicable to the transmitter on board NR16020. > I do not know how you derive "apparently" from my comments. I cited the 40 db > FCC ruling, perhaps i should simply not have included that. This was merely by > way of explaining the concern of the author about the contemporary 40 db figure. It was a straightforward deduction. In your original comments about my analysis, you argued that the transmitter on board NR16020 "would never have been allowed on the air" if it could generate any of the hypothetical harmonic power levels I used in the analysis. Your argument implied the existence in 1937 of a rule quantifying the allowable harmonic output of the transmitter. Given that context, your mention of a 1947 rule suggested that you believed the transmitter was subject to that rule. Now you have an opportunity to resolve any ambiguity. If there was a rule in 1937 quantifying the allowable harmonic output of the transmitter on board NR16020, then cite the rule. > Uh-oh. Is "in the neighborhood" something like starting with "a reasonable > assumption" of harmonic power? I think the meaning is clear to the average reader, but I will try to clarify it for you. The logic of the Thevenin circuit analysis approach used by Labus and Roder is not restricted to the case where a natural resonant frequency of the antenna exactly corresponds to a harmonic of the transmitter fundamental frequency. The logic also applies when the antenna resonant frequency is close enough to ("in the neighborhood of") a harmonic of the fundamental frequency, so that harmonic current flowing in the antenna generates an electromagnetic field detectable at long distances. > Yes, current by voltage in the purely resistive radiation resistance. We are > talking, ultimately, about the power ratio of the harmonic power in the antenna > resistance, compared to the fundamental channel power in the antenna, agreed? We are talking about the division of power amplifier plate current between the two branches of the output circuit at a harmonic frequency, relative to the division at the fundamental frequency. It is not necessary for the antenna branch to be purely resistive in order for significant current to flow in the antenna branch. > The factors, of course, that affect this are the series reactance of the antenna > capacity, or inductance, and the parallel impedance of the plate load of the > inductor and it's distrbuted capacitance, plus the plate trimmer capacitor, > presented to the tube impedance. You speak of a plate trimmer capacitor, but there was no such capacitor in the output circuit. You speak of the parallel impedance of the plate load inductor and its distributed capacitance, but if you had done the calculation you would know that the self-resonant frequency of the plate inductor in the WE 13C was far above the transmitter's fundamental frequencies. The antenna impedance is another crucial element of the analysis involved here, but you apparently haven't done that calculation either. > Apparently you read the paper. You know then, that the Q factor examples cited > were for the tuned circuit. I did not state otherwise. I have read the Labus/Roder paper. Your statement that the "Q factor examples cited were for the tuned circuit" begs the question of which transmitter you are talking about. If the results you cited are based on your analysis of "the tuned circuit" in the WE 13C transmitter on board NR16020, then say so. If the results you cited are taken from Reinharz's paper, then say so and specify the transmitter to which his results apply. > I do not understand your contention that the antenna is the only selective > element. The plate inductor resonates with the plate trimmer capacitor and the > antenna capacity. There is no plate trimmer capacitor in the WE 13C output circuit. Furthermore, the plate inductor and the antenna are parts of a SINGLE tuned circuit, which constitutes a SINGLE selective element. > What is your comment on the likelihood of a non-drifting vacuum tube receiver at > 18, 24, MHz or higher? Comment: the likelihood is non-zero. > How about the "static" at these frequencies? Like a "police scanner" ? I addressed this in my previous response. Go back and read what I said. > I am willing to hear you give some idea of probabilities on these questions. I already did that. See my report on the TIGHAR web site. > I am not saying "impossible", i AM saying, "consider the likelihood." So now you agree that it was possible for Betty to have heard Amelia on a harmonic. Good. That's progress. As for considering the likelihood, I have already done that. See my report on the TIGHAR web site. > Here's another idea for you, Bob. Your analysis says even at 0.1 watt radiated > power, Betty could have heard this x days out of y. My question is, with > thousands of radio hams trying the trans-Pacific route, day in and day out, year > after year, Betty was the only one, one blessed week in 1937, to achieve this > enviable long-distance reception? Try to focus on the fact that we are talking about propagation conditions over a specific path during a specific time period on one of several specific days in July 1937. In order to answer your question within that frame of reference, it would be necessary to have a list of hams, with their locations and equipment details, who were listening on harmonics of Amelia's frequencies at the same time Betty was listening. If you have such a list, post it. > Okay, i grant the probability is nonzero. It is, in my view, however, > vanishingly small. That means close enough to zero to eliminate it. Which is it? Zero or non-zero? You can't have it both ways. LTM, who knows that time spent in clear thinking is wisely invested. Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:22:11 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: RA-1, again I cannot see any reason for the Bendix RA-1 radio receiver to be "Classified". The main thing unique about it was that is compact for what it does, considering its year. It is, i'd guesstimate, maybe 1/2 the size of the usual table top ham type radio (not home radio), and had a wider tuning range than any competitive product i am aware of. There was also the feature that it could be either remote controlled via cables or operated right at the set (like where you'd have a fulltime operator at a desk.) It also incorporated a fuller range of long distance shortwave communication frequencies plus the lower frequencies useful for (conventional) direction finding. But there is nothing in it circuit-wise that is radically new & original, so no way could the RA-1 be secret. It's compact package might have presented a threat to competitor companies, but it wouldn't, i think, be a big trade secret also, compared to some new car coming out, using for example some totally different fuel. The Bendix RA-1 is also not what you'd call "rare" either, just "seldom seen", like most anything from 1937. BTW also, Bendix went mostly into the avionics-navigation market, and never produced another general tuning shortwave receiver like the RA-1. The RDF-1 unit could be called a small electronic directional antenna. Instead of being a broadbanded unit that just attaches to your radio, it required retuning to every channel the radio tuned to, plus the other control twiddling usual to the old-time manual DF procedure. ( Unlike the later plug & play ADF radios.) There's nothing in the RDF-1 that i can see would cause it to be considered secret either. Maybe the results of the Navy's experiences with HF-DF would have been classified as secret, as they wouldn't want to share with potential enemies some technique they had learned to exploit. But there's nothing in the RDF-1 that could be patented or needed to be hidden, it seems. The "two handed tuning" when changing channels could be a hassle and maybe that was part of AE's problem or reluctance to get really familiar with the unit. The dial was marked with arbitrary numbers, not kHz or MHz so you'd have to have a lookup table or a good memory to be able to rapidly retune the thing. I don't think that was for secrecy, the front panel is just too small for a better detailed display, altho the 0 to 100 marking did not reveal any clue that the unit tuned much higher than the usual DF unit. I also don't think this unit would have had much, if any, appeal to the commercial aviation industry user. Why pay more for capabilities that were experimental, with a reputation for unreliability, when the usual longwave and broadcast band loop unit did just fine, within the accepted distance limitations? Back 2-3 years when we were discussing the unit, there was posted here a URL where another fellow had put up a Navy text on theory and usage of the RDF and also line drawings and schematic wiring diagrams. ( This i'm sure is no longer up, as he's gone on to post other photos. This fellow, Mike Hanz, BTW, recently spent many, many hours reinstalling the communications and counter-measures electronics on the Smithsonian's "Enola Gay" B-29. If i know him, it ALL works, too. -Hue Miller ************************************************************ From Ric Do you think there was an RA-1 aboard NR16020 when it disappeared, and if so, why? