Srt Marine Systems Share Discussion Threads

[lavalmy] 25/4/2020 04:47

And a few other reasons besides, boats avoiding other boats being the original one.

The two frequencies used by AIS (globally agreed, as each country has the right to decide what 'its' airwaves are used for) have to be divided into a limited number of slots to enable a limited number of boats to send AIS messages without the messages colliding with each other - and that is only the Class A devices. The more polite Class B (in general) listen to the traffic and broadcast on the slot they think is the most quiet, as that boat is likely to be furthest away.

This is a beginner's guide to slots:



Satellites, the LEO types having a large footprint of some 5,000 kilometers, have even more problems as they receive signals from many organised groupings of AIS signals rendering them unorganised and undeciferable. That too is part of AIS for beginners. And is something that SRT has spent an enormous amount of time and effort in solving.

As they have with self-organising AIS signals for fishing fleets, as well as using the AIS frequencies for messages not originally allowed for by the IMO, such as catch reports etc. All encrypted, of course, that too not originally conceived by the IMO, who had the bright idea that ships could turn their AIS off if they didn't want their signals to be put them in danger - which SRT's devices in fishing boat monitoring can't be without broadcasting that fact.

So you see, it is a sophisticated system. Having raw data transmission capacity changes nothing except the price of raw data transmission. SRT decided wisely not to get into that market, so will benefit from all these new satellites.

[alter ego] 24/4/2020 23:06

I don’t see how satellites specifically designed to receive and redistribute internet signals across the globe would “replace AIS”.
Both employ radio waves but AIS signals come from vessels fitted with transmitters designed to identify the source and location of the signal. Internet transmissions come from computer systems.
The aim of Starlink is to make money from the vast amount of internet traffic. AIS signals are miniscule in volume in comparison so I do not see any incentive to completely redesign how the world tracks its shipping simply because there are lots of new satellites.

[pinkfoot2] 24/4/2020 17:15

Question for CM/Lav-these satellites that Elon is launching and worth a watch on YouTube.Do you think they will replace AIS given there are hundreds being launched so much bigger coverage?

[lavalmy] 24/4/2020 09:59

The Philippines have extended their lockdown for another two weeks until 15th May, but have relaxed it in certain parts previously covered, with others possibly to be relaxed before the 15th. Given very limited testing, I am not sure quite how they base their analysis, but there you have it.

Vietnam eased restrictions yesterday with no recorded fatalities, it would seem. This is how they did it:



It would be great if Vietnam was the one that has put out a tender, but I doubt it.

[yumyum] 23/4/2020 09:36

ah...ok....I stand corrected. Anyway I think this was a great raising of finance.

[lavalmy] 23/4/2020 09:34

Still not with you, YumYum.

The £2.8 million includes the £1 million loan note issue (and £1.5 mn of equity plus the £300k overnight issue).

[yumyum] 23/4/2020 09:29

see above. I edited it to include the RNS.

[lavalmy] 23/4/2020 09:28

They said they did, YUMYUM, so they must have done.

I am still very surprised that they managed to.

[yumyum] 23/4/2020 09:27

I am not sure if they did actually issue £1m under senior loan notes. Hopefully not.

SRT, the global provider of maritime surveillance, vessel tracking, monitoring, management and safety systems, is pleased to announce that it has completed its COVID-19 resilience financing, raising a total of GBP5.3 million of cash in a combination of loans and equity.

On 7 April 2020, the Company announced that it had raised an aggregate of GBP2.8 million from investors. We can now announce that the Company has agreed an additional GBP2.5 million loan facility provided by its main bank, bringing the total raised to GBP5.3 million.

The bank loan is being provided with the support of the UK government Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CBILS) and as such is interest and fee free and repayable in one year.

Commenting, Simon Tucker, CEO of SRT said:

"Considering the unknown timeframe of Covid-19 business restrictions, we moved quickly to secure our business for the future through a combination of cost minimisation and additional cash financing. With the confirmation of this GBP2.5 million bank loan, in the last few weeks we have secured a total of GBP5.3 million of additional cash. This financing enables SRT to continue to operate and service existing and prospective customers during the current situation and be in an optimal position to move forward with new system contracts once business conditions normalise."

[alter ego] 23/4/2020 09:22

The original IC article was published to online subscribers last Thursday. It should be in the print edition tomorrow. It was subsequently edited to include the news of the Govt loan scheme as seen in this section.

"The company raised £1.8m through a placing and retail offer which was backed by chief executive Simon Tucker who purchased £100,000 of shares. In addition, SRT raised £1m by issuing senior loan notes under an existing £10m facility, and a £2.5m low cost loan facility with its main bankers under the government’s Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme."

[pinkfoot2] 23/4/2020 09:03

I thought the virus loan had already been announced?

[countryman5] 23/4/2020 08:59

I understand that Simon Thompson did an online update in the Investors Chronicle last week. He often follows his online news with the paper edition. The paper edition (fridays) could now confirm the gov. interest free loan.

[hjb1] 22/4/2020 22:42

exactly right, hence knocked it off.

[2vdm] 22/4/2020 22:35

Thought this was the SRT thread not NHS?

[hjb1] 22/4/2020 21:21

edit; decided it was a rather petty altercation so deleted.

[supernumerary] 22/4/2020 21:00

Does it? I can't see that. Any pointer/link?

