MARTIN/PERRONE : GEOGRAPHICAL VARIATION OF AMBIENT NOISE IN THE OCEAN 

 FOR THE FREQUENCY RANGE FROM 1 HERTZ TO 5 KILOHERTZ 



You know, there are just so many exciting things in 10 continuous 

 days worth of ambient noise recordings when you look at it with a 

 sufficiently narrow filter that there is just no way that a scientist 

 can keep his hands off it. 



Dr. Raisbeck: Following up a remark of Martin's and also several 

 others that have come by here, I don't think the answer is to 

 standardize the methods by which we sift the data but simply to state 

 what they are in each individual case. I, for one, can see some 

 conceptual validity at say 500 Hertz where we think we are measuring 

 weather- induced noise and sea noise to sort out interfering shipping, 

 but at 50 Hertz where the ambient noise that we think we are 

 measuring is due to shipping noise, I can't even see any philosophical 

 justification for saying that because a ship is close enough, then 

 it is no longer part of the ambient noise that we are trying to 

 measure. 



I would follow Sam's statement. Let's give the statistics. 

 And let the user do with it what he will. 



Dr. Dyer: 1 would counter chat by saying if you gave the 

 component statistics of two separate populations, you can always 

 mix them later, but if you give the statistics of the complete set, 

 you can't decompose. And so I would encourage whatever decomposition 

 makes sense. 



Dr. A. O. Sykes (Office of Naval Research): In all of the 

 measurements, we have not seen any simultaneous propagation loss 

 measurements. There are a couple of reasons for studying ambient 

 noise. Maybe we want to study the mechanisms. But if we are 

 interested in building systems and locating them at some place in 



839 