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:23:14 EDT From: Ron Berry Subject: Re: immaculate reception II Don't be so quick to condemn Betty's notebook, she could have been the only person in the area to be listening when AE made her pleas for help. Just because there were radios that were able to hear her harmonics, that doesn't mean that many people did. Stop and think, how many people would sit down and listen to all of that static? Which is mostly what you heard on those radios you really had to be dedicated to sit and decipher words from all of that noise. On rare occasions reception was clear for a few minutes. I have often when I was a child listened to the very same waves that she listened to. To make my self perfectly clear, I could not hear AE since my parents had not met yet in 37. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:26:51 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Bigass Latro - again The following passage is from events related some time between 1770 and 1790. All I know of the time frame is that the American War of Independence had begun some time earlier and was still being fought. The passage is taken from a narrative of events on the island of St Kitts. I checked on Birgus Latro, and it appears that he is indeed the land crab referred to. "I could now see the land-crabs running through the graves of two or three whom I had left stout and full of health. In the West Indies the grave is dug no deeper than just to hold the body, the earth covering it only a few inches, and all is soon consumed by the land-crabs. The black fellows eat them. When I asked them why they eat these loathsome creatures their answer was, 'Why, they eat me.' >From the Life And Adventures Of John Nicol - Mariner. Might sort of make one think twice about sleeping under the stars on Niku? And definitely suggests that our old friend Birgus may have made a meal of the castaway. Unfortunately, the passage makes no mention of bones being carried off. Th' WOMBAT ******************************************************************* From Ric There is really no question that a dead, or merely incapacitated, body on Niku (human or otherwise) is quickly assaulted and consumed by crabs. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:34:11 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: immaculate reception II Rich Young wrote: > You may have access to sources I have not seen but I know of no other > record of a transmission from an aviator in a similar situation. ( Just for our mental filing cabinets, under "Interesting Factoids".) I read about a Navy JRF (seaplane) which had to land at sea off Venezuela pre-war. The engines were inoperable and the plane just drifted. The crew were able to reach distant base ( Panama? or FL ? i don't recall. ) and a rescue ship was dispatched. This story was published in something "Old Timers Bulletin" and was written by a crew member. Also i read that the Japanese pilot who landed on Nihau, Hawaii after the Pearl Harbor raid tried for a day or two to reach his fleet via the radio ( witnessed by local Hawaiins), which still operated. However, that effort was doomed, useless, because #1 The radio was low power lower- shortwave range ( same tuning range as AE's, but about 10 watts) #2 pilot only tried during daylight hours #3 aircraft's antenna in such a situation was short, low to ground, and very inefficient for long distance work, #4 pilot was only equiped and apparently) trained to use voice radio, not the longer range telegraphy, and #5, why did the pilot even suppose that any vessel of the fleet would tarry, and risk itself, to try to rescue a single pilot? The three incidents we have so far, all involved military aircraft. ( There may well be more such incidents i have encountered, but that's all that comes to mind at the moment...) We can maybe safely assume that the military pilot has more self-discipline and training, at least regards survival procedures, than a civilian pilot. From last-minutes accounts i have read from civil aviation accidents, however, i've never read of any account of panic, tears, breakdown etc. being purposefully transmitted. -Hue Miller ************************************************************** From Ric Any FAA Flight Service station operator can tell you stories of panic, tears and breakdown by pilots who get lost and call for help. I've heard the tapes. It ain't that pretty at all. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:37:30 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: WAS THERE A BENDIX? > Everything we know about the July 1st test is in the Chater letter which is > on the TIGHAR website. > > "At 6.35 a.m., July 1st, Miss Earhart carried out a 30 minute air test of the > machine when two way telephone communication was established between the > ground station at Lae and the plane. The Operator was requested to send a long > dash while Miss Earhart endeavoured to get a minimum on her direction finder. On > landing Miss Earhart informed us that she had been unable to obtain a minimum > and that she considered this was because the Lae station was too powerful and > too close." I wonder if this 06:30 time was close enuff to local sunrise timeframe that unsettled ionospheric conditions gave a strong and constantly shifting skywave to scramble the direct signal f rom the airfield, meaning "no null", or at least, "no null" for an impatient or unskilled user. I dunno how she did the experiment, of course, but i'm thinking for 30 minutes, i'd allow ~10 mins out, ~10 mins try, and ~10 mins back. That travel time should allow about 20 miles out, maybe somewhat less. That i would think would certainly be far enuff to cut down the strong signal overload situation, IF that really was the problem. She seems sorta "amateurish". -Hue Miller ************************************************************* From Ric I'm aware of no recorded occasion when Earhart herself successfully used a loop antenna. "Amateurish" is charitable. "Clueless" is more like it. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 10:41:08 EDT From: Arthur Rypinski Subject: Anecdotal Evidence A few days ago Ric wrote: >Their is no hierarchy of credibility in anecdotal >recollections. A story is a story until its corroborated with hard >evidence, no matter who is telling it. I agree with you that "a story is a story until its corroborated...", but I don't agree that "there is no hierarchy of credibility in anecdotal recollections." I suspect that, on reflection, you wouldn't agree with you either. We humans hear lots of stories, on diverse subjects, every day, and we are constantly evaluating them for credibility. Some of the many tests of credibility of anecdotal evidence: 1) Is the story first hand or hearsay? We all know how screwed up stories can get after they have been retold a few times. 2) Does the story contain some "occult" or largely unknown counterintuitive detail? People who have never seen real airplane wrecks, frinstance, tend to imagine that the wreckage looks something like an airplane. The first airplane wreck I ever saw I described as "years ago, somebody must have dumped a barrel of aluminum scrap in a ravine." 3) Does the respondent have something to gain or lose via the story? 4) Does the story stay straight under questioning, or does it mutate or improve? I credible respondent remembers what he remembers, and doesn't remember what he doesn't remember. Other outcomes are evidence of the imagination at work (usually subconsciously). 5) Is the behavior of people in the story consistent with their character and role? 6) Do objects in the story observe the laws of physics? I could go on, but you get the drift. However, even a highly credible story will still often have pieces that are wrong. In memory, events get compressed, telescoped, moved around in time and place, have one person substituted for another. Sometimes, somebody else' story gets invisibly grafted onto our own memory. We need to be able to decide which anecdotes are worth trying to corroborate. LTM, Arthur Rypinski *************************************************************** From Ric I'll go along with that. