Finding the MH370 with WSPR? (

This Ask Dave question has been requested by many hams and has even piqued my own interest. So without further adieu, Finding the MH370 with WSPR?
Subscribe: / davecasler . Ask Dave Playlist: goo.gl/inaQeB. Tip Jar: ke0og.net/tip-jar
Edited by Callum Jakeman
To learn more about me, visit: www.dcasler.com/about/
Tip jar (on my website): www.dcasler.com/tip-jar/ (provides a method to use your credit card via PayPal, Also describes Patreon)
To pose an Ask Dave question: www.dcasler.com/ask-dave/ or www.ke0og.net/ask-dave/
To order the most recent and up-to-date Amateur Extra videos on a thumb drive: dcasler.com/aevids-on-stick/
Theme music is "Sour Tennessee Red," by John Deley and the 41 Players, courtesy KZbin Music Library.
I use drawings from OpenClipArt.org, including the "walking man"
Technician training videos, see www.ke0og.net/training/
General training videos, see www.ke0og.net/general/
Amateur Extra training videos, see www.ke0og.net/extra/
List of the Ask Dave videos, see dcasler.com/ask-dave/#askdavelist
Thanks to my sweet wife, Loretta, KBØVWW, for both audio and video assistance! (Her website is www.aldea-art.com.)
My primary website: www.dcasler.com
The ham radio part of my website (direct link): www.ke0og.net
My publishing website: www.mtsneffelspress.com, where you can find my fantasy and science fiction books, as well as some local history books I publish for the Ridgway Railroad Museum and the Ouray County Historical Society
My Amazon author page, which lists my print and Kindle books: www.amazon.com/-/e/B00471I0Q4.
I'm often asked what equipment I use to create the videos. The devices include the Panasonic DMC-G7 camera, Panasonic HDC-TM90 video camera, GoPro Hero2 HD camera, Tascam DR-05 audio recorder, Audio-Technica ATR-3350 lapel microphone, Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W560 digital camera, the Kodak Zi-8 video camera, my iPhone 5S. Software used: CyberLink PowerDirector 17 on an HP Gaming Pavilion, also using Smoothdraw 4.0.5.0, FastStone Image Viewer 5.3, FastStone Capture 8.0, Audacity 2.1.1, LibreOffice 5.0.4.2, and Ink2Go 1.7.2. You can see how my studio is set up by viewing • Tips for Making Instru... .
Twitter: @dcasler

[@MrAkak36]

I know nothing on the topic but found this while looking for information about WSPR after watching the recent documentary on the History channel. I just want to compliment the presenter for his thoroughness and extra effort explaining where his information came from. So much different than so many on social media that just state things as facts with nothing to back it up. Very nicely done

[@davecasler]

Glad it was helpful!

[@bijukumar1286]

MH370,lNDlA,klRALA,lSRO

[@joeb3300]

9:12 EN61 isn't "several square miles", it is about 6800 square miles. The grid square size is a function of latitude, but in "moderate latitudes", like EN61, grids are roughly 100 miles x 70 miles. A bit larger than the state of Connecticut. 9:55 The distance between two randomly selected points, each is a different grid square, could easily be off by +/-100 miles relative to the distance between the centers of the two grid squares.

[@billlamm4688]

Thats a lot of info for a monday morning.. my brain hertz?! 😉

[@Lugeix]

I've heard on a TV show, a government invented a "HOLE IN THE NOISE" radar system for tracking stealth aircraft. It was based on stealth aircraft scattering and absorbing cell phone transmissions. So, yeh, maybe WSPR may.

[@davecasler]

I know more than I am allowed to say here. But I will point out there are no cell towers out over the water. The aircraft went into one of the least populated areas on earth. Anything that you bounce off the airplane and hope to receive has a loss equation that puts distance to the fourth power. normal over the Horisont radars, sorry my iPad goes from right to wrong. A very high power with huge receive antennas.

[@SimoneGianni79]

They could easily prove their method by tracking any other flight and comparing the data with the recorded flight path on any site like FlightRadar.. there is no need to go derp in the ocean to see if this method works or not.. just demonstrate you can track the next flight from new York to London and boom..

[@derrick_builds]

Awesome concept. Thanks for your background information in radio and schooling. Been wondering about that. Keep up the good work. Love you ham radio show.

