"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...
Jon, W3JT wrote:
"Folks unfamiliar with WW II history must also note that the US had
almost no sub forces in the Atlantic since Germany had only a very small
surface Navy amd no coastal or open shipping."

The emphasis should be on the "almost"!
Germamy began the war with 3 formidable "pocket battleships" as I
recall. There were American submarines in the Atlantic. Headquarters are
at New London, CT. My brother was a WW-2 U.S. Navy submarine officer.
His boat was stationed in the Atlantic operating from the U.S. Virgin
Islands. He managed a leave home by snagging rides on Catalina flying
boats conducting anti-submarine patrols in the Atlantic. He observed
real anti-submarine actions while a passenger aboard the Catalinas. My
brother was assigned to a new ship from its keel laying. He took it
through the Panama Canal to the Pacific where after several missions it
became a craft on permanent patrol as the result of enemy action with no
known surviors. His family misses him.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

A great book on German submarine warfare off the US coast -- is "Operation
Drumbeat" by Michael Gannon

I too lost fanily members at Normandy and Anzio
We do remember

--
Caveat Lector (Reader Beware)
Help The New Hams
Someone Helped You
Or did You Forget That ?

Ian Jackson wrote:

In message , J. Teske
writes
Intellgence agencies when they did HFDF used huge antenna arrays
called CDAAs (Circular Disposed Antenna Arrays). They were also known
as Wollenwebbers (presumably after an inventor).

Is 'Wollenwebber' really 'Wollenweber', which I reckon could be
translated as 'wool weaver'? Possibly a graphic description of the
antennas.
Ian.

--

The actual spelling is Wullenweber. I have a photo of the HFDF Station in
Masset, BC where I was Operations Officer at one time -- you can find it
if you go to my website at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv4/links.htm

If you include all the masts, guys, antenna elements, and such it could
be construed as a masterpiece of weaving.

Irv VE6BP
--
--------------------------------------
Diagnosed Type II Diabetes March 5 2001
Beating it with diet and exercise!
297/215/210 (to be revised lower)
58"/43"(!)/44" (already lower too!)
--------------------------------------
Visit my HomePage at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv/index.html
Visit my Baby Sofia website at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv4/index.htm
Visit my OLDTIMERS website at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv5/index.htm
--------------------
Irv Finkleman,
Grampa/Ex-Navy/Old Fart/Ham Radio VE6BP
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

In message , Irv Finkleman
writes
Ian Jackson wrote:

In message , J. Teske
writes
Intellgence agencies when they did HFDF used huge antenna arrays
called CDAAs (Circular Disposed Antenna Arrays). They were also known
as Wollenwebbers (presumably after an inventor).

Is 'Wollenwebber' really 'Wollenweber', which I reckon could be
translated as 'wool weaver'? Possibly a graphic description of the
antennas.
Ian.

--

The actual spelling is Wullenweber. I have a photo of the HFDF Station in
Masset, BC where I was Operations Officer at one time -- you can find it
if you go to my website at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv4/links.htm

If you include all the masts, guys, antenna elements, and such it could
be construed as a masterpiece of weaving.

Irv VE6BP

Yes, Crazy George had already come up with that before I stuck my nose
in. I was having a bit of a guess.
Unfortunately, Irv, I can't see the picture. It's one of those few
occasions where all I get is a red 'X'. I must find out how to overcome
this some day!
Cheers,
Ian.
--

Here's a related curiosity:

Dr. David Woolweaver is the Assistant Director of the West Gulf Div. of the ARRL. I discussed the name at length with
him several years ago, although he was previously unaware of the antenna design connotation. He told me there is also a
small town in Germany named Wullenweber. You will find no authoritative information on the derivation of the name for
the CDAA. Anyone who tells you different is lying. The few Germans still living at the end of the war who could be
identified as having been associated with the project either didn't know or refused to say. But that never stopped
speculation.

--
Crazy George
the ATTGlobal.net is a SPAM trap. Use the att dot biz account.

In article , Irv Finkleman
wrote:

The actual spelling is Wullenweber. I have a photo of the HFDF Station in
Masset, BC where I was Operations Officer at one time -- you can find it
if you go to my website at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv4/links.htm

When I try that URL I get a blank where the picture of the Masset
Operations Site is supposed to be. Clicking on that blank picture to try
to force it to load I get:

PAGE NOT FOUND

The web page you are trying to access doesn't exist on members.shaw.ca

The link below, under Jim Troyanek's Historical Links. "Canadian Forces
Station Masset", works.

David, ex-W8EZE

--
David Ryeburn

To send e-mail, use "ca" instead of "caz".

