SCIRP Journal Review - Signals In The Atlantic Ocean

SCIRP Journal Review - Positioning

Scientific Research Publishing, a place to publish peer-review scholarly articles in a scientific online community. 

Article: A Simulation of Reflected ADS-B Signals over the North Atlantic for a Spaceborne Receiver

Authors: Richard Van Der Pryt, Ron Vincent
Department of Physics, Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, Canada

Published Date: February 2016

SCIRP Journal

REVIEW conducted February 2023:

Searching for valid journals to form submission articles to validate an experience with online communities and service to improve educational subjects for another critique or opinion is the objective. 

What I find interestingly close are articles that pertain to the advancement of Programming and where it is being used. The software in these studies, improved (I believe) after the initial antenna, but for this article with Spaceborne receivers that use Python, I discuss the review and its ecological impact for direct contact with mammals and wildlife species altogether. 

I had previously read on the same website (different article) on the signal reactions for triangular methods used along with the type of signal (G3 Towers that have since been replaced with G5 Telecommunication Towers, FCC antenna registration.)

For the Programming of these signals, these items were unlisted for the study of its original tests: 

1. Reaction to surface in movement (tests were conducted over the Atlantic Ocean and considered the reflection of water but not the movement of it, as stated within this article).

2. Compensation Programming (this may have been an early model of Python since it did describe older technology in the article. I wanted to emphasize the techniques that did not wield the null space in its computations where the movement of water could not be recorded data). 

3. Delay/Change in return (The signal reached reflection, water surface and returned at this contact. It does not state specifically upon direct touch or an in-depth measurement. It appears to have unresolved calculations. This is very important for the ecological factor in evidential observations to act on). 

4. Measurement for signal value and its return value (They did not specify much detail about the Python Programming language, and what values were assigned in these tests to determine a change detected or how to correct the reflective rate of signals and its effects). 

5. Measure two components on linear so that it can answer these basic questions:

   

(Base (from the spaceborne receiver)) out to in (reflection or water surface).

   

in to out 

   

in to in (what was the reaction within this region that could have been studied within an enclosed space before outdoor contact to register any harms, detection, and ripple effects from the signal strength). 

   

is there an out - spectrum change? The article did determine the ionosphere that it was conducting these tests from, were listed as environmental features for the spatial coordination of signal strength being used. Was this signal an array of sorts that could be controlled?

Notes Under Review:

Signal polluters identified were the Atlantic Ocean and the ionosphere, within this range. 

Some interesting findings in the equations they used did not attest to the type of waves that they were measuring, other than the height of them. 

I would have liked to see something that coordinated with their null and pivotal change in reading for direct and reflected signals. I calculated that to interpret two forms of media structures being measured:

1. A receding wave that is pulling upwards into a pivotal crest. (Reverse Pivot)

2. A Filling motion that swells within this agreeable cavity location. (Over-Under)

The zero they reference within these equations represented a change (twist) of event that defined a divergence indicator - which did not mention it apart from each other, but together. 

There is a scintillating reading from the Ocean recalls, this is referred to as a Scattering Theory - which arrives to the signal emitted in the time of observation to find these direct initiatives to make contact with the Ocean. 

If the timing of these signals could be within the Direct range of a point of origin in the waves, readily available to range within the area of a surface (since it is determined to not be too dramatically specific in the exact location of when it hits the Ocean to be measured, so long as the distance from the point of origin was able to calculate an average or expected average). This could be changed to the time of signal emitted that is measured for an accurate reading during a time of a Reverse Pivotal moment in the wave of the Ocean. 

Similar to that as a surfer can arrive to, timing the lapse in waves and pinpointing its desired location for those direct signals to read sharply and continuously. 

The measurements they use to project are unrealistic. A direct signal is all that is necessary for this specific signal directing in a successful measurement. The projected rate is safe to say, in Oceanic measurements and height - it is determined by inclement weather as observed in the pilot seat to react and change measurements to something more dire and urgent in those scenarios. 

The signal from the antenna that are used (two, specifically a low emitting radar and an encompassing signal) that determine the lateral, longitudinal, and azimuth calculations. These were as expected but what puzzled me, was the actual data itself - since they are using a media such as water, does this not refract? In signal? If not, then why is it being suggested in a weak state such as being recalled reading only that type of data such as light emitted. 

A lot of the data that was presented, made it obvious that the emitted signal was outputting more than just a beacon of light to be dictated by reflection in water moving. 

I would have liked to see the divergence in type of signal, sound beds, sound bed made, polluter or environmental factors in the equations, and the changed images on the longitudinal, horizontal, and azimuth maps. 

Environmentally Responsible:

 Photo by Maël BALLAND

This was specific to signal and Ocean for not being able to detect its recall. I actually do not believe its findings or report for data - unless they absent mindedly collected it without intention of forming a report for review. I feel like the data could be valid, but the test has to change. Objective was not clearly defined. This was a presentation of data for distributing an appeal to reveal that signals don't harm animals in the Ocean (which I very much disagree with). People have a lot to do with whale beaching's and in the mass over the years. If they are watching them from satellite and directing their beacons onto them (without sound bed insulation tactics to not directly disturb the animal's sensitivity), that could be a case to take to those that have insulated a lifestyle with their presence in the divine forms. 

Conclusion:

It is this lack of care and judgement towards aquatic mammals and life in general that we find plenty of living species extinction rates climb. Is it because we are watching them too closely without regard to sensitivity? Migration on land and sea has changed. Many things have changed since the invention of these signal towers and satellites. 

NO DIRECT SIGNALS FOR OBSERVATIONS OF WILD SPECIES should permit the further investigations of these studies and data until a formidable case can provide its non-effects on aquatic species. 

I am looking forward to more signal receiving and outputting articles from this website. So far, I have updated further on a robotic article, a form of I am familiar with, and found it about the same. This was another update; I have been loosely watching in regard to the FCC and tower shift into a G5 instead of G3. The types of polluters I notice and what upgrades are doing to the natural environment, I am keeping a close eye on you and intend to continue working towards an effective measure for future safety procedures that impact global recognition towards our ecological duties. I would very seriously like to further my investigation into direct signals and EPA for the Oceanic Review and Standard Operating Procedures upon a migrational effort to cease signal pollution. 

Thank you!

__Mischief