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 13:58:15 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: RA-1, again Ric wrote: > Do you think there was an RA-1 aboard NR16020 when it disappeared, and if so, > why? Sorry, i have no opinion on that, having no information to convince me one way or the other. The recent postings here would seem to come down pretty strongly on the side of "one receiver". I was wondering if Bendix had given her one, would she have replaced the W. E. co. receiver, since the RA-1 would seem better. But after pondering that for a while, i am not convinced that unless Bendix forced it on her as a condition for some other support, like financial, that she would have changed out the WE receiver anyway. After all, the W.E. worked, the greater tuning spectrum of the RA-1 wouldn't be of any use to her, and the transmit/ receive wiring complexities were already worked out for the system she had in place. The only advantage to the 2-receiver setup, that i can see, is that she could leave the 2nd one on the channel to be DF'd, not have to crank back and forth when she wanted to use the radio on a voice channel to talk to someone. The cranking back and forth would seem like a pretty big hassle to me, but i can't judge that for her by her criteria. Hue Miller ****************************************************************** From Ric That may be why Earhart said, prior to leaving Miami, that she did not plan to do much talking on the radio because she planned to use her receiver (singular) for direction finding. ***************************************************************** From Alan Hue wrote: >There was also the feature that it could be either remote controlled via >cables or operated right at the set ... That indicates the gear could have been located essentially out of sight and thus not appearing in any photo. One posting on this subject indicated the Navy bought 100 RDF-1 radios. For which aircraft were they to be installed? Alan ******************************************************************* From Ric There would have to be a remote in the cockpit which should be visible in photos. That's what Elgen Long claims the Sias photo shows. The Navy RDF-1s were for PBYs according to the posting . ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 13:59:59 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Hue Miller's reply II To Bob and Hue. I have read your exchanges very carefully and I want to thank you both for clearing this issue up for me. Seriously I'm awed at the exchanges. It is appearing that the possibility Betty heard what she claims cannot be eliminated. Maybe not a common and frequent occurrence but still possible. I am not a big fan of probability although I recognize the usefulness of the theory. For one single event the probability must necessarily be zero or 100%. Either it happened or it didn't. I'm wondering if there are other examples of a similar occurrence? If so that should answer the question. If not more work is needed. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 14:05:22 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Bigass Latro - again For th' Wombat Fascinating quote. Can you give me a full source citation? The idea that the crabs would dig into graves sort of belies the results of my little experiment with burying bones in 2001, which suggested that burial was a pretty absolute deterrent to crabridation. But mine was a pretty crude experiment, and a whole decaying body underground may a whole lot more detectable by a crab than just a bone or two. *********************************************** From Ric Just suppose ol' Fred kicked the bucket and AE buried him someplace near the Seven Site. She probably couldn't bury him very deep. Did the crabs dig him up, eat him up and scatter the bones? Or are his bones still there? Maybe we need two pigs. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:58:18 EDT From: Tom King Subject: Re: Bigass Latro - again Well, there IS the large flat coral slab on the Seven Site that I jocularly referred to as Fred's tombstone..... The Seven Site would be a pretty hard place to dig a hole, though, even if one had the tools to do it. As we know from experience. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:57:35 EDT From: Carl Peltzer Subject: Re: radios again r+r here are some more to ponder: probably make it worse but oh well! today, if i remove anything permanent on my aircraft [of course not experimental] I have to go thru the process of paper work, ie: log entries and weight and balance computations to keep it legal. now I realize that it was experimental and also not knowing what the caa regs would've been back then but there still should have been some paper trail even though out of conus. just a thought. those radios were very heavy and if removed from the wrong place would have changed things around, also! OK, experimental being the catchword, when you remove radios you also change the magnetic properties of the airplane ask anyone who has to reset the compass after removing and or replacing any radio, which makes another hat to hang upon with them getting lost even with landmarks during the flight, not much, but something to consider. know I make it harder but give some credence to these musings, if you all will. *************************************************************************** From Ric NR16020 was registered in the Restricted, not the Experimental category - but, yes, replacement or installation of radios would require weight and balance paperwork submitted to the Bureau of Air Commerce (not yet the CAA). The last government paperwork we have on the airplane is the inspection carried out on May 19 at the completion of the repairs that followed the Luke Field accident. By the way Carl, the keys on your keyboard that say "shift" are for starting sentences. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 14:12:54 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: RA-1, again Alan wrote: > One posting on this subject indicated the Navy bought 100 RDF-1 radios. For > which aircraft were they to be installed? "Squadron Signal" publisher has a photo book called, i think, just "TBD Devastator" in its military aircraft series. One photo is from the factory, it is a view from the rearseat gunner position, before equipment was mounted in the plane. One marked-off area has the designation painted right on it, "RDF-1". Before i knew what the RDF-1 was, i was puzzled by this marking, as it doesn't correspond to the Navy nomenclature system i am familiar with. As it turned out, it is NOT standard Navy nomenclature, it was carried right over from the manufacturer's designation - as maybe most of the Navy's equipment bought from Bendix - examples RA-1, TA-12, MN-26, all were used by the Navy without changing the nomenclature, the Navy used the Bendix nomenclature. No one seems to know why, possibly the fact that Bendix was a minority supplier to the input stream helped? The RDF-1 was an exception to this in that around the start of WW2, the Navy renomenclatured it for their purposes as the DU. ( In the Navy 2-to-4 letter nomenclature system, R as first letter meant receiver, AR meant aircraft receiver, and D meant direction finding equipment. So "RDF-1" would be a legitimate nomenclature, but would indicate "radio receiver type RDF, revision 1", which would not match what the Bendix actually was. The Navy apparently decided even before WW2 that HF-DF for aircraft was too flakey and not practical to use - you have to have a practical, repeatable, reliable procedure which will work for every aircrew with a certain standard level of training - not "might work if you're really careful and clever". The great mass of numbers of aircraft DF "adaptors" that the Navy bought from then on were named DU-1 and deleted the shortwave coverage. The RDF-1 used on large patrol planes was, i'm sure, often the configuration where the circular loop unit was remoted from the operator, and hydraulically controlled. The version i have, has the circular loop mounted right on top of the box - this is the version used in the 2 and 3 place scout-bomber class aircraft, where the operator/ gunner just reached over, tuned the thing, and manually rotated the loop. The whole thing was inside the cockpit glass. Another solution to placing the loop used the control adaptor box with a long neck, about 4 foot long, extending from the top of the adaptor box, with a circular loop at the top end. This was used apparently in early PBM, for example, where the long shaft extended up from the operator's equipment rack, thru the top surface of the compartment, and the loop was outside. This answer is a long way (sorry) of saying, "TBD also". Hue Miller ************************************************************************ From Ric The photo I have of the radioman/gunner compartment of the TBD (in Aero Series publication 23 "Douglas TBD-1 Devastator") sounds like the same one you describe, but what it says is "TYPE RDF-1A Direction Finder". The photo is credited to "Douglas" but is not dated. The Devastator entered service in November 1937 but the earliest photo I can find that shows a loop antenna installed is dated May 1938. It would seem, therefore, that the units (whatever they were comprised of) installed in TBD-1s were a later version of the RDF-1. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 14:51:35 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: More Florida It would be so simple for Bob Brandenburg to for once and ever to convince the skeptics. All he would have to do, is to do some searching in archives, surely as easy as operating the computer propagation analysis. Then, he could post something like this: "Not only does my analysis show that the trans-Pacific route to inland USA was possible using double-sideband AM and power levels down to 1 or even 0.1 watt radiated, this has been in fact verified through experiences other than the four women's in 1937. "For example, during war years of 1941-1945 and 1950-1953 and to a lessor extent, 1961-1974, when there were numerous transmitters fitting these parameters operating in the Pacific area, there were not infrequent examples of shortwave listeners in the USA hearing low power combat operational radios radios from throughout the Pacific. For example, see Radio News magazine, August 1945. Also, during the "dx" heyday years of the late 1940s and mid 1950s, ham publications were periodically posting results of hams making the cross-Pacific trip with tiny AM transmitters on the higher HF bands. Power levels down to 1 or 0.1 watt, with simple AM transmitters were not unheard of, for diligent operators, even across both the Pacific and inland North America path, altho this was clearly exceptional and required many attempts..." See how easy it would be to fortify the Propagation Analysis? Much easier than for Hue Miller to list many thousands of failed attempts, right? Have at it! -Hue Miller ****************************************************************** From Ric You might follow your own advice and offer a plausible alternative explanation for what Betty and the others heard. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 14:49:12 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: Hue Miller's reply III Bob Brandenburg wrote: > But you neglected to mention whether the results are based on your own > calculations of the output circuit parameters for the transmitter on board > NR16020, or whether you lifted them from the Reinartz paper without > consideration > of whether they were applicable to the transmitter on board NR16020. I used the Q selectivity factor examples in the text, with the "worst case" selectivity, best for the "harmonic theory". > Your argument implied the existence in 1937 of a rule > quantifying the allowable harmonic output of the transmitter. Given that > context, your mention of a 1947 rule suggested that you believed the > transmitter was subject to that rule Clearly the 40 db rule did not exist in 1937. This point is nonmaterial to the argument, anyway, unless it's important to you to show i'm a fool. > We are talking about the division of power amplifier plate current between > the two branches of the output circuit at a harmonic frequency, relative to the > division at the fundamental frequency. It is not necessary for the antenna > branch to be purely resistive in order for significant current to flow in the > antenna branch. True, but the only power radiated is in the actual radiation resistance. Anyway, moving on.... >> The factors, of course, that affect this are the series reactance of the >> antenna capacity, or inductance, and the parallel impedance of the plate load >> of the inductor and its distributed capacitance, plus the plate trimmer >> capacitor, presented to the tube impedance. > > You speak of a plate trimmer capacitor, but there was no such capacitor in the > output circuit. You speak of the parallel impedance of the plate load inductor > and its distributed capacitance, but if you had done the calculation you would > know that the self-resonant frequency of the plate inductor in the WE 13C was > far above the transmitter's fundamental frequencies. The antenna impedance is > another crucial element of the analysis involved here, but you apparently > haven't done that calculation either. Bob, i don't know that i need to "do the calculations" to describe the transmitter, do you? Is it necessary to calculate resonance, when from the text and schematic it's clear how resonance is achieved? What's your point here? One of the texts i have mentions the plate trimmer. I know there may be a discrepancy in a (or all ) published schematic. One text (or more) absolutely does discuss the "plate circuit trimmer." I can understand your missing this, because as i recall, it might not have appeared in the schematic. ( I believe the schematic for the "interstage bandpass transformer" also is not literally correct, but simplified from they way the texts describe it. ) The fact is, the transmitter was not tuned only by coil adjustment, the trimmer capacitor was used for careful adjustment. I am somewhat limited in discussing this as i have packed away all the texts. I think there were 3 texts that described the W E transmitter. >> I do not understand your contention that the antenna is the only selective >> element. The plate inductor resonates with the plate trimmer capacitor and the >> antenna capacity. > > There is no plate trimmer capacitor in the WE 13C output circuit. Furthermore, > the plate inductor and the antenna are parts of a SINGLE tuned circuit, which > constitutes a SINGLE selective element. > >> What is your comment on the likelihood of a non-drifting vacuum tube receiver >> at 18, 24, MHz or higher? > > Comment: the likelihood is non-zero. > >> How about the "static" at these frequencies? Like a "police scanner" ? > > I addressed this in my previous response. Go back and read what I said. > >> I am willing to hear you give some idea of probabilities on these questions. > > I already did that. See my report on the TIGHAR web site. > >> I am not saying "impossible", i AM saying, "consider the likelihood." > > So now you agree that it was possible for Betty to have heard Amelia on a > harmonic. Good. That's progress. As for considering the likelihood, I have > already done that. See my report on the TIGHAR web site. Sure Bob, if she could read telegraphy, or use a digital mode, and tried maybe a couple hundred nights, i'm sure she could have heard AE. >> Here's another idea for you, Bob. Your analysis says even at 0.1 watt radiated >> power, Betty could have heard this x days out of y. My question is, with >> thousands of radio hams trying the trans-Pacific route, day in and day out, >> year after year, Betty was the only one, one blessed week in 1937, to achieve >> this enviable long-distance reception? > > Try to focus on the fact that we are talking about propagation conditions over a > specific path during a specific time period on one of several specific days in > July 1937. In order to answer your question within that frame of reference, it > would be necessary to have a list of hams, with their locations and equipment > details, who were listening on harmonics of Amelia's frequencies at the same > time Betty was listening. If you have such a list, post it. Ah, here's the crux: NO ONE achieved this before or after. Just Betty, and her three female fellow listeners. But, it's MY JOB to list the people who have tried to achieve an equivalent long-distance low-power recored through the years! It's MY JOB to disprove it "could have happened" - not someone else's job to prove it did happen - in the real world, outside some happy "mathematical analysis". One would think that if this power and path worked for a few blessed days in 1937, it should have been repeated somewhere in the history of long distance radio 1930-2003. You want ME to list the attempts, is that right? The onus is really on me? Bunk! >> Okay, i grant the probability is nonzero. It is, in my view, however, >> vanishingly small. That means close enough to zero to eliminate it. > > Which is it? Zero or non-zero? You can't have it both ways. "That