Buck:

A difficult to find but accurate book which answers your question about WW2 is "Secret Weapon" by Kathleen Broome
Williams published by Naval Institute Press. I no longer have a copy at hand, so I cannot quote figures for claimed
accuracy.

The reason Hams can't do this are two-fold:
1. Space
2. Money.

A good HF Adcock of WW2 design requires 10 or more acres to be accurate and is expensive to build because of the
mechanical accuracy involved. The 1960s vintage CDAA systems discussed typically require 40 acres, and the last
replacement cost figure I saw was over $100 million. The smaller "Pusher" systems are difficult to pin down price wise,
as they are out of production, but are still in the million dollar range for a prepared site, which for them is still
several acres. Measured sensitivity of the Pusher is 9 or 10 dB poorer than the full size CDAA, and the accuracy tends
to be less, although in both cases instantaneous accuracy is dependent on propagation and not system accuracy. Mobile
systems can be much less expensive, but to deploy one, you need to already know where the target is, more or less. By
the way, the last FCC mobile system I saw was in an unmarked Chrysler sedan with NO obvious external antennas.

And, even with the best equipment, a one degree accuracy (rare) still produces a large area of uncertainty at the target
distance. That is the key to understanding this. At a mile or a few blocks distance, a one degree accuracy will get
you to the target. At 2,000 miles, it just tells you which ocean the target is in.

--
Crazy George
the ATTGlobal.net is a SPAM trap. Use the att dot biz account.
"Buck" wrote in message ...
In WWII the allies were able to pinpoint the locations of German HF
transmissions very accurately. They were able to pinpoint the
locations of U-boats, etc. when they transmitted. (or so I have been
led to believe).

What methods did they use to do this? Is it something duplicatable
with Radio Amateurs in general or does it require some special type
equipment?


I hear lots of amateurs describing interference and other problems on
HF, but no one seems to be triangulating the offending stations. I am
guessing that the real secret was in their communications with the
'spotters' to triangulate the positions.

Any suggestions?

Thanks

--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW

Richard Harrison wrote:
Jon, W3JT wrote:
"Folks unfamiliar with WW II history must also note that the US had
almost no sub forces in the Atlantic since Germany had only a very small
surface Navy amd no coastal or open shipping."

The emphasis should be on the "almost"!
Germamy began the war with 3 formidable "pocket battleships" as I
recall. There were American submarines in the Atlantic. Headquarters are
at New London, CT. My brother was a WW-2 U.S. Navy submarine officer.
His boat was stationed in the Atlantic operating from the U.S. Virgin
Islands. He managed a leave home by snagging rides on Catalina flying
boats conducting anti-submarine patrols in the Atlantic. He observed
real anti-submarine actions while a passenger aboard the Catalinas. My
brother was assigned to a new ship from its keel laying. He took it
through the Panama Canal to the Pacific where after several missions it
became a craft on permanent patrol as the result of enemy action with no
known surviors. His family misses him.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard;

All of us are grateful for your brother's dedication to his country.

Dave WD9BDZ

Crazy George wrote:
"The reason Hams can`t do this are two-fold:
1. Space
2. Money."

That`s usually true.

I don`e think anyone has mentioned Doppler or Quasi-Doppler DF systems
yet. I`ve seen hams using them but I have no experience with them.

Servo Corporation of America claims to have supplied over 350
Quasi-Doppler radio direction finding systems to the U.S. FAA and they
are used in airports throughout the U.S.A.

The angle at which a VHF signal wavefront passes over a small forest of
antenna elements is determined to give a bearing toward the transmitter.

It has been generally found that for radio direction finding that the
larger the antenna, the better the performance.. But, in the case of two
spaced antennas, the spacing must not exceed 1/2-wavelength to avoid
ambiguities. Peak error from an Adcocvk Array is 11.4 degrees, says
Servo Corp. Their Doppler Systems, they say, are much better.

I see what I suppose are Doppler antenna systems on the trunk lids of
police cars.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Actually, we have been skating around the real answer to all this. HF systems which are presently being deployed are
true mathematical interferometers, and if anyone has the computer expertise to write the computer programs to build one,
I can supply the RF design information. For 40 meters and down, this would require only a minimal antenna footprint,
local reradiators can be calculated out, and the rf and processing hardware would be surprisingly simple. I would be
happy to collaborate with anyone seriously interested in constructing one, but you better be ready to convince me you
can do high level programming. And based on previous designs, expect to invest about 4,000 hours in programming.

--
Crazy George
The attglobal.net address is a SPAM trap. Please change that part to: attdotbiz properly formatted.

And your problem is?

we ain't got one,,, we won!
So I hear?