[@davidbarsic2010]

Excellent analysis! At around 16 minutes the speed of light should be 300 000 000 m/s. To easily convert from Frequency to wavelength it helps me to think of the speed of light as 300 meter-megahertz.

[@2EOGIY]

I don't know the exact name of the method but there is some mathematical way to tell the location without knowing exact coordinates. I have seen it on the Numberfiles channel a while ago. The more samples are given the more accurate it is. All data needed is "more to the right" "slightly to the left" without giving from which point it is to the left or right. That exactly fits in signal strength and approximate triangulation angle. No Dopler delay calculation is needed but Dopler data could only increase accuracy. The question is does there is enough data to tell the location. P.S. I just remember it is called Bayesian probability. It works in reverse, i.e. from an equal number of heads and tails you get to the assumption that two equally faced coin is flipped, or in this case from received signals you will get a location where are those sent from. And how accurate it is? in big hollow space astronomers find objects that cause gravitational anomalies.

[@johnpeterson7264]

I watched the 60 minutes broadcast -which I found to be quite cryptic as to the methodology used, and I can’t help but wonder why this operator would go with a 60 minutes article rather than publishing his studies either in a professional scientific journal or in QST ? I am thinking that perhaps be interested in a patent or in monetization of his work. I suspect that he is not using WSPR but instead is using existing coastal radar systems that operate around the HAM bands - for example CODAR- which record signals received w excellent time accuracy and would likely record the amateur radio signals which for example CODAR routinely steps on.

[@paulloveless4122]

Fascinating stuff. Thank you for introducing me to WSPRnet.

[@victorcontreras9138]

Whether anything will work, we'll only know by trying! We should give consideration to any theory that sounds possible because this flight remains a big mystery that will bring great joy -- and closure if solved.

[@lyfandeth]

Compare if you will, expert use of a celestial sextant. Due at atmospheric distortions near any sea coast, no matter how fine the insrument and the observer, you cannot determine your position to better than two miles. And, that's only looking up through 250 miles of atmospeheric disturbances. There are inherent limits in any system, and until we use WSPR a hundred times to see just how accurately it can find a position this way, we won't know how precise it is for location finding.

[@charlo90952]

He's tracked at least four known aircraft in this airspace. Given only the take off time and location he was able to identify the destination of the four aircraft successfully. And his results seem to corroborate Cap. Hardy's calculation. Hardy says there's a deep trench at the crash site that should be searched.

[@cashlandrumful]

Does the "handshake" from the satellite engine monitors match the WHISPER signal?....if they are similar it might bear investigation.

[@s0kulite]

Yes, the 7 rings appears to match the WSPR data

[@jcara17]

Great video Dave! I heard an earlier, and much more primitive, system proved where DB Cooper landed by parachute with all that money.

[@danielwietchy1037]

Looking forward to reading the upcoming (??) per reviewed paper.

[@sirvaldo54]

The Boeing 777 is at the military site on Diego Garcia.

[@petertate3436]

Dave... maybe see if the same techniques can be used to find your missing video ;) I'd be more concerned about "the false hope" it brings for the families involved. I wouldn't say it can't be used.... and I know what I'm about to say isn't HF..... As a kid we use to know when a plane flew over as it messed with a our VHF TV as we were on the fringe. Bouncing signals off a large metal can in the sky to me doesn't sound SCI Fi it sounds quite possible. I definitely agree there isn't enough data points. But some mysteries have been solved with less. Cheers 73's

[@JosephLorentzen]

Does ground clutter effect Whisper? On Improved Hawk CW Radar (dopler) , we used a low side lobe, high-gain plane antenna to reduce sensitivity to ground clutter.

[@370Location]

Terrain at skip points is a huge factor, especially since Godfrey is assuming dozens of skips taking the long path around the globe. It's often flat ocean, but there's no way to account for signals veering off from mountainous reflections. In his validations so far, Godfrey uses every single spot with a projection that comes close to his estimated target. He also factors in the MH370 ping arcs, fuel endurance, previous endpoints, airspeed, eyewitnesses, conspiracy theories, and whatever else comes to mind when picking his next spot. Other clutter is the problem. It can't be automated or replicated. Only Godfrey can do it using his educated guesses.

[@zs1dfr]

On the third hop of the WSPR signals Godfrey was measuring, the only ground clutter is surface water variation caused by waves.

