4 ms·

I find it incredibly endearing. Obviously it's not ideal in terms of public communication, but there's something wonderfully earnest about the way a lot of doma

I find it incredibly endearing. Obviously it's not ideal in terms of public communication, but there's something wonderfully earnest about the way a lot of domain experts just kind of forget that most people don't share their obsession, let alone their knowledge.

andi999 6y ago
It could also be smokescreen and mirrors. If you find the truth uncomfortable just hide it beneath technical mumble jumble.
- jhrmnn 6y ago
  It could, but it isn’t in this case.
  - andi999 6y ago
    Well then give me a real reason why it should not be possible. (Basically what they only say is why the appearance of penetrating building cannot be interpreted so easily)
    - ravi-delia 6y ago
      All of the assurance was in the first third at best, and the rest was explaining why it looks like it can penetrate buildings.
      - andi999 6y ago
        Yes, they claim the 'laws of physics' prevent that. They should specify which law exactly. Maybe too low SNR? I know for a fact you can use radar to see through walls.
        system123 6y ago
        radar is a technique, not a specific thing. Their radar is based in the X-band (9.5 GHz) which is known not to have the ability to penetrate much. In fact, while C-band SAR (Sentinel 1) can partially penetrate forest canopies, and the top few cm of soil, X-band waves can hardly do this and basically just provide a surface scattering.
        andi999 6y ago
        Well, thats splitting words a bit, isnt it? In that sense radio would be a technique not a thing (there is long wave, short wave, ukw, etc), or PCs (there is 8086, 80386,...) with some you can do run intensive algorithms in a specific time, with other you cant. Or what about cars?
teleforce 6y ago
To be fair he did point to the more details for another article from the company website [1]. Since according to Einstein "you can make it simpler but no simpler", me think he and his colleague did pretty well there if we refer to the reduced complexity equation provided here [2]. To be honest this simplified coherence estimation equation in words literally looks like the most complicated equation in words that I have ever seen (page 34 in [2]) - imagine the details elaboration for the mathematical equations but bear in mind that this is for the more sophisticated multi-static radar: Coherence Estimation = [Radar equation system noise (gammaSNR)] x [Quanization Noise (gammaQuant)] x [Ambiguities (gammaAmb)] x [Baseline Decorrelation(gammaGeo) x [Doppler Decorrelation(gammaAz)] x [Volume Decorrelation(gammaVol)] x [Temporal Decorrelation(gammaTemp)] x [Processing & Coregistration Errors(gammaProc)] [1]https://www.capellaspace.com/sar-101-an-introduction-to-synthetic-aperture-radar/ https://www.capellaspace.com/sar-101-an-introduction-to-synt... [2]https://elib.dlr.de/43805/1/eusar06_tutorial_advanced_bistatic_sar_final_reduced.pdf https://elib.dlr.de/43805/1/eusar06_tutorial_advanced_bistat...

andi999 6y ago

It could also be smokescreen and mirrors. If you find the truth uncomfortable just hide it beneath technical mumble jumble.

jhrmnn 6y ago
It could, but it isn’t in this case.
- andi999 6y ago
  Well then give me a real reason why it should not be possible. (Basically what they only say is why the appearance of penetrating building cannot be interpreted so easily)
  - ravi-delia 6y ago
    All of the assurance was in the first third at best, and the rest was explaining why it looks like it can penetrate buildings.
    - andi999 6y ago
      Yes, they claim the 'laws of physics' prevent that. They should specify which law exactly. Maybe too low SNR? I know for a fact you can use radar to see through walls.
      - system123 6y ago
        radar is a technique, not a specific thing. Their radar is based in the X-band (9.5 GHz) which is known not to have the ability to penetrate much. In fact, while C-band SAR (Sentinel 1) can partially penetrate forest canopies, and the top few cm of soil, X-band waves can hardly do this and basically just provide a surface scattering.
        andi999 6y ago
        Well, thats splitting words a bit, isnt it? In that sense radio would be a technique not a thing (there is long wave, short wave, ukw, etc), or PCs (there is 8086, 80386,...) with some you can do run intensive algorithms in a specific time, with other you cant. Or what about cars?

teleforce 6y ago

To be fair he did point to the more details for another article from the company website [1]. Since according to Einstein "you can make it simpler but no simpler", me think he and his colleague did pretty well there if we refer to the reduced complexity equation provided here [2]. To be honest this simplified coherence estimation equation in words literally looks like the most complicated equation in words that I have ever seen (page 34 in [2]) - imagine the details elaboration for the mathematical equations but bear in mind that this is for the more sophisticated multi-static radar: Coherence Estimation = [Radar equation system noise (gammaSNR)] x [Quanization Noise (gammaQuant)] x [Ambiguities (gammaAmb)] x [Baseline Decorrelation(gammaGeo) x [Doppler Decorrelation(gammaAz)] x [Volume Decorrelation(gammaVol)] x [Temporal Decorrelation(gammaTemp)] x [Processing & Coregistration Errors(gammaProc)] [1]https://www.capellaspace.com/sar-101-an-introduction-to-synthetic-aperture-radar/ https://www.capellaspace.com/sar-101-an-introduction-to-synt... [2]https://elib.dlr.de/43805/1/eusar06_tutorial_advanced_bistatic_sar_final_reduced.pdf https://elib.dlr.de/43805/1/eusar06_tutorial_advanced_bistat...