Malaysia airlines B777 missing

[TarJak]

The effective radius the pinger can be heard is around 22km in ideal conditions, so IF a sub was in or near that radius, then it's POSSIBLE that a sub may have picked up the signal. You asserted that it was picked up as fact. There's a massive gulf between the possibility an it being a stated fact.

Does your mysterious source provide any hard evidence of the location being known?

[mapuc]

If you can then talk to someone who have been in the Baltic sea on a sub or on a military vessel with sonar.

I tell you this sea is very special with several layers of salt.

Can't remember every word one of our office told us.

A sub can be at one place on a given depth and a vessel can be about 2-4 nm away in a given direction and have it's sonar at the right depth and the ship can't hear the sub. But about 30 NM longer south an another ship hear the sub clearly(it was something like that, it was a lot more we were sitting in a classroom)

Markus

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by guntherprien

All I'm asking is for people to think outside of the box,instead of believing everything they hear.
A disappearance of this magnitude is unprecedented,my source says there is more to it than meets the eye (which is obvious).
I was saying that there is no chance that if the plane crashed into the ocean that modern subs wouldn't have picked up the black box pings within 30 days.
Like I said,a little broader vision brings with it,it's own conclusions.

Think outside the box, eye ...

A little broader vision, eye ...


I think they should go down and get the whole thing back up after they find it. Then we can see who was flying the darn thing and recover more than just a little black box.

The Glomar Explorer could sure come in handy to get the whole plane and it just happens to be drilling for oil in the Indian Ocean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSF_Explorer

http://hnsa.org/doc/glomarexplorer/index.htm

[Jimbuna]

Hopefully something will be found in the next couple of days.

The search area for the missing MH370 plane has narrowed and will be at "a critical juncture" in the next two days, says Malaysia's acting transport minister.

Hishammuddin Hussein said an underwater drone would finish searching the area within the next week.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-27086583

[August]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

The Glomar Explorer could sure come in handy to get the whole plane and it just happens to be drilling for oil in the Indian Ocean

I wonder about that. Didn't they screw up the only time they ever tried to lift a sunken vessel and nearly cause a nuclear detonation?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

I wonder about that. Didn't they screw up the only time they ever tried to lift a sunken vessel and nearly cause a nuclear detonation?

In their defence, it's not every day that a missile submarine is hauled up from such depths...that also being said, no pictures of what was recovered have ever been published...

Not wanting to be another person in this thread to go into full on conspiracy mode, but I think that they recovered a bit more of K-129 than is officially let on. Not a full wreck, obviously, but more than is commonly told.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by August

I wonder about that. Didn't they screw up the only time they ever tried to lift a sunken vessel and nearly cause a nuclear detonation?

They did have problems raising the submarine, but it was full of water and made out of steel and displaced a lot more than a Boeing 777 would.

One odd report I heard was that the submarine broke off and all they got was the torpedo room, but another report I heard said that they got the radio room and the missiles which are housed in the sail I think.

Oh well if they don't find it they can't bring it up and the people searching for the plane said they are going to complete their search next week.

So this is not going to go on forever ...

[August]

Yeah and I guess that all sorts of related technologies have come along way too. About the only thing still left on that ship that was used back in 1968 was her hull.

[Admiral Halsey]

Originally Posted by Oberon

In their defence, it's not every day that a missile submarine is hauled up from such depths...that also being said, no pictures of what was recovered have ever been published...

Not wanting to be another person in this thread to go into full on conspiracy mode, but I think that they recovered a bit more of K-129 than is officially let on. Not a full wreck, obviously, but more than is commonly told.

Oh they probably did get more then what they said the got. Has anyone actually visited the wreck site since then?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Admiral Halsey

Oh they probably did get more then what they said the got. Has anyone actually visited the wreck site since then?

The site's location is classified, and it's about 5,000 to 6,000m down (approx 16,000 to 20,000ft), so it would take a lot of effort to get to it.

[Jimbuna]

A submarine scanning the ocean floor for signs of a missing Malaysian airliner is two-thirds of the way through its search but has yet to find the plane, officials say.

The Bluefin-21 submarine was to embark on its ninth search mission on Monday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-27100087

[guntherprien]

Originally Posted by Oberon

In their defence, it's not every day that a missile submarine is hauled up from such depths...that also being said, no pictures of what was recovered have ever been published...

Not wanting to be another person in this thread to go into full on conspiracy mode, but I think that they recovered a bit more of K-129 than is officially let on. Not a full wreck, obviously, but more than is commonly told.

Hi,welcome to the conspiracy mode nutters party.
Unless you can provide solid links (to the recovery of the nukes),particularly ones that are covered under the official secrets act,you will be ,like me,consigned to the fringes.
Welcome aboard!
Oh,and btw,submarines can pick up sounds continents away,yes,thousands of miles,did the nay sayers not know that?
My source is an officer in the RN,aboard an SSN,he is my mates uncle,he says things he shouldn't really.
And the poster (s) that mentioned salinity layers,need to get out of ww2 mode,that ceased to be a factor many years ago,SOSUS amongst others put paid to that.
Things like magnetic anomalies and satellite imagery and the actual displacement of the vessels are all amongst the many factors of submarine detection these days.