[@JosephLorentzen]

@@zs1dfr Surely there were land based bounces, even if just ships on the water and other planes in the sky. Even atmospheric distortions, even flocks of birds, would make the use of WSPR signals highly suspect for such location purposes, Being an old radar tech does make me look at the technique as froth with problematic assumptions .

[@zs1dfr]

@@JosephLorentzen The point made in the paper I read was that timing of the signals (I think) allowed the physicist to calculate that the 3rd hop was affected by perturbations. Remember that the signal was between one sender and one receiver only and followed the great circle map, so it apparently was possible to work out closely where that third hop took place. I gather that in that area, only sea water was responsible for the refraction of the signal (can you know that from the type or quality of refraction?) Furthermore, the quality of the perturbation led Godfrey to believe that a long metal object such as an aircraft fuselage was responsible for the disturbance. And at the time of the perturbation, there were no aircraft or ships, or likely flocks of birds, in the area very far away from all land or sea or air routes. Don't shoot me - I'm only reporting what I read. (It looks as though a serious attempt on my part at discourse with Dave Casler has been taken down off this comment line. I am not a conspiracy theorist, so don't know why)

[@JosephLorentzen]

@@zs1dfr Actually, this is in debate within a number of technical circles so don't feel like the lone ranger. Just like Dave Casler in those groups there are huge questions about attempting to use WSPR data this way. My concern is different than Dave's, but both of us have radar experience. I doubt if the physicist has shared our type experience. Dave Casler concern is the timing. My concern is really with the false readings radar can give you due to the effect known as ground clutter - but it happens in apparently open air just due to temperature changes in the layers of the atmosphere or differences in humidity at different layers. One inexperienced radar operator I know tracked a 275 mph leading edge of a jet stream and locked an entire battery of missiles at it. Hey, I said he was inexperienced - cut him some slack. He was nicked named "Ace" from then on. In radar a powerful signal is reflected then a weak signal that reflects from the target is received by the radar. Computers analyze the strength of the returned signal, time it took to travel to the object and back, and phase, or doppler and compare this to the side antenna for such things as ground clutter. This process of emitting a signal, listening for any returned signal, then emitting the next signal, takes place very fast, up to around 1300 times each second back when I was working on radar, It takes that sort of processing to accurately track an aircraft - at least enough point a missile battery at it.

[@rjy8960]

Thanks David. I have just watched a programme about MH-370 and they mentioned WSPR. I’m extremely sceptical as I can’t understand how it could be used. I’m also British, a radio amateur and also an engineer. Do you know if the idea has been sanity checked by for example tracking a single flight over a known flight path? Surely you could prove your theory by using a real live flight…..73 de M0SNR

[@davecasler]

You may have misunderstood my point. I have serious doubts that anyone can use WSPR to track aircraft. Even Joe Taylor, the inventor of WSPR, has stated specifically it is not used for aircraft tracking.

[@MrMaltesumpf]

@@davecasler have you tried, or are you just claiming that it doesn’t work because you think it wouldn’t?

[@deloford]

Yes they have now, looks like Dave might have to eat some humble pie

[@g0fvt]

A well thought out analysis, though I do think the frequency accuracy is less of an issue than it first appears As a number of stations with fixed locations will receive a given station the transmitter frequency can be derived for a specific transmission. It would be interesting to know what data the original theory was based on, certainly the press seem to have created some suspiciously precise paths for the aircraft. As for the location of the transmitters the 4 digit locator is terribly imprecise, the one I live in for instance is roughly 700 square miles.... the saga does seem to be implausible....

[@joeb3300]

JO22 looks more like 80 miles x 68 miles, more than 5000 sq miles.

[@370Location]

I wrote some python code to analyze WSPR and plot possible doppler frequency deviations vs distance of an aircraft from the WSPR path. For each band I computed the median RX freq offset from all the stations that heard a TX site. Likewise, an average freq offset was computed for each RX from all the TX it received. With a rolling average, it worked rather well. Of course, this is not what Godfrey is doing with GDTAAA. He's simply looking at the drift value during a transmission and SNR change, tallied in a spreadsheet of WSPR spots He feeds his spreadsheet computations to MATLAB only for printouts.

[@g0fvt]

@@joeb3300 fwiw my square is JO02, but the point remains, this is bigger than "a few square miles" as mentioned here.

