This is a follow-up of
this blog post where the method referred to there is applied to TDoA maps.
The first example is a STANAG 4285 signal (FUO Toulon) centered on 8436.4 kHz (USB: 8432.6 kHz)
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVOTAqfTs-6yMpIeeB5E-kCqVgNKC5pDZ4SxI_uQFk7iY73nKtXrnvNzJeN7AQIg5FwpswfDO7ugJlDqkGhsTDK3Cj5OXDTxmprgsSsf0dpb8tmbfxKQBElw1yGXi21f9cF7tS1fCoI6Y/s400/TDoA_8634_gc.png) |
TDoA maps using ground-wave propagation delays |
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg73x5X9l8iNlpE0V0y2oHOgEgckkfSooxVTSSnUQzzHxH8xHiV-Qh6AA0znGvu8Hh1hujGhHCblZXts2ryY-6koahIpJzoLXN-eAtGQovcs8GHGbfj6DLAoqa3ZW4wglywexwMsS7VCrw/s400/TDoA_8634.png) |
TDoA using propagation delays based on IRI2016 |
The maps using propagation delays based on IRI2016 electron densities match better the (assumed) true position of the transmitter. It is a small effect but noticeable, and can be seen better in the side-by-side comparison below:
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigH6XTsNi9osmHa9BeHfmeXKySoleMzgLlC3qwGbzg5Eb5ExGagaeGm6JBWEqOn2AKImeH3CFkWpoHH567x8q2ocJeS9WKJ2Gvl0XXhtw4WxSu6k6uVdcl1420usCMX-m-7c8VtYJnFcM/s400/TDoA_8634_comparison.png) |
TDoA comparison |
Another example are the TDoA maps from
the last blog post where the TDoA maps based on more realistic propagation delays are more consistent between the two measurements; both indicate a position on the South coast of Cornwall:
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2wegSMrY-g8LMxClcsKyC1Vbnal_gXoIkNcjIFQo3QxPWkk8xwDSLKM_cnk6loSnr70qopgyS401PwypfOz5mVQPSDqlbw9lGwtHZb0n4QwQYNkI3WuN4kqU_cD5oZOYrWTRNtg5AoK4/s400/TDoA_7812_2_comparison.png) |
TDoA comparison |
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjl4prNU3vmy16XSXy25QTKADk9F2ZH-NtluDFQtA9S-qoeHTewZ9Z400R5klDsXdTgYRbxcVxyhosklGRa4-R6z4kpQXTNTM_gRMvxwHAYbyoJS0gAm76q6TCjsK1pUDnj5Rhy1N-p65Q/s400/TDoA_7812_comparison.png) |
TDoA comparison |
1 comment:
Hi nice reading your postt
Post a Comment