Happy Easter to you all.

[STEED]

We're running out of horses to flog better check eBay.

[TarJak]

Ask your mate about this if any of it is unclear.

A 37.5 kHz (160.5 dB re 1 μPa) pinger can be detectable 1–2 kilometres (0.62–1.24 mi) from the surface in normal conditions and 4–5 kilometres (2.5–3.1 mi) in good conditions. A 37.5 kHz (180 dB re 1 μPa) transponder pinger can be detected 4–5 kilometres (2.5–3.1 mi) in normal conditions and 6–7 kilometres (3.7–4.3 mi) in good conditions. Transponder 10 kHz (180 dB re 1 μPa) range is 7–9 kilometres (4.3–5.6 mi) in normal conditions and 17–22 kilometres (11–14 mi) in good conditions.

Underwater acoustic propagation depends on many factors. The direction of sound propagation is determined by the sound speed gradients in the water. In the sea the vertical gradients are generally much larger than the horizontal ones. Combining this with a tendency towards increasing sound speed at increasing depth, due to the increasing pressure in the deep sea, causes a reversal of the sound speed gradient in the thermocline, creating an efficient waveguide at the depth, corresponding to the minimum sound speed. The sound speed profile may cause regions of low sound intensity called "Shadow Zones," and regions of high intensity called "Caustics". These may be found by ray tracing methods.

At equator and temperate latitudes in the ocean, the surface temperature is high enough to reverse the pressure effect, such that a sound speed minimum occurs at depth of a few hundred metres. The presence of this minimum creates a special channel known as Deep Sound Channel, previously known as the SOFAR (sound fixing and ranging) channel, permitting guided propagation of underwater sound for thousands of kilometres without interaction with the sea surface or the seabed. Another phenomenon in the deep sea is the formation of sound focusing areas, known as Convergence Zones. In this case sound is refracted downward from a near-surface source and then back up again. The horizontal distance from the source at which this occurs depends on the positive and negative sound speed gradients. A surface duct can also occur in both deep and moderately shallow water when there is upward refraction, for example due to cold surface temperatures. Propagation is by repeated sound bounces off the surface.

In general, as sound propagates underwater there is a reduction in the sound intensity over increasing ranges, though in some circumstances a gain can be obtained due to focusing. Propagation loss (sometimes referred to as transmission loss) is a quantitative measure of the reduction in sound intensity between two points, normally the sound source and a distant receiver. If I_s is the far field intensity of the source referred to a point 1 m from its acoustic centre and I_r is the intensity at the receiver, then the propagation loss is given by[1] PL=10log (I_s/I_r). In this equation I_r is not the true acoustic intensity at the receiver, which is a vector quantity, but a scalar equal to the equivalent plane wave intensity (EPWI) of the sound field. The EPWI is defined as the magnitude of the intensity of a plane wave of the same RMS pressure as the true acoustic field. At short range the propagation loss is dominated by spreading while at long range it is dominated by absorption and/or scattering losses.

An alternative definition is possible in terms of pressure instead of intensity,[13] giving PL=20 log (p_s/p_r), where p_s is the RMS acoustic pressure in the far-field of the projector, scaled to a standard distance of 1 m, and p_r is the RMS pressure at the receiver position.

These two definitions are not exactly equivalent because the characteristic impedance at the receiver may be different from that at the source. Because of this, the use of the intensity definition leads to a different sonar equation to the definition based on a pressure ratio. If the source and receiver are both in water, the difference is small.

The simple outline without all the science, is that the pinger is quite quiet (deliberately so), therefore picking it up "thousands of miles away" is not actually that easy. I'm not saying its impossible, however its very unlikely even given modern classified technology. They transmit on specific frequencies that make them easier to locate with pinpoint accuracy when you are on top of them. Not from thousands of miles away. If they were loud enough to be heard that far away they would actually be harder to pinpoint because they would saturate sensitive hydrophones that are too close.

You RN mate may know more about the science than I do, but unless he and his colleagues know where the FDR and CVR are, then he doesn't know any more about this than the rest of us.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by guntherprien

Hi,welcome to the conspiracy mode nutters party.
Unless you can provide solid links (to the recovery of the nukes),particularly ones that are covered under the official secrets act,you will be ,like me,consigned to the fringes.

Just to be clear on my part in this, I don't consider you to be a "nutter" or on the fringes. For me it's much simpler. In any debate, if you make a claim, especially one not accompanied by "I think" or "I believe", you should be able to back it up, or else it's not worth the paper it's printed on. No one should be expected to take anyone's word for anything. An acknowledged expert in a field has an advantage, but then an expert in the field has access to the facts. "Believe me, I know this" is never good enough.