[@richspillman4191]

The great thing about science is that the method to use it is repeatable. Has someone peer reviewed the findings? If someone has the inclination, it seems one could recreate the results or refute them.

[@370Location]

Several experts have attempted to review the reports. It typically requires participation with the author, but his responses to critique have been blockage from his blog and personal attacks. Fundamental flaws have yet to be addressed, even in the recent technical report we were told would explain all. The GDTAAA method can't be replicated because the author describes it as a "manual process" which includes his personal picks from essentially random 'tripwires' at every two minute WSPR interval. The results have been repeatedly refuted, including the supposed blind flight validations. Check the comments at the url given in Dave's vid. Yesterday I reverse engineered the GDTAAA SNR normalization formula which was missing from the reports. The formula clearly uses only the direct TX-RX distance to estimate an expected signal strength. That would only apply to the 3% picked short paths, but the same formula is used for 97% of the picked MH370 circumglobal paths going up to 38,800 km. The farther the stations are from the target, the stronger the expected signal strength!

[@stavrosg1113]

Man has a typewriter in the corner, charts, and taught me radar in 5 minutes. . He's been around a while, is experienced and thorough! Stavros credibility rating : VERY HIGH!

[@padcom]

Dave, you lied. The long link is nowhere to be found in the description.. I hate when people do that....

[@erpece]

Interesting topic, Dave - thx...

[@glenmartin2437]

Thank you, Dave. I believe you are right. N0QFT

[@Andy2e0ree]

It s 10 by 10 km if you put the information in to kiwiSDR you can collateral a Ruth area

[@370Location]

That would be the maximum path error for a shortest path between maidenhead spots. Godfrey instead believes that signal paths are taking the longest way around the globe to be disrupted by his target. At the antipode, the maidenhead error would be back to 10x10 km but halfway across the hemisphere, the error is magnified depending on how close the original stations are.

[@martsmiscmix]

Well done Dave for tackling this probably quite sensitive issue in such a measured and erudite manner. I have been troubled by this theory ever since I first heard it, and worried that it seems to have been given so much credence by people closely associated with relatives of the victims of this terrible tragedy, especially the in Australian media. Your video has assured me that I was right to be sceptical. Having said that I wish those who wish to see the downed aircraft discovered success in their quest. Martin (G4FUI)

[@ericwiddison7523]

This sort of detailed technical know how is what I love about Hams. As a radar engineer, I concur with your analysis. AE7YY

[@aditsu]

25:15 says "link in description", that link is not in the description.

[@370Location]

KE6IZN here. Richard Godfrey is not a ham, and confessed on his blog that he has little experience with radio. He coopted and takes credit for WSPR research that was ongoing. In his reports you will see that because of the sparse signal paths, he is using great circle projections going backwards around the globe. In one case he used to validate his method, he used two WSPR stations in UK only 44 km apart. No skip. He asserts that that the actual path is a 44,000 km multiskip projection through the antipode, and claims it was only disrupted by his target plane. D-Layer on the daylight side of the globe attenuates skip signals. His method is infinitely improbable. I've run stats comparing millions of actual plane locations relative to millions of WSPR paths, and there is zero disruption of WSPR drift with distance. You will find links to this research and more in the many comments on Victor Ianello's report. Note that Godfrey's past credibility is based on his activity with the Independent Group. Nobody associated with the IG group thinks that his WSPR work has any credibility.

[@percilenis8464]

Where is the evidence for anything you’re saying. I wasn’t able to find a single instance of anyone from the Independent Group saying anything about WSPR.

[@370Location]

@@percilenis8464 - It looks like any comments here that contain links are being blocked. Please check the URL that Dave spelled out. Search the page for WSPR ;) There are comments from at least three of the original IG group, and many others. Search from @370Location there, and you will see my comments with links to the stats graphs. You will also see me credited in the referenced report.

[@zs1dfr]

Perhaps the fact that Godfrey isn't a ham makes his physics analysis more credible...

[@zs1dfr]

I believe the receiving station was not in daylight during the reception of the signals. However, if the source signal circumnavigated the globe many times before being received by the WSPR receiver, then further attenuation and error in the measurements increases.

[@zs1dfr]

I think that the sending station at the time was close to, or in, the greyline area.

[@zazugee]

so it's kinda like someone saying they saw the titanic from the light ring reflected from a distant blackhole

[@samlevine4863]

Dave, this is great. I wish you had commented upon the INMARSAT data too. Did they do something similar? I'm going to guess that it was way more accurate since the satellite guys know the position of their satellite and the signals they used were either from the plane or sent to the plane and then sent back? Why would wspr work better? I agree with you, it seems pretty far fetched KE0WXN

[@craigpacker2693]

it would be brilliant to see the info on the INMARSAT info, seeing as though they thought they were being hoaxed, themselves.

[@kultbotcustomshop3849]

How does one get into amateur radio / ham?

[@musketballs6129]

Depends where you are. In the US contact the ARRL In Australia the WIA. Or in any country the representative organisation in that country. Or even better if you know a ham, go and knock on the door and introduce yourself. Tell him or her that you are interested in ham radio and away you go. Good luck.

[@kultbotcustomshop3849]

@Peter H there's a guy in my neighborhood with a big antenna on the back of his car I wonder if he's a ham.

[@JosephLorentzen]

@@kultbotcustomshop3849 Possible, but he might be a CBer. 2 meter ham radio antennas are about 19.5 inches or 1/2 a meter in length. CB half wave antenna is about 108 inches long or 2.75 meters in length. Often hams using an antenna tuner can use an old CB antenna for 40, 20, and 10 meters. You might want to ask him.

[@musketballs6129]

Could be. Go and ask him if that is ham radio antenna. By showing an interest, you have already taken the first step to becoming an amateur radio operator.

[@aditsu]

So what about the 31 Aug 2023 report by Richard Godfrey, Dr. Hannes Coetzee (ZS6BZP) and Prof. Simon Maskell ?

[@davecasler]

You would need timing information sufficient to do phase analysis. Wsprs data Doesn’t do that.

[@aditsu]

@@davecasler I'm not asking a hypothetical question, I'm asking about a specific document that was published and anyone can read and review. It explains the methodology and contains plenty of graphics and data.

[@davecasler]

@@aditsu Please email me the link at [e-mail].

[@aditsu]

@@davecasler sent, thanks for your consideration 🙂

[@lon3don]

So what is Richard Godfrey's callsign?

[@MopedWanderlust]

300.000.000 m/s 300.000 km/s

[@richardheinz]

It's amazing that someone is going to spend $$$ on another search based on this theory. Or maybe not.

[@shrikanttelang6989]

Grt info....

[@yjohnson8299]

KA_Amelia Earharts disappearance was political. She was an embarrassment at the time and deliberately lost. Evidence shows her plane in tow by boat and her incarceration. The plane was found in 1945, test flown, then buried. _AR

[@MikePhillips-pl6ov]

"WSPR is not designed to track aircraft" "I don't care what it was designed to do, I care what it can do!" Ed Harris as Gene Kranz in Apollo 13. Not saying I think WSPR 'found' MH370! Just saying though, things don't have to be incapable of a task just because they were designed to do something else.

[@davecasler]

Yes, agreed. 73 from Dave

[@DonzLockz]

I don't know as alot of it went over my head. :) Either way, I hope they find the plane soon but I think there are no longer active searches anymore. :(

[@dennissalisbury496]

What was the motive to disappear MH370?

[@Mike-bs5pi]

Are you saying it's propagation propaganda? 🤔😁

[@user-hy6cd4ik6k]

Just find that f aircraft

[@RB9522]

Nice job at debunking this theory.

[@eddy2561]

What's next Dave, you're going to tell us the Earth isn't flat after all!! ;)

[@paulloveless4122]

I love that you have OG in your call lol. -paul KC8SGJ

[@rohnkd4hct260]

I do not believe it. When I first read this theory, I said it does not make sense. I guess this guy wanted his name in the press.

[@CptThisGuy]

Kids cant believe it aint your problem

[@drrafick]

Some points to consider (A). 32 pieces of an aircraft were found all over the Indian Ocean but NOTHING POINTS IT TO MH370 (B) If the aircraft hit the ocean surface either by gliding or slamming bluntly, one would find thousands of aircraft pieces. Water bottles, seats, trays and many other floaters. However, this was not found (C) Assuming some "experts" claims that the aircraft landed in toto on the turbulent seas of the Indian Ocean and sank to the bottom then the aircraft would have been crushed by the pressure and floating materials can be found on some islands. Unfortunately, no specific floaters with MH370 DNA have been found (D) What would have been the 32 debris found? They were thrown into the sea by certain agencies that want the public to believe that the aircraft's final point is in the Indian Ocean Based on the above, I think the theory highlighted is highly unlikely

[@mikaelstrom1114]

If you consider the total length of coastline where potential debris is to be expected versus the number of buoyant parts which is in fact identifiable, i.e. with visual attributes that would encourage the finder to report the find, chances of discovery is virtually zero.

