Determining the location of a signal using only 2 receivers

  • Thread starter Thread starter DDH
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Signal
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the feasibility of locating a signal source using only two non-directional receivers by measuring time differences in signal arrival. Accurate timing can create planes of possible signal locations, with two measurements yielding a line and three measurements pinpointing the exact source location. However, challenges arise from potential ambiguities in directionality and resolution, particularly if the receivers are close together. The conversation also highlights the need for greater distances between receivers to improve accuracy and suggests that using more receivers could enhance the determination of the signal's origin. Overall, the feasibility of the proposed method hinges on the precision of timing measurements and the geometry of the receiver setup.
DDH
Messages
12
Reaction score
2
I'm currently writing a book. In the book the main characters need to find the source of a signal but they can only use two primitive, non-directional receivers.
I think it is possible to calculate the location providing they have access to a very accurate timebase which will tell them the time difference it takes the signal to reach the receivers. Each measurement would give them a plane in which the source should lie. After each measurement they move to a different location (at a considerable distance of the previous location). After two measurements they would have an line on which the source should be, the intersection between the two planes. Three measurements would give them the location of the source, the intersection between the line and the third plane. (assuming none of the planes are the same or parallel)
Am i correct? And if so, how should the calculations be done.
If not, is there an other way to do it with just time difference as data, f.e. using more receivers.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Since signals travel radially, you should be looking a circles. If you have perfect time difference data and clear line of sight, your 'planes' are spherical shells, and instead of lines, you should have the intersections of spherical shells.
If you now something a priori about the signal, like it is stationary and on the ground, you will have the possible source locations reduced to 2 points with two measurements.
A third measurement, as long as it is not collinear with the first two should be the tiebreaker.
 
Um... What is your definition of "primitive" in "primitive non-directional receiver?"

Suppose your two receivers are 1 km apart. And suppose the source is on a line fairly close to the line between the two receivers. The signal arrives at the two detectors just 3 microseconds apart. If your timing is good to only +/-1 microsecond, then you have a directional resolution of round about 30 degrees.

Also, as RUber referred to, you have a left-right issue. If the delay is (2 +/- 1) microseconds, you can't distinguish anything from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right.

If your detectors were 10 km apart with the same electronics, then you could distinguish a smaller angle. Does your story allow for the antenna to be that far apart and have wires leading to a central receiver?

It seems kind of far-fetched though. You can make a simple di-pole antenna that will be directional to better than that kind of accuracy out of a hoop. Supposing the signal is only pulses that don't give you time to rotate a hoop to find the max and min. Then you want three or four hoops arranged at different angles.
 
Thank you for the reply, RUber and DEvens.
First of all, nothing is known about the signal a priori, except that it propagates with the speed of light and it's not blocked by matter what so ever.
Secondly, i realize I've been looking at it in a two dimensional way applied on a three dimensional reality.
Third, I've used some wrong words to describe the problem. I tried to write down an analogy so i didn't have to disclose too much about the story. My apologies.
 
Last edited:
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top