Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Go Down

Author Topic: Betty and Bob  (Read 89205 times)

Bill de Creeft

  • TIGHAR member
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #105 on: April 18, 2013, 02:38:16 PM »

I must be getting old and soft...but you guys made me feel good !!

(isn't this whole deal really neat !?!)

Thank you.
Bill
www 'dot' alaskaseaplanes 'dot' com
Bill de Creeft

Tighar Member #4131
 
Logged

Tom Harnish

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • tailspinstales.blogspot.com
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #106 on: April 18, 2013, 04:21:20 PM »

Bill, share the story about your Otter (on wheels) sliding off an icy beach into the water. If there was ever any account that would prove that a few waves won't destroy an engine that's the one. In fact, the image I have is rather like Amelia's situation (without the ice, of course).

I'm a flyer, too, a mere fledgling compared to Bill with his 30,000+ hours whom, I'm proud to say, was the pilot/parson at my wedding. My wife and I operated a Beechcraft C-45 for almost 10 years, a bird easily mistaken for AE's Lockheed.

The Beechcraft Model 18 was designed by Ted Wells and the Lockheed 10 by Hall Hibbard, and there are those that say they look, not very but suspiciously, similar. But I digress.

The C-45 had the same R-985s, though not as powerful as AE's, and virtually identical electrical system. All of which is to say that I vote that Bill knows what he's talking about (as if there was any doubt) when he says you had to get the engines up to about 1500RPM before the system would start to charge the batteries. There seems to be a lot of confusion about that point, so perhaps Bill's account will lay that issue to rest.

They say the way you sculpt an elephant is to get a big block of granite, and chip off everything that doesn't look like an elephant. Seems to me finding Amelia and Fred should be the same process. Only problem is some folks keep slapping goop back on the sculpture, often in the wrong place and for the wrong reasons, so it makes it hard to see exactly what the thing looks like.

It'd be interesting to see a curated collection of information, a database, of everything that has been collected, and (like intelligence data) rate it by reliability of the source and how critical the information is. Then you can start chipping off stuff, perhaps even with the help of smart statistical analysis, that doesn't look like Amelia's final resting place.

To close, a short story about Noonan. Over the years I've owned and operated several Travel Air biplanes. I found the first at Van Sant Airport north of Philly, a place run by a likable old timer by the name of Bill Smella. He told me about flying as a passenger with Noonan in a gutless 90hp OX-5 powered Travel Air on a hot day. Those of you who fly can probably guess the rest of the story. Yup, they put it in some trees at the end of a runway in New Jersey, and Billy assured me it wasn't the plane's fault. Seems Fred was flying high already...a typical state of affairs, Smella assured me.

I'm not saying all those details are accurate, but is fun to know that I'm only "2 degrees of freedom" away from our adventurous heroes.

Tom
—o0o—
tailspinstales.blogspot.com
 
« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 07:05:52 PM by Tom Harnish »
Logged

Al Leonard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #107 on: April 18, 2013, 08:03:10 PM »

The whole hour probabilities are displayed. For example, the numbers for 2130-2230 are the numbers for the hour spanning 30 minutes on each side of 2200. For 2030 GMT use the "2100-2130" numbers.

Oh, I see--I thought Bob's 1-hour probabilities were centered at 30 minutes into the hour. Hence my difficulty understanding how portions of two 1-hour intervals were combined.

Ok, one more question, since it came up a couple of time in this thread: What reason, if any, is there to believe that Betty's Notebook was recorded on July 5 rather than, say, July 7 or July 8?
« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 08:05:46 PM by Al Leonard »
Logged

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 647
  • Now where did I put my glasses?
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #108 on: April 18, 2013, 08:48:13 PM »

Ok, one more question, since it came up a couple of time in this thread: What reason, if any, is there to believe that Betty's Notebook was recorded on July 5 rather than, say, July 7 or July 8?

I think that question is superbly answered on page 174 of Finding Amelia. The entire book is one you won't be able to put down until you have read it cover to cover ... and then start reading again from the beginning. Happy reading!
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
Logged

Al Leonard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #109 on: April 18, 2013, 09:31:00 PM »

Ok, one more question, since it came up a couple of time in this thread: What reason, if any, is there to believe that Betty's Notebook was recorded on July 5 rather than, say, July 7 or July 8?

