He received his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Princeton University. His research interests are in digital signal processing with a focus on digital communications and navigation systems.

The U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center (USCG R&DC) and Analysis & Technology, Inc. (A&T) have been investigating techniques to estimate the leeway drift of targets for possible search and rescue applications. In previous leeway drift studies, the Interocean S4@ electromagnetic current meter was used to measure search target velocity relative to the l-meter surface layer. A recently developed compact Doppler current sensor, the Aanderaa DCS 3500, may provide a new technique to measure the motion of floating objects relative to the surrounding water. The smaller size and larger sampling capability of the DCS 3500 make it a good candidate for use with small leeway targets.Intercomparisons of the DCS 3500 and S4@ were conducted by towing the meters in-line behind a large leeway target in Long Island Sound and off shore of Delaware Bay.The results of the comparisons reveal that the differences in velocity between the t w o sensors are within expected variances.However, there does seem to be a slight bias in the direction measured by the DCS 3500 when compared with the 5 4 0 .

We describe and c w a r e the performance of a well known electomagnetic current meter and two types of acoustic Doppler current meters. Two Aanderraa Instruments DCS3500s were separated by 84 cm and deployed on a mooring between two Interocean S4s and allowed to collect data for 145 hours in a shallow (10 m depth) site in Eastern Long Island Sound. Contemporaneously, two 300 kHz R.D. Instruments Workhorses were deployed on the bottan 30 m to the north and south of the mooring. The results of the intercomparison experiment showed that:(1) there were intermittent, unreasonably large m l i t u d e spikes in the velocity records obtained by the DCS3500, and (2) that once the data spikes were removed and the vertical shear of the tidal flow has been accounted for, the mean difference between the DCS3500 and 8 4 observations was within the range expected. 0-7803-5505-9/99/$10.0081999 IEEE