means close enough to zero to eliminate it". > LTM, who knows that time spent in clear thinking is wisely invested. > Bob Even Betty and AE lived in the real world. Okay, let's go on to some more analysis, which even us non math wizards should get. We have an hour and more broadcast, but hardly any useful distress-call details. Instead we have a practically complete story, not a Shakespeare drama, but with some editing could make a reasonable "Twilight Zone" episode. It opens apparently, shortly after the forced landing. ( We later learned AE and the injured FN next day returned to the plane for this scene.) AE and FN struggle for control of the radio, meanwhile broadcasting their comments about the situation in general. They talk about using the radio, while using the radio. They listen for what? on the radio, altho it's daylight there and no long distance reception is coming in, and besides, the regular receive antenna is gone. Even when they're not actually trying to make a distress call, we hear them speaking, arguing, fighting. ( Did they both have microphones, and try to prevent each other from pushing the "talk" button? ) In addition to this conflict, AE with FN, we have a looming crisis: water is rising and the plane is starting to slip. ( Note: having the "Betty Interview Tape" is necessary to understanding of the whole story as i describe it.) As she realizes the hopelessness, AE is finally experiences remorse. ( Note, is AE's "guilt" or "culpability" a modern concept? Would she feel "guilt"? I don't know, i am just putting this question out there.) Finally, with the water rising, and the plane starting to slip off the rocks or whatever it's grounded on, AE and FN have to climb out of the plane again. Exit scene, to narrator Rod Serling in the foreground, talking about pride and humbling of pride. ( This last line is my embellishment. ) But, no practical details on location, status, etc. Just arguments, recriminations, tears. Maybe AE was also 14 years old then. We do have the mention that one of the women listeners actually had for some years the latitude and longitude written down. Great! I think we really need to be grateful to our four women listeners: thousands of hams and shortwave listeners monitoring the airwaves in those days, in a hobby very predominantly a male hobby, yet only four women had the courage to come forward. Faith, a miracle in 1937, and a doctor to testify. Hue Miller ***************************************************************** From Ric I'll leave the technical debate to those who speak the language but I must comment on the strange logic that holds that four women who all heard what they believed was Earhart telling basically the same story (she is very upset, on an unknown reef or island, concerned about the surrounding water, and her navigator is injured) cannot have been hearing genuine distress calls because - because - because why? Because four is not enough? How many would be enough? We have 184 alleged post-loss receptions of various kinds. I don't know what radios were used during WWII or whether they had significant harmonic output or whether shortwave listeners sometimes heard them, but I do know that those questions have no bearing on whether these women may have heard Earhart. I also know that reports of highly unusual, even amazing, radio receptions are not at all uncommon. We've heard many right here on this forum. Your description of the situation described by Betty's transcript is as inaccurate as it is unfair and I won't dignify it by correcting it. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 14:52:31 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Bigass Latro - again > Fascinating quote. Can you give me a full source citation? Tom, The paragraph was quoted verbatim from "Life and Adventures 1776-1801 John Nicol, Mariner" (as edited by Tim Flannery.) This book was originally published in 1822, edited by one John Howell, who took down John Nicol's reminiscences. The copy I quoted from is in a book called "Two Classic Tales of Australian Exploration" edited and introduced by Tim Flannery and published by Text Publishing, Melbourne, Australia in 2000. ISBN 1 876485 61 2 Life and Adventures was also published alone by Text Publishing in 1997, so there's a good chance it may be available through your library system. The quote was in Chapter 2 on page 6 of what is an eight and a half page chapter in my (borrowed) copy. It is the only mention of our coconutty friend that I have seen in the book so far, and it was so totally unexpected that I had to do a google search to confirm that Birgas Latro was in fact the crab referred to. Regards, RossD. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:41:07 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Case of Brandenburg vs Miller Rather than continue to bore readers with circuit minutiae, maybe we can pare down these proceedings. Mr. Brandenburg maintains Betty could have heard AE, x days out of July 1937, because with the receiver setup and the aircraft antenna, a radiated harmonic power of 1 watt or even down to 0.1 watt would provide a usable, listenable signal in Florida. Myself and possibly some others do not believe this. Rather than be awed by the results of the software propagation analysis, i say, something is wrong there. Either it is too simplified, or inputs incorrect, and rather than an inscribed stone from the mount, it is a theory. If it's a theory, and it is correct, it should be verified by other examples in the real world, not just young Betty's 1937 achievement. ( The other 3 women, we don't have the specifics of their receiving setup, so for the purposes of the AE radio analysis, it's just Betty.) Now if Mr. Brandenburg was designing radios before some of us readers were born, it should be a simple task for him to cite some other examples of very long distance, low power ( at these modeled levels ), double sideband ( "AM" ) communication, using this vintage equipment, and with the link maintained up to almost 2 hours. There are about 30 years of shortwave radio history to draw from, let's say for this kind of technology, say from roughly 1930-1960. This includes a number of sunspot cycles. No further need to debate circuit elements, antenna impedance, etc. until later in the debate, when we revisit the power issue. I say it's incumbent on the proponents of the Harmonic Theory to establish its veracity. I don't feel it's in the skeptic's job description to refute every detail of every theory that comes down the road. But somehow, the skeptics here come up bearing the onus: "Prove it didn't happen!" I don't think the effort to compartmentalize the "radio analysis" from the "content analysis" can fly, either, as if they were independent elements in proving the theory. When i used the term "logic problems" earlier, i did not mean electronics theory. TIGHAR TRACKS for 9/ 2003 describes the Florida reception as "what is believed to be a genuine distress call from Amelia Earhart in the days following her disappearance". I ask, is this now official TIGHAR canon? Does Mr. Brandenburg also believe this? If you believe it, i ask, have you explained yet, what AE was listening to on the shortwave radio at 10:00 local time? And using the loop antenna, which was less sensitive than the torn-off wire receive antenna? And using a receiver tuning only up to 8000 kcs. - missing the daylight long distance bands? How she could listen and broadcast at the same time? Why days after landing, she dragged FN with her when she went back to the plane, and with him irrational and violent, and it not easy to climb back in the plane? How did the communications handheld microphones pick up the sounds of the cabin conversation and wrasslin'? Did they each have their own microphone, as was suggested here? If so, what were they fighting to control? To keep each other's thumb off the microphone button? And so on.... It seems to me, it's in the believer's job description, not mine, to answer these, if the story is really truth. Or, do you get to choose what parts of the story to tout? Hue Miller ******************************************************** From Ric Allow me to correct your misconceptions and answer your questions. No one is asking you to prove it didn't happen. Bob Brandenburg has demonstrated that it could happen. You have already agreed that it could happen but you maintain that it was so unlikely that it would happen that it couldn't have happened. Apparently that logic makes sense to you. Yes, it is "official TIGHAR canon" that we believe that Betty heard a genuine distress call from Amelia Earhart in the days following