I think that question is superbly answered on page 174 of Finding Amelia. The entire book is one you won't be able to put down until you have read it cover to cover ... and then start reading again from the beginning. Happy reading!

Thanks Bruce,

I happen to have Finding Amelia, although I haven't had a chance to read it yet. I have an 800 page biography of Thelonius Monk to get through first. And I'm a slow reader.

I'll assume you're referring to this on page 174 of the paperback edition:

"Although Betty did not write down the date, the events described in her notebook dovetail with the Itasca radio log on the morning of Monday July 5..." etc.

I went to the post-loss catalog to check this and sure enough I see message #141 received by the Itasca at 2130Z and message numbers 143 and 144 at 2135 and 2152Z, respectively. Betty's reception is nestled among these at #142 in the catalog.

But now I have yet two more questions:

1) I don't see probabilities associated with these three Itasca receptions;

2) The Itasca reports these receptions as having been heard at 3105 Khz; the catalog entry for Betty's reception says she was listening on "24840 kHz (the 4th harmonic of Earhart’s day frequency – 6210 kHz)."  If we believe the Itasca receptions were from Earhart, then doesn't that mean Betty would have had to be listening on the 8th harmonic, not the 4th? What would the probability of that be?

-Alf


« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 09:57:25 PM by Al Leonard »
Logged

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 647
  • Now where did I put my glasses?
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #110 on: April 18, 2013, 10:17:44 PM »

But now I have yet two more questions:

1) I don't see probabilities associated with these three Itasca receptions;
The messages you cite from the signals report (#141, #143, and #144) are instances of Itasca transmitting, so that the reception probability is not applicable; hence those entries are listed as "n/a".  Compare that to entries when Itasca logged having heard something, such as #50 or #52.

2) The Itasca reports these receptions as having been heard at 3105 Khz; the catalog entry for Betty's reception says she was listening on "24840 kHz (the 4th harmonic of Earhart’s day frequency – 6210 kHz)." But the Itasca was listening on 3105 kHz. So, if we believe the Itasca receptions were from Earhart, then doesn't that mean Betty would have had to be listening on the 8th harmonic, not the 4th? What would the probability of that be?
That's an interesting question. I'm not sure what frequency Itasca was listening on at that time; could you cite where it's stated one way or another? I cannot find an entry in the signals catalog that compares to the passage you quoted from page 174 of Finding Amelia ("dovetail with the Itasca radio log on the morning of Monday July 5...") which, frankly, puzzles me a lot.
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
Logged

Al Leonard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #111 on: April 18, 2013, 10:31:56 PM »

But now I have yet two more questions:

1) I don't see probabilities associated with these three Itasca receptions;
The messages you cite from the signals report (#141, #143, and #144) are instances of Itasca transmitting, so that the reception probability is not applicable; hence those entries are listed as "n/a".  Compare that to entries when Itasca logged having heard something, such as #50 or #52.

2) The Itasca reports these receptions as having been heard at 3105 Khz; the catalog entry for Betty's reception says she was listening on "24840 kHz (the 4th harmonic of Earhart’s day frequency – 6210 kHz)." But the Itasca was listening on 3105 kHz. So, if we believe the Itasca receptions were from Earhart, then doesn't that mean Betty would have had to be listening on the 8th harmonic, not the 4th? What would the probability of that be?
That's an interesting question. I'm not sure what frequency Itasca was listening on at that time; could you cite where it's stated one way or another? I cannot find an entry in the signals catalog that compares to the passage you quoted from page 174 of Finding Amelia ("dovetail with the Itasca radio log on the morning of Monday July 5...") which, frankly, puzzles me a lot.

Bruce, I was trying to figure out which receptions you were referring to when you cited Finding Amelia, page 174 and thought you were referring to #141, 142, and 143. Thanks for clarifying that.

Quite frankly, I don't know what on page 174 you were referring to. Perhaps you could spell it out for all of us, or at least for me ???