[@drrafick]

@@mikaelstrom1114 I wonder what happened to the Malaysian Airlines water bottles

[@mikaelstrom1114]

@@drrafick do the math, and you'll understand the probability of any of those bottles being discovered, associated with MH370, and reported to investigators. It just wont happen.

[@sanityassassin8161]

KB2UFS!

[@andreiivanov3825]

And what is needed in order to blow up a Malaysian Boeing 777-200ER and simulate external effects on the cockpit from allegedly objects with high kinetic energy, due to thermochemical effects and subsequent mass falsifications carried out by pre-trained Dutch falsifiers from whose airport flight MH17 took off? It is necessary to steal the same Boeing, the same model, airline and country and work it all out on it beforehand! And the first one will also be a bonus, because the Malaysians will be busy searching for it.

[@criscross6591]

👍👍

[@leos9865]

Bitchin Dave. You're the best.

[@lyfandeth]

Dave, you really have to get down your ITU phoenetics. A / is properly called simply a slash. Or a vergule, if your are a type setter. A backslash just won't found on most noncomputer keyboards! Now, for a fast quiz, go watch five "slasher" movies and list the ones that got it backwards. 😁

[@tomthumb2057]

LOL you're wrong

[@ocjon1965]

exactly . .he is full of crap .. . Rich Godfrey in no pseudo scientist , he in fact took on 4 other similar flights . . and got all 4 perfect . . .this guy is full of crap, and he left that FACT out . . .

[@geoff37s38]

WSPR is a propagation and antenna testing system used by Amateur Radio operators. I have been a licensed Amateur Radio Operator for over 40 years with G and VK licenses (England and Australia). This is pure fantasy. It is impossible to track an aircraft hundreds or thousands of Kilometres away by analysing HF WSPR transmissionf. Godfrey is an attention seeking crackpot.

[@andrewobrien9467]

Based on nonsense

[@jrjr1273]

Rich Godfrey in no pseudo scientist. He is an aerospace engineer and physicist.....

[@STEVENPALLETT]

Hi

[@jameswells1743]

He zig zagged everywhere before landing .. I doubt he went in straight line

[@tommybewick]

They're on an island called, "Lost"

[@hadobas6814]

Today, I finally managed to get the Raspberry Pi 4 to communicate over RealVNC with my iPad and the Icom IC-7300. The most difficult issue was getting the RealVNC to provide a desktop image to the iPad. Most of the instructional KZbin videos and other instructional webpages assume that their audiences are reasonably well-versed in Linux. I know virtually NOTHING about Linux.

[@elhindibetoune3769]

MH370 reappear this year 2022. it turns out that under a huge iceberg at bottom océan indien ... 6000m deep.

[@stephenjones9153]

Sorry but this is absolutely impossible to us WSPR to track a plane. The crackpot who reported this to the Australian news channel must be some sort of attention seeker. I am a Radio Amateur and also an ex Electronics and Telecommunications technician who has also worked in Aerospace. I have also used WSPR on many occasions. All WSPR does is transmit a signal contained the details of your station, Callsign Locator and power level. It does not update your position on the fly. The only location it sends is what you have set your QTH too. If I was to install my WSPR Transmitter and Receivier into my car and drive down the road, the receiver's around the world would only see my home QTH location. Unless I reset my location in the software program and then you would see my location as the new coordinate. It doesn't update on the fly. If I set my QTH as the middle of the ocean then all the WSPR receiver's around the world would see me as being in the middle of the ocean. Jesus I just don't believe how some people can be so taken in by FALSE NEWS REPORTING, Australia news want closing down. No disrespect to Australians or anyone else. Sorry Rant over.

[@malalexander3515]

An excellent treatise on the subject. I was immediately dismissive on this Whisper proposition when it came out. Mal VK2YVA