Yes, I'm a Times man I'm afraid - been a crossword addict for a good while now. Claiming I'm 'stuck up' says more about you than it does about me. As for Government figures - I act on the best information I can get at the time but, like Richard Feynman when asked what he believed in - "I believe in doubt".

Incidentally , it's polite to mark edits to your posts unless they're for purely typographical corrections.

Meanwhile, the graph at the start of the ONS link clearly shows deaths - 3,204 in the age cohort ≤74, and 7,146 (ie about twice as many) in the top cohort (split about 50:50 between 75-84 and 85+). I'm not sure what proportion of the population falls in the 75+ group, but I do think they have a lot more cause for concern than say the 59-year olds.

This link also shows worldwide Case Fatality Rate (CFR) by age cohort:



Again, that's not normalised by the proportion in the population of these age groups; I'm fairly confident however that the 70+ group (for example) is a relatively small proportion of the total and hence again suffering highly disproportionately.

This is the best analysis I can find of the incidence and fatality rate of C-19 victims:



Demographic science aids in understanding the spread and fatality rates of COVID-19

It's particularly interesting in showing how much social factors have affected the spread of the disease.

LV - the quote below is from today's Times: sorry I can't post a link - it's behind a paywall - but again it shows that there are probably a lot of young people who've had C-19 and simply shrugged it off. The evidence is mounting that it's more prevalent than has been allowed for in most of the epidemiological models currently guiding policy:

"Coronavirus in Scotland: spread was wider than predicted, research suggests

The coronavirus had spread more widely in Scotland before lockdown than government experts predicted, research suggests.

The Scottish government estimated that 50,000 people — nearly one in 100 Scots — had been infected when lockdown was imposed on March 23.

An analysis of Scottish blood samples taken between March 21-23 indicates that one in 100 Scots were infected by March 1, three weeks ahead of government projections.

Scotland should have had about 500 Covid-19 deaths by April 12, under government projections that the virus kills one in 100 within three weeks, but there were 962 confirmed deaths that day.

Either the virus is twice as deadly as feared or it was much more widespread before lockdown was imposed.

Scientists at Oxford University detected an immune response in six out of 500 blood samples. No antibodies were found in a sample taken the previous week.

Four positive samples were found in Edinburgh, one in Grampian and one in the Ayrshire and Arran, from donors aged between 20 and 60.

This may indicate that Covid-19 was spreading widely in Scotland in early March, because it takes three weeks to generate enough detectable antibodies.

The scientists cautioned against extrapolating the study to the wider population. If it were representative of the Scottish population this would mean that 65,000 were infected by March 1. The first death from the virus was confirmed on March 13. This had risen to 12 on the eve of lockdown.

Derek Gatherer, a Scottish virologist who lectures at Lancaster University, said the study was “potentially a very important finding, not just for Scotland, but everywhere” because it pointed to a mortality rate “substantially less than 1 per cent”. He warned that his interpretation could be “wildly off” because antibody tests were prone to false positives.

The Scottish study, which has yet to be peer-reviewed, states that blood donors “might be considered a reasonable representation of the adult population for Covid-19 and other respiratory viruses”. The head of the Netherlands’ National Institute for Health referred last Thursday to an unpublished study of Dutch blood donors which showed that about 3 per cent had developed antibodies, amounting to “several hundred thousand people” in a country of 17 million. At the time 28,158 cases had been confirmed.

Some experts have cast doubt on the efficacy of immunity tests but the Oxford scientists said their antibody test was “likely to be robust” and that it was based on the same design as antibody tests for Sars, ebola and influenza A.


[...]"

[supernumerary] 22/4/2020 19:26

hjb - I don't believe your numbers. Do you have links? Worth looking at the ONS figures for instance:



I hope that's not 'experts' from the Daily Mail you're quoting!

[supernumerary] 22/4/2020 18:09

I don't suppose old people in our care homes are or feel any safer :( Let's hope there's enough economy left to pay the survivors' pensions and care fees - there but for the grace of God...

[owenski] 22/4/2020 17:38

'The Swedish experiment'... They'll end up with some sort of economy still and fewer old people probably. ;-)

[hjb1] 22/4/2020 17:36

The Swedish 'experiment' might still blow up in his face.Only time will tell I guess. But I do think he's got massive cojones especially when everyone else is doing it differently.

[alter ego] 22/4/2020 17:31

supernumerary, from my understanding the negative oil price was temporary and occurred only when traders who had ordered oil to sell on found they had no market for it. Since they didn't have storage to accommodate it, they were forced to "give it away" so to speak by paying someone to take it off their hands. I doubt the oil producers experienced a negative price albeit they are not getting much for it at the moment.

[supernumerary] 22/4/2020 16:31

While we're on the subject :)

These are good links on the usefulness of lockdown:



And a similar analysis done by a Brit statistician:



[ his more detailed (and long-winded) utube vid of the same analysis: ]

LV - I wonder what the Saudis are making of negative oil prices? A Pyrrhic victory presumably?

[lavalmy] 22/4/2020 15:54

hjb1

If it had been passing around unchecked for a month before it was noticed, then it must be more or less harmless or illnesses and deaths caused by it were mis-diagnosed. The other thesis would be that it is difficult to transmit, the cases of it being so few in that month that they went unnoticed, which is not a position which I have seen supported by anyone.

There certainly are a number of inconsistencies that have yet to be explained.