https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance_–_broadcast

This may give you the data you are after, as for implementing a receiver, that will require your own research.

Maybe if you had of stated the goals of the project to begin with you may have gotten an answer in a shorter period of time.

Well that seems to provide some answers, I will continue to seek answers from members however because this is like a jigsaw puzzle and I need more answers.

Barry

 

Then there is the matter of the Black box beacon it must give out direction information,

No. It mustn't and it doesn't. It is a simple transmitter. It does not have a GPS receiver so it can determine it's own position and then transmit that.

take the case of flight 447 which disappeared in 2009, with the wreckage thousands of meters beneath the Atlantic ocean. Now before you all jump on me and say that the battery went dead after thirty days and it took them nearly three years to find it and ETC, ETC yes I know all of that but my point is even before the battery went dead the investigators were able to home in on the vicinity of the signal, now if aircraft tracking is not feasible then how do you explain that ?

1930's technology radio direction finding loop antennae. The tech is significantly more simple that you keep insisting it is. I scream, blindly. You turn you head back and forth to get a general direction. I keep screaming. The closer you get, the more accurate your guess of my direction is. If I die before you find me, then you are left with a general idea of my direction but a much less clear guess of my distance, exactly like the scenario you describe.

ak

 

Dude, if you don't like helping people, find another site. Some people enter with no training and no idea. Some enter with no training and a misconception. Either ignore or teach.

Mod edit: snipped profanity in quote.

 

That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard,

That is a very revealing statement.

if "An aircraft does not transmit any signal that lets its position be "detected" then how can it be picked up on RADAR,

Gee, maybe the same way radar picks up weather balloons, meteors, flocks of birds, rain clouds, aluminum foil flakes (countermeasures), thousands of pieces of space junk, cars, and baseballs. RADAR does not detect the transponder; it detects the gigantic wad of metal that is the body of the plane, nothing more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar

surely its transponder must be detectable ?

Only when it is triggered. And then, a mode A xpdr responds only with its squawk code; no distance, no altitude, no bearing.

Ground: I see you. Who are you?
Plane: 3416
Ground: I looked that up in a log of planes that have active flight plans right now, and it comes back as TWA flight number 1. Have fun in Hawaii.

Note that at this point the ground has no idea if the plane is actually the one with that assigned squawk code. Also note the pile of stuff you think a plane sends out that it actually does not. The whole system is designed to make what is in the plane as simple and reliable as possible. This shifts the signalling and calculating burdens to the ground system. Later xpdrs have a mode C where the respond with the squawk code plus their altitude, but last I heard, those are not required on the thousands of general aviation craft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aeronautics)

ak

 

Well that seems to provide some answers, I will continue to seek answers from members however because this is like a jigsaw puzzle and I need more answers.

Barry

Barry, you've come in with some misconceptions and your not letting go of them easily. Start asking how things work rather than acting like we should help you understand your misconceptions.

Radar works by sending a beacon out into the atmosphere and waiting for it to bounce off of something and return. It is the radio-frequency equivalent to sonar. Sonar is essentially echo-location using audio tones (mechanical movement of air or water at audio or near audio frequencies). In both cases, only the radar or sonar equipment is needed to locate an object. The enemy targets are not providing any help other than a reflective surface.

 

I hope that's not aimed at me because if so that's completely uncalled for!

Barry

 

Barry, you've come in with some misconceptions and your not letting go of them easily. Start asking how things work rather than acting like we should help you understand your misconceptions.

Radar works by sending a beacon out into the atmosphere and waiting for it to bounce off of something and return. It is the radio-frequency equivalent to sonar. Sonar is essentially echo-location using audio tones (mechanical movement of air or water at audio or near audio frequencies). In both cases, only the radar or sonar equipment is needed to locate an object. The enemy targets are not providing any help other than a reflective surface.

Thank You I really appreciate your helpful and patient reply, unfortunately I seem to be finding that there are a lot jerks on this site who want to look down on me because I don't have the same knowledge they do.

Thanks Again

Barry

 

I hope that's not aimed at me because if so that's completely uncalled for!

I agree. He's relatively new here, doesn't contribute much, has a very short fuse regarding others' attitudes, and no clue about his own.

ak

Mod edit: snipped profanity in quote.

 

there are a lot jerks on this site who want to look down on me because I don't have the same knowledge they do.

No there aren't.

There is a very mall number of jerks. You are confusing them with people who refuse to accept your incorrect statements as true when they are not. Based solely on your posts, all of your opinions about how RADAR, VOR, direction finding, black boxes, and transponders work are incorrect. Statements that begin with "Surely..." and "That's the most ridiculous..." are not questions, project a defensive attitude, and alter the course of the dialog in a way not good.

Rule Number One in conversing with adults: if you get to pick the question, then I get to pick the answer. If you don't like the answer, put your energies into re-examining your question and its foundations. Attacking would be ridiculous.

The Chat and Projects fora combine for almost 70,000 threads and 620,000 messages. If you browse around there you can pick up the flavor of how successful interactions go around here.

ak

 

Bye.

 

You are not winning any friends here with that attitude. You are the one asking for help. You have huge misconceptions of how things work.

Start by a YouTube tutorial on radar and see what you learn. You may have about 3 free days to do that. Come back and ask your questions to clarify your leanings.

 

One thread per subject.
Later thread continues here:
http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/t...electrical-switch-take-2.130259/#post-1071167