her disappearance. We do not claim that the authenticity of the reception has been proven. We're only asserting our opinion. And that's all you're doing. You ask a number of questions. >what AE was listening to on the shortwave >radio at 10:00 local time? Not shortwave. HF. I think she heard Itasca's logged morse code transmission at 10:00 local time on July 5: "CALLED EARHART//3105 KEY" >And using the loop antenna, which was less sensitive than the >torn-off wire receive antenna? That right. >And using a receiver tuning only up to 8000 kcs. - missing >the daylight long distance bands? No. The WE 20B tuned to 3105. >How she could listen and broadcast at the same time? No necessity that she did. She can certainly hear something and then depress the push-to-talk and say "Here put your ear to it." >Why days after landing, she dragged FN with >her when she went back to the plane, and >with him irrational and violent, and it not >easy to climb back in the plane? We don't know that either of them left the plane during that time nor do we know that Noonan was irrational and violent for the entire time. >How did the communications handheld microphones pick >up the sounds of the cabin conversation and wrasslin'? You've answered your own question. If two people are close enough to be "wrasslin'" the mic is going to pick up both. >Did they each have their own micro phone, as was suggested here? If so, what >were they fighting to control? To keep each other's thumb off the microphone >button? I don't know. Do you? The things you find so incredible HAD to have happened whether what Betty heard was a genuine transmission from NR16020 or a man and a woman perpetrating a hoax. Or are you saying that this was a hoax cooked up by Betty and her family and there really was no transmission at all? LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:43:14 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Hue Miller's reply II Alan wrote: > To Bob and Hue. I have read your exchanges very carefully and I want to thank > you both for clearing this issue up for me. > > Seriously I'm awed at the exchanges. From my perspective, this has consumed far more time and effort than warranted. But if it helped to clarify the issue for you, then it was worthwhile. >It is appearing that the possibility Betty heard what she claims cannot be > eliminated. Maybe not a common and frequent occurrence but still possible. Precisely so, Alan. That was the case when my report was posted on the TIGHAR web site over two years ago, and nothing has happened since then to change that conclusion. > I am not a big fan of probability although I recognize the usefulness of > the theory. For one single event the probability must necessarily be zero or > 100%. Either it happened or it didn't. Probability is a valuable tool if used correctly. It is obvious that you understand the concept of probability with respect to events in the past. > I'm wondering if there are other examples of a similar occurrence? If so > that should answer the question. If not more work is needed. Let me counsel caution here, Alan. There is a crucial difference between "similar" and "identical". The question of whether Betty could have heard Amelia depends on a particular combination of highly specific factors. If we allow deviations from those specifics, then the question will be changed and the answers obtained will not necessarily be applicable to Betty's case. As for more work, it has already been established that it was possible for Betty to have heard Amelia. That result is not contingent upon corroboration by other cases. LTM, Bob ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:48:24 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: RA-1, again Hue wrote: > "RDF-1" would be a legitimate nomenclature, but would indicate > "radio receiver type RDF, revision 1", Actually this is not so. The -1 means not "revision 1" in Navy-talk but issue 2. The first issue would be RDF, the second RDF-1 etc. It is the suffix letter that denotes a revision, so the RA-1b would be RA-1 second revision. However in this particular case the nomenclature is Bendix so that is not necessarily, although probably still, the case. Ric wrote: > It would seem, therefore, that the units (whatever they were comprised of) > installed in TBD-1s were a later version of the RDF-1. That is probably the case as the RDF-1A in Navy-talk is a revision of the RDF-1. However that interpretation assumes that the navy tacked on their own revision suffix to a Bendix nomenclature. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:46:34 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Bigass Latro - again I was doing a little 'internet' research on how much damage the Cyclones of the Pacific do to some of the smaller islands and atolls and came upon a number of references to the fact that the islanders, in preparing for the storm, would bury their food. Struck me a little strange at the time, but perhaps is another indication that buried items, at a reasonable depth, can be made somewhat safe from critters. Are there materials to build a 'cairn like above ground structure' or would burying the body be the natural thing to do on Niku? Bob ************************************************************* From Ric You could build a cairn out of coral slabs but finding and transporting the slabs would be a lot more work than digging a hole. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:50:42 EDT From: Dan Postellon Subject: Re: Case of Brandenburg vs Miller Hue Miller wrote; >There are about 30 years of shortwave radio >history to draw from, let's say for this kind of technology, say from roughly >1930-1960. Didn't the Kon-Tiki expedition send short wave to Norway on a low power (10 watt or less) transmitter? Dan Postellon TIGHAR #2263 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:30:07 EDT From: Ed Croft Subject: Re: More Florida Ric wrote: >You might follow your own advice and offer a plausible alternative >explanation for what Betty and the others heard. I don't have any opinion on whether the post-loss messages referred to are real, but I do think there are other plausible explanations. Assuming that there was the belief at that time that Amelia was transmitting messages and other people were hearing them, I would not be surprised that honest, well-intending people believed that they heard Amelia. Asking Hue to offer a plausible alternative is like asking someone to explain what people really saw when they thought that they saw ufos, were abducted, etc. UFO sitings have begotten other UFO sitings numerous times. The question that I have is, if the real point of the discussion is to prove that Amelia was transmitting messages 'post loss', why is the discussion not centered on the Pam Am station receptions ? There you have receptions that seem to me to be extremely hard to explain as something other than transmissions by Amelia. ltm, who never saw a cow mutilation, Ed #2523 **************************************************** From Ric The question of whether there were any post-loss transmissions from Earhart is a big one and it can't be covered in a forum posting. We originally thought it could be covered in a large special edition of TIGHAR Tracks but it now looks like it will take a book to really address all the various aspects of the question. The Pan Am receptions will have their own chapter. The topic under discussion on the forum is a very narrow one - is it reasonable to believe that Betty heard Earhart? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:31:57 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Hue Miller's reply II Bob Brandenburg wrote: >Let me counsel caution here, Alan. There is a crucial difference >between "similar" and "identical". The question of whether Betty >could have heard Amelia depends on a particular combination of highly >specific factors. If we allow deviations from those specifics, then >the question will be changed and the answers obtained will not >necessarily be applicable to Betty's case.>> Thanks, Bob. Yes, I understand the absence of other such events has no real significance as it only needed to happen once. As to other factors I think I read somewhere this was a period in which there was minimum interference from sun activity. I am wondering if the aurora could have had any effect even though they were not in that vicinity. I can well see that a "combination of highly specific factors" could create an event that is not easily repeated if at all. I think we can all list scores of such events requiring such a specific mix. The missing of Howland Island is somewhat the same. If any one of a myriad of factors were changed none of us would be here. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:38:45 EDT From: Andrew McKenna Subject: Big-ass latro? Wombat said: >The following passage is from events related some time between 1770 and >1790. All I know of the time frame is that the American War of >Independence had begun some time earlier and was still being fought. I seriously doubt we are talking about Birgus Latro in the Caribbean, unless it never reaches the large adult stage we see on Niku. Having lived in the Caribbean I can tell you that there are lots of crabs down there, hermit crabs and land crabs, I don't know the species, but they are hardly ever larger than one's hand. I never in 6 years saw anything that got even close to the adult coco crabs of Niku. Now that I've said that, I will admit that I never hung out at the cemetery to see if they were digging up the graves. These days folks down there generally seem to prefer to build a little mausoleum above ground out of masonry. May be a good reason for this practice. Andrew McKenna #1045 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:37:29 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Hue Miller's reply III Although I may not understand all the technical aspects you two are discussing I am having more difficulty understanding how the petty junior high school sniping makes or emphasizes a point. It also appears we are not certain what radios were in the plane in the first place as that seems to also be a contentious thread. Am I to assume it makes no difference to this thread what radios we are discussing? Alan **************************************************** From Ric There seems to be no disagreement about what transmitter was in the airplane or that Earhart should have been able to use her loop antenna to receive, regardless of what receiver she was using, and either of the debated receivers should have been capable of receiving on the frequencies in questions - so the Great Bendix Debate would seem to have no bearing on this thread. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:40:37 EDT From: Bob Lee Subject: Re: Case of Brandenburg vs Miller Dan Postellon wrote: > Didn't the Kon-Tiki expedition send short wave to Norway on a low power (10 > watt or less) transmitter? A few months ago Angus and I had a couple of short postings about that very issue. Angus came up with the details. Never really went much further so I assumed that the Radio experts discounted any importance to those broadcasts and the AE/FN situation with post loss signals. Bob Lee ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 14:09:08 EDT From: Ric Gillespie Subject: Re: More Florida Ed Croft wrote: >Asking Hue to offer a plausible alternative is like asking someone to >explain what people really saw when they thought that they saw ufos, were >abducted, etc. UFO sitings have begotten other UFO sitings numerous times. You're contradicting yourself. You say that you can dismiss a hypothesis without offering a more plausible alternative explanation and then you offer a more plausible explanation. If someone dismisses a hypothetical explanation for an observed phenomenon it is incumbent upon the dismisser to offer a plausible alternative hypothesis. Many plausible alternative explanations have been offered to explain UFO sightings and many have been proven correct. There are any number of other examples. It was shown that crop circles could be created by hoaxers even before the hoaxers themselves came forward. You can't just say, "I don't buy it." And expect to be taken seriously unless you can produce a different explanation that is more plausible. The complex and varied individual pieces of evidence that TIGHAR feels are best explained by Earhart's arrival and demise at Gardner Island are another example. You can say that you don't agree with TIGHAR's explanation but you're just spouting meaningless opinion unless you can come up with a better interpretation of the hard evidence that has been uncovered. Hue has admitted that it was theoretically possible for Betty to have heard Earhart but he just doesn't buy it that she actually did. If he wants to be taken seriously he has to either provide a more plausible explanation for the hard evidence represented by the notebook. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:25:33 EDT From: Angus Murray Subject: Re: Case of Brandenburg vs Miller Dan, There were three simple transmitters--with the 40/20, 10 and 6-meter rigs made up entirely of 2E30 tubes and also an SSTR-1 10w input, 6w output. Kon-tiki also had two National receivers, HRO-7 and NC173. August 5, Haugland worked Amundsen in Oslo, Norway ( about 10,000 miles). I quote: Their primary transmitter for 7 and 14 Mhz was constructed by the National staff from a design published in QST in July 1941 from the article "A Versatile Portable-Emergency Transmitter." There were also rigs for 28 and 50mHz utilizing a design by ARRL staffer Ed Tilton, W1HDQ. AM and CW capabilities were included and a 10 watt tube, the 2E30, was the heart of these designs. Pi-network tuning was included and the antenna chosen for all operation was an end-fed wire supported by the raft's 40-foot mast. The transmitters were housed in watertight aluminum boxes fitted with rubber gaskets. Meters were not used in the transmitting equipment because of their presumed susceptibility to the harsh sea environment. All tuning was done by neon bulbs and lamp loops. The other radios were aboard to access maritime frequencies, but ham radio carried the main radio traffic. Power was the challenge. In this era before transistors, the tube-type equipment was power hungry, especially the filaments. Dry cell batteries were used, as lead-acid batteries were thought to be too dangerous. After all, an acid spill might burn through the hemp ropes holding their humble craft together. Their dry cells also proved problematic in the moist ocean air. Many stateside amateurs assisted in relaying traffic and there was direct communication with Norwegian station LA7Y, at the magnificent distance of 10,000 miles. In fact RST of 559 was exchanged both ways during one of these contacts later in the voyage. Given the problems the crew was having with their dry cell batteries (heater voltages dropped to about 4 volts after two months) the Kon-Tiki was probably frequently transmitting at 5 watts output or less. In spite of this, they had an advantage over AE regarding long distance as they could transmit on substantially higher frequencies. They had assigned operating frequencies of 27.98 and 14.142 MCs. Regards Angus. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:27:40 EDT From: Alan Caldwell Subject: Re: Case of Brandenburg vs Miller All of us who are critical from time to time and that includes myself, need to keep in mind this flight was a one time event. This was not one of many that we could use averages and probability with. We cannot use averages with the evidence. The size of an average woman's shoe, or the usual way coconuts are opened, or the general radio propagation parameters are, the average weather in the Pacific is, and so on. This was one flight that occurred on July 2, 1937, one specific set of radios were used, specific winds and weather conditions existed, specific radio propagation factors existed, etc. ALL of that would have to be duplicated exactly and that cannot be done. No time machine just yet. All we can do is approximate and make our best estimate. Long and company tried to recreate the radios and of course that is merely an approximation of the original. Even if we had the same radio models built at the time we could not be certain they would function exactly the same. I cannot see how it can be proven beyond a doubt that it was impossible for Betty to have heard AE. If that is so it needs to be accepted at face value. I see no reason not to nor have I heard anyone articulate a reason not to other than "I don't believe it." I also accept the opinions of anyone who doesn't buy Betty's story as just that - opinion. I cannot deal with probabilities in this case. If there is one chance in a million then there is one chance. That's all that is needed. If we can also SUPPORT Betty's notebook with other data so much the better. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:28:52 EDT From: Ross Devitt Subject: Re: Big-ass latro? Andrew McKenna wrote: > I seriously doubt we are talking about Birgus Latro in the Caribbean, unless > it never reaches the large adult stage we see on Niku. Andrew is right, I am still trying to find the reference that said Birgus Latro lived in the Caribbean, but I've forgotten which search turned it up. The most likely candidate for the old mariner's reminiscences otherwise appears to be Coenobita. However there was a specific reference to Birgus. The problem with the web is that it is so hard to find the scientific among all the hobby pages. Th' WOMBAT ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:31:23 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Hue Miller's reply III For Hue Miller > Clearly the 40 db rule did not exist in 1937. This point is nonmaterial to the > argument, anyway, unless it's important to you to show i'm a fool. I have no interest in showing you to be a fool. The point is material to your original declaration that the WE 13C "would never have been allowed on the air". I invited you to cite a 1937 rule supporting your declaration. The fact that you haven't done so shows that your declaration was made without a demonstrable basis in fact. I now consider the matter to be closed. > Bob, i don't know that i need to "do the calculations" to describe the > transmitter, do you? Is it necessary to calculate resonance, when from the > text and schematic it's clear how resonance is achieved? What's your point > here? Description of the transmitter is not the issue. My suggestions were in the nature of hints that you were making assertions without benefit of the requisite knowledge. > One of the texts i have mentions the plate trimmer. I know there may be a > discrepancy in a (or all ) published schematic. One text (or more) absolutely > does discuss the "plate circuit trimmer." I can understand your missing > this, because as i recall, it might not have appeared in the schematic. (I > believe the schematic for the "interstage bandpass transformer" also is not > literally correct, but simplified from they way the texts describe it. ) The > fact is, the transmitter was not tuned only by coil adjustment, the trimmer > capacitor was used for careful adjustment. I think the text to which you refer may be "Aircraft Radio and Electrical Equipment" (Morgan, 1941). He uses the term "antenna tuning trimmer" in his description of the WE 13C transmitter, but he is not referring to, nor does he mention, a "trimmer capacitor". The "trimmer" cited by Morgan was a small inductance wound on the inside of the antenna tuning coil form at the low potential end of the coil, and was screwdriver adjustable through the front panel of the transmitter. The fixed capacitor in series with the movable tap on each tuning coil not only isolated the antenna from the high direct current voltage in the transmitter output plate circuit, but also combined with the antenna impedance to present a net capacitive reactance to the transmitter output tuning circuit. It was designed that way so the antenna could be tuned by adjusting the inductance of the autotransformer in the transmitter output circuit. The facts are that the transmitter WAS tuned only by coil adjustment, and there was NO trimmer capacitor. I emphasize, this is a matter of FACT, not opinion. > You want ME to list the attempts, is that right? The onus is really on me? > Bunk! It was your idea. My analysis stands on its own feet. If you think that additional cases should be examined, then it seems only fair that you should provide the list. LTM, Bob #2286 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:32:42 EDT From: Bob Brandenburg Subject: Re: Hue Miller's reply II Alan, > As to other factors I think I read somewhere this was a period in which there > was minimum interference from sun activity. I am wondering if the aurora > could have had any effect even though they were not in that vicinity. Two very interesting points. Your recollection about solar activity is correct. The average daily sunspot number (SSN) for July 1937 was 145.1, but the daily SSNs for the period 1 July through 5 July were 69, 91, 74, 65, and 91, respectively. The SSN climbed sharply from 6 July, reaching a peak of 223 on 12 July. So it happens that the sun was relatively quiet on the day (5 July) that we think is the most likely day that Betty heard the signals she logged in her notebook. I doubt that the aurora -- actually the auroral oval which extends from the North pole and follows the sun -- had a significant effect. The oval affects high latitude propagation paths. But the great circle path from Gardner Island to St. Petersburg didn't pass near the typical domain of the oval. LTM, Bob ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:00:08 EDT From: Hue Miller Subject: Re: More Florida I'd like to know why you call the Notebook "hard evidence". Do you know the date of writing? Have any witnesses to the supposed date of creation? Any witness testimony to the Notebook from the time? Visibility of the path of provenance? Are there substantial elements that appear in the Notebook, that were not frontpage news in the Florida newspapers that weekend in 1937? As i've maintained before, i believe it's impossible to understand the story without seeing the Betty interview tape. If i am correct in this, then this totality of Notebook + interview is not called "hard evidence", it's called "anecdote". Hue ********************************************************************** From Ric If you wish to review the exhaustive process by which this forum determined that the other entries in the notebook are entirely consistent with the spring and summer of 1937 I invite you to do so via the forum archives. The provenance of the notebook is very simple and entirely credible. Betty had it in her possession from 1937 until she donated it to TIGHAR. Her children, other family members and friends all attest to that. As a historical document, Betty's notebook has exactly the same credibility of provenance as does the original Itasca radio log and the Chater letter. Each was retained in the possession of a single custodian until turned over to an historical archive - in the case of the Itasca radio log, the National Archives; in the case of the Chater letter and Betty's notebook, TIGHAR. Betty's notebook is hard evidence. Her recollected explanations and elaborations are anecdote. Had Betty's notebook been found among her personal effects after her death it would still be a remarkable document and, as has been discussed on this forum, there are many aspects of what Betty wrote that made no sense to Betty but, further research has shown, lend the document credibility. There is no "totality" of notebook + interview any more than there is a "totality" of the Itasca log and Long's 1973 interview with Bellarts. In each case there is a historical document and a later anecdotal commentary. LTM, Ric ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:51:06 EDT From: Ed Croft Subject: Re: More Florida Ric wrote: >Hue has admitted that it was theoretically possible for Betty to have heard >Earhart but he just doesn't buy it that she actually did. If he wants to be >taken seriously he has to either provide a more plausible explanation for the >hard evidence represented by the notebook. Another plausible explanation is simply 1. Betty heard someone else, or perhaps several other people transmitting 2. After first hearing the words 'Amelia Earhart' and then while trying to decipher what was being said, she interpreted the unclear transmissions using the presumption that Amelia Earhart was speaking, thus influencing her in what her mind actually heard. For example, Betty's notebook has a recording of 'W40K Howland port or W O J Howland port'. Now, in the TIGHAR archives it states that 'in 1937, W40K was the call sign assigned to Francis G. Carroll of Fort Worth, Florida'. Now, either Amelia either heard Francis Carroll transmitting and then repeated his call sign, or Betty heard Mr. Carroll transmitting. I have no idea of the likelihood of Amelia hearing his Mr. Carroll's call sign. If he heard Amelia on a harmonic, what frequency would he be transmitting on, and would Amelia be listening on the same frequency ? Is that even theoretically possible that the conditions supporting the reception by Betty of Amelia, would also support the reception by Amelia of Mr. Carroll ? Isn't it more likely that Betty heard Mr. Carroll ? In normal conversation, I myself have 'heard' something different than what the other person was speaking. The brain interprets speech in the context of what is spoken and one does not always hear what is spoken. It is one of the reasons for the difficulty of computer interpreted speech. Betty stated 'The signal faded in and out, sometimes stopped altogether for several minutes and at other times was quite distorted, but Betty tried her best to get down at least some of