........
note added: OK, re-reading your post Bruce, it looks to me that you too thought there was a credible Itasca reception in the catalog, based on page 174.

additional note/question: Does it make sense for Itasca to be transmitting on 3105 (as per catalog entries 141, 143, 144) and Earhart/Noonan to be transmitting on 6210? How would this work--would  Earhart/Noonan listen on 3105 but transmit on 6210 ? Now I'm getting more confused...
« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 11:13:17 PM by Al Leonard »
Logged

Adam Marsland

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #112 on: April 19, 2013, 12:10:03 AM »


2) The Itasca reports these receptions as having been heard at 3105 Khz; the catalog entry for Betty's reception says she was listening on "24840 kHz (the 4th harmonic of Earhart’s day frequency – 6210 kHz)."  If we believe the Itasca receptions were from Earhart, then doesn't that mean Betty would have had to be listening on the 8th harmonic, not the 4th? What would the probability of that be?

-Alf

No, I don't think so.  I'm not a radio expert, but I'm pretty certain each harmonic is a double of the prior one, and not a multiple of the first.  So it would be 3105, 6210, 12420, 24840.  So, the 4th, and not the 8th harmonic.  Although come to think of it that would be the 3rd harmonic.  So I guess someone else can chime in and explain that part.
Logged

Al Leonard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #113 on: April 19, 2013, 05:59:25 AM »


2) The Itasca reports these receptions as having been heard at 3105 Khz; the catalog entry for Betty's reception says she was listening on "24840 kHz (the 4th harmonic of Earhart’s day frequency – 6210 kHz)."  If we believe the Itasca receptions were from Earhart, then doesn't that mean Betty would have had to be listening on the 8th harmonic, not the 4th? What would the probability of that be?

-Alf

No, I don't think so.  I'm not a radio expert, but I'm pretty certain each harmonic is a double of the prior one, and not a multiple of the first.  So it would be 3105, 6210, 12420, 24840.  So, the 4th, and not the 8th harmonic.  Although come to think of it that would be the 3rd harmonic.  So I guess someone else can chime in and explain that part.

Adam,

24840 is the 8th harmonic of 3105. A harmonic of a wave is a frequency of the signal that is an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency, i.e. if the fundamental frequency is f, the harmonics have frequencies 2f, 3f, 4f, . . . etc.
Read this Wikipedia article, for instance.

-Alf
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5497
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #114 on: April 19, 2013, 01:08:42 PM »

additional note/question: Does it make sense for Itasca to be transmitting on 3105 (as per catalog entries 141, 143, 144) and Earhart/Noonan to be transmitting on 6210?

Sure.  Why not?

How would this work--would  Earhart/Noonan listen on 3105 but transmit on 6210 ? Now I'm getting more confused...

That's certainly possible.  She could have the 6210 crystal selected on her transmitter and tune her receiver to 3105.


Logged

Al Leonard

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #115 on: April 19, 2013, 09:39:39 PM »

2) The Itasca reports these receptions as having been heard at 3105 Khz; the catalog entry for Betty's reception says she was listening on "24840 kHz (the 4th harmonic of Earhart’s day frequency – 6210 kHz)." But the Itasca was listening on 3105 kHz. So, if we believe the Itasca receptions were from Earhart, then doesn't that mean Betty would have had to be listening on the 8th harmonic, not the 4th? What would the probability of that be?

That's an interesting question. I'm not sure what frequency Itasca was listening on at that time; could you cite where it's stated one way or another? I cannot find an entry in the signals catalog that compares to the passage you quoted from page 174 of Finding Amelia ("dovetail with the Itasca radio log on the morning of Monday July 5...") which, frankly, puzzles me a lot.

Bruce,

I’m still puzzled, too. I think ‘Itasca Radio Log, Position 2, Smoothed’ contains the source material for the quote I took from page 174 of Ric’s book ("Although Betty did not write down the date, the events described in her notebook dovetail with the Itasca radio log on the morning of Monday July 5...").

In the Position 2 Log, I can find post-Loss Radio Signal Catalog entry #141 (Itasca transmission at 10:00AM local time), as well as #143 and #144 (Itasca 10:05AM and 10:22AM transmissions); see the attachment.

The only signals that Itasca received around this time are a 9:57 AM reception on 3105 kHz and a ‘very faint signal’ on 3105 kHz at 1152 AM; an entry at 1125 AM in the log says ‘No signals on 3105 or near’. Itasca received these two signals on 3105 kHz, so if they were from the Electra, then Earhart was transmitting on 3105 kHz and that would mean Betty would have been listening on the 8th harmonic. But chances of a reception on the 8th harmonic of 3105 are nil, aren’t they, because ‘transmitter output on such a high harmonic is nil’, according to the Background section of the Post-Loss Radio Signal Catalog.

