Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!ginosko!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Signals
Message-ID: <10186@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 13 Oct 89 02:40:02 GMT
References: <9869@cbnews.ATT.COM> <10104@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: JHU-Applied Physics Laboratory
Lines: 26
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt)
From: dep@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh)
}In article <10104@cbnews.ATT.COM> jwm@stda.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) writes:
}>The Navy (NATO, anyway) uses signal flags for tactical signals. ...
}>It is the ONLY way at sea under radio silence - messengers don't swim
}>that fast.    :-)
}>[mod.note:  Surely we haven't forgotten how to use signal beacons ? -
}>Bill ]
}
}Or how about a low-power laser? If the entire "footprint" of the laser falls
}within the target (which should be easy enough to do: use a laser with a
}small divergence and adjust the aim whenever it drifts too near the edge
}of the target), the signal should be undetectable.

What's wrong with signal lights?  Every ship has them, every ship uses them.
They are easy to detect for the receiver (like, you SEE them).  
They are directional, they are relatively fool proof (lightbulbs are
easy to replace).  They are good to the horizon.

-- 
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how
 hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."             - Calvin 
.............................................................................
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu,jwm@aplvax.uucp,meritt%aplvm.BITNET,jwm@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu