Quantum Physicists Found a New, Safer Way to Navigate
wired.com
wired.com
I'm guessing that once these are put in production, they will be about 1 order of magnitude better, which is still a significant improvement, but not a "quantum leap" so to speak.
Also, an electronic/physical device that "doesn't drift over time" is a device that hasn't been tested for long enough.
I wonder how much those anomalies change over time and how updates would get rolled out without breaking that "unhackable" aspect of it
The "fine detail" magnetic field changes throughout the day (like the tide) and the underlying pattern itself shifts such that a new "map" is issued every five years which is actually a spherical harmonic equation with a depth of 24 (IIRC) terms at least.
(Addendum: degree 12, my bad .. (or degree 790 if you're aiming a missile)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Magnetic_Model or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Geomagnetic_Refe...
choose your model adventure, these are 'coarse' global models with five year epochs, see also:
The Enhanced Magnetic Model (EMM) is a sister product of the NGDC featuring a much higher amount of data to degree and order 790, giving a wavelength of 51 km as opposed to the 3000 km of WMM.
)Ideally you also want nine sensors, one for each XYZ axis at three spread out vehicle locations: typically tail + each wing tip on an aircraft to get that mag flux differential across the craft.
It also helps to have ground base station that can record the diurnal flux (daily changes as the earth turns) from a fixed position to subtract from the nine readings on a moving vehicle.
Oh, yeah, heading also plays a role, so you need a Kalman filter formed from a butterfly wing motion pattern in order to subtract the field induced on a the craft by motion that varies with heading.
It's fun stuff.
The subtle parts of the magnetic field of the Earth shift a lot related to the movement of metal through the mantle. NOAA and the DoD periodically create new maps of the magnetic field, but they have a lot of error and noise.
But, a measurement of absolute position is a fundamentally different thing from trying to figure out a position by integrating from an IMU, right? The latter inevitably accumulates errors. The former should not accumulate error. The measurements might be extremely noisy, but noisy and error accumulating are different from a signal processing point of view.
Magnetometers have been used in IMUs for over 50 years. Their shortcomings have little to do with the precision of the instrument.
>Quantum Jump
>Redirected from Quantum leap (physics))
By identifying various kinks (anomalies) in the direction and magnitude of the magnetic field it is possible to identify exact points on the map.
Therefore there is no drift as long as you are not far away from the last identified point.
The only downside is that the magnetic maps need to be brought up-to-date from time to time, due to slow changes in Earth's magnetic field, and only few countries have the resources to keep such magnetic maps up-to-date.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41188347 and realise that the EMM "high res" map has a wavelength of 50+km .. compare that to, say, old school LORAN positioning accuracy.
Also .. the "coarse" map models (linked in comment) are good for five years, the enhanced models less so .. and there's those other factors.
It's also a wee bit trickier than you might think to (say) fly a route and identify your location only from DTM contour path directly under craft. (Subsitute mag vectors for DTM values)
It's more like old school missile plotting via DTM's where a preprogrammed "follow this" path is generated to facilitate optimal "when the value rises, turn here" instructions .. which are great "recipe navigation" commands .. until something goes wrong, it strays too far off course and has to recover.
Identifying any position via a "random" 50 line km slice is a much harder problem.
I just want to say that I love this phrase, it reflects my experience perfectly.
A magnetometer is a completely different device than an IMU.
A sensitive enough magnetometer coupled with accurate magnetic maps can act as a GNSS alternative, albeit not as spatially accurate. There's a handful of companies currently working on quantum PNT and magnetic/gravity map matching solutions. I work for one of them.
BTW couldn't they use Starlink and the few other LEO sat networks with thousands of nodes as some kind of augment to GPS (SBAS)