Besides the unlikelihood of Betty hearing 8th harmonic transmissions, the information recorded by the Itasca radio log don’t strike me as providing very strong validation of a July 5 reception, anyway. The 11:52 reception is described as ‘very faint’, and in neither the 11:52 or the 9:57 receptions was anything reported that would indicate an intelligible message.

« Last Edit: April 19, 2013, 09:43:09 PM by Al Leonard »
Logged

Bruce Thomas

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 647
  • Now where did I put my glasses?
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #116 on: April 20, 2013, 08:11:44 AM »

Al, thanks for hauling out the Itasca radio logs and checking them for those times. The thought had occurred to me to do that, too, but I got sidetracked with all that television news out of Boston. It appears to me what you've found may indicate a need to update the signals catalog to explicitly account for those weak receptions by Itasca that are mentioned in Finding Amelia.

The ways of electromagnetic propagation are an enduring mystery to me.  I ask myself, "To what extent would a long-wire transmitting antenna's orientation favor a signal being heard in Florida, thousands of miles away on the eighth harmonic, while virtually masking its reception by a receiver mere hundreds of miles away (but positioned essentially 90 degrees away from the Great Circle path to Florida)?" That's why the probability figures in the signals catalog don't hold as much sway with me. In my mind's eye, I imagine the Electra being swung about by the tides, and the last outgoing tide the morning of July 5 at Niku dragging the tail of the plane around so that the ventral transmitting antenna is oriented in a direction that favors the Florida path. (Cue the theme to The Twilight Zone.)
LTM,

Bruce
TIGHAR #3123R
 
Logged

Adam Marsland

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 88
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #117 on: April 20, 2013, 02:58:07 PM »


2) The Itasca reports these receptions as having been heard at 3105 Khz; the catalog entry for Betty's reception says she was listening on "24840 kHz (the 4th harmonic of Earhart’s day frequency – 6210 kHz)."  If we believe the Itasca receptions were from Earhart, then doesn't that mean Betty would have had to be listening on the 8th harmonic, not the 4th? What would the probability of that be?

-Alf

No, I don't think so.  I'm not a radio expert, but I'm pretty certain each harmonic is a double of the prior one, and not a multiple of the first.  So it would be 3105, 6210, 12420, 24840.  So, the 4th, and not the 8th harmonic.  Although come to think of it that would be the 3rd harmonic.  So I guess someone else can chime in and explain that part.

Adam,

24840 is the 8th harmonic of 3105. A harmonic of a wave is a frequency of the signal that is an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency, i.e. if the fundamental frequency is f, the harmonics have frequencies 2f, 3f, 4f, . . . etc.
Read this Wikipedia article, for instance.

-Alf

The wiki article only refers to harmonics in music, but I accept that the fundamental principle ought to logically be the same.  So I should have kept my mouth shut on this one...particularly since I'm a musician.  :)

When you're wrong, you're wrong...
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 5497
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: Betty and Bob
« Reply #118 on: April 22, 2013, 10:21:21 AM »

To close, a short story about Noonan. Over the years I've owned and operated several Travel Air biplanes. I found the first at Van Sant Airport north of Philly, a place run by a likable old timer by the name of Bill Smella. He told me about flying as a passenger with Noonan in a gutless 90hp OX-5 powered Travel Air on a hot day. Those of you who fly can probably guess the rest of the story. Yup, they put it in some trees at the end of a runway in New Jersey, and Billy assured me it wasn't the plane's fault. Seems Fred was flying high already...a typical state of affairs, Smella assured me.

I'm not saying all those details are accurate, but is fun to know that I'm only "2 degrees of freedom" away from our adventurous heroes.

I know Van Sant airport well.  Used to fly a Stearman out of there in the 1970s.  Bill Smella must have been there before that.  Noonan got a commercial pilot's license in 1930 but he was living in New Orleans at the time. Then he went to work for Pan Am in Haiti. Can't imagine why he'd be flying in New Jersey but it's possible. What seems less likely is that he would be flying drunk.  Noonan does not seem to have had a drinking problem prior to about 1936 and the pressure of maintaining Pan Am's killer schedule of trans-Pacific Clipper flights.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Go Up
 

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP