Talk:Magnetic anomaly detector

Workings

Just reading the page for info on MADs, came across the line:
"The detection range is normally related to the distance between the sensor and the submarine."
This line seems confusing, perhaps because the fact it is expressing is trivial or not clearly stated. I propose as a clarification "The detection range is the maximum distance from the sensor at which a submarine can be detected." But if this is so, it seems like it could be removed entirely because it's pretty much a true statement of any detection device. I would do it, but the meaning is uncertain enough that I'd rather leave it to someone with greater understanding of the subject. 136.242.153.127 22:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Added a simple explination of the workings of a Caesium Vapour model, any corrections?? The number of energy states should be regarded as suspect, I can't recall off the top of my head.

- Comment -

I work with magnetometers on a regular basis for the purpose of geophysical surveys. In addition to registering a response to ferromagnetic sources, they also register dc currents quite well. I would think that in the case of submarine detection, the dc currents from the electronics and motors would register much stronger than any temperature induced potential. I can't say for sure though as we do not use them for this purpose. 63.250.178.163 18:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

- Comment -

I operated the ASQ-8 and ASQ-10 MAD apparatus in P-2s and P-3s. A submarine is an electrical conductor, and if moving through the Earth's lines of flux will have a significant induced current, although counter measures can be employed. The ASQ-81 was sensitive enough to detect the eddy currents in sea surface waves, requiring another sub-system to cancel the noise. 17:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

- name - My info didn't appear LorenzoB 17:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

- Comment - Functionality (from training material) can be found at: http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14030/css/14030_98.htm and associated pages. As a trained MAD operator, I may get around to summarising the details provided on those pages for this article. SN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.129.174 (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible Source for information to expand article

[1]

I happened across this source while working on the P-3 Orion article. While I don't have time to help out over here now (perhaps later), I thought this might be useful for anyone working on this article.Aalox (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Other uses

"to detect truck ignition coils in vehicles hidden under heavy jungle canopies. When the electric current flowing through such a coil changes, it produces a magnetic flux, which is, in simplest terms, a change in the magnetic field over a given area. In particular, when the trucks were turned on, the current flowing through the coils went from zero to some maximum, producing a large and easily detectable flux"
Not knowing anything about the system used, I can find this to be bulls* as it is not in accordance with basic electro-magnetics. Using radar one could find the metal of any truck easily. --Moritzgedig (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC) h

One could perhaps discover trucks with a divining rod or a ouija board instead. None of those three would invalidate the ability of a fourth system (e.g. MAD) to detect them as well.

However it's also worth noting that it's far from easy to detect trucks beneath leaf canopies. Radar, in such a situation, tends to detect everything: ground, trucks and leaf canopy too. It's the ability to discriminate that makes MAD (actually almost any broad-band RF receiver, MAD isn't carrying out its core function here) useful for this.

British ASW MAD was developed during the era of the Shackleton. It was not a success though, as it suffered from too much of just this sort of interference from the piston engines. Rolls-Royce Griffon petrol engines were used, and there was a plan to develop the Napier Nomad diesel engine for the Shackleton. The complex Napier didn't work out though and in the end it wasn't until the jet-powered Nimrod that the MAD system was workable. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not quite been a full ten years since you posted, but here's a reply.

The comment about the Avro Shackleton not being a success was something of a shock to me. I'm old enough to just about remember one floating softly into Gatwick on a Saturday afternoon, a stranger between the Dan-Air de Havilland Comets, assorted US charters, and the Aeroflot Tu-104s (deploying brake 'chutes if the runway was wet). I can almost remember the sound as it taxied back past us, pure bluddy music.

I know the RAF was encouraged to make do with whatever it had got, because after WWII the shattered economy of poor, poor Britain Ltd couldn't afford the proper stuff, but if piston engines rendered such interference, what about the following types?

• Lockheed P-2 Neptune, still in service for the French & Dutch in the late 70's
• Canadair CP-107 Argus, also still in service until 1982

In the case of the Neptune, those cunning Japanese presumably solved the problem by fitting turbine engines and small jet boosters, with the last Kawasaki P-2J being delivered in 1979, just as everyone else was retiring their original P-2s.

On the credit side, between the Shackleton and the Nimrod, didn't we have the two most beautiful maritime reconnaissance birds? Or maybe I'm just biased. I will award the Tupolev Tu-142MK an honourable mention though. And maybe include an image in this article, purely for the unique position of its MAD sting. In fact, I already have just the image lined up (chortles quietly to himself).

p.s. I liked your bit about the ouija board - nice one!

WendlingCrusader (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)