It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by tezzajw
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Well since 911Files only exists in quote form to me, through others,
Originally posted by 911files
Darn Mackey imposter, we were talking about England, not me. Thought you had me on ignore?
You must be working so hard on that alleged FDR data decode that you don't read posts properly, 911files?
Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by tezzajw
No, you must not be. Please show me where my reference to an 'old man' was quoted by anyone in the thread above please.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
How does a DFDR record 42 hours of data when it is only rated to record 25 hours?
A minimum of the last 25 hours of operational data is retained on the recording medium.
Originally posted by cesura
Note also that the report cited above lists FLT DECK DOOR
(port EICAS L/R-A-1) as one of the "Parameters Not Working
or Unconfirmed".
Originally posted by tezzajw
Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by tezzajw
No, you must not be. Please show me where my reference to an 'old man' was quoted by anyone in the thread above please.
You're confusing me with someone else, 911files. Perhaps the time and effort that you're spending on the alleged FDR data is hindering your ability to correctly reads posts?
Originally posted by tezzajw
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Well since 911Files only exists in quote form to me, through others,
Originally posted by 911files
Darn Mackey imposter, we were talking about England, not me. Thought you had me on ignore?
You must be working so hard on that alleged FDR data decode that you don't read posts properly, 911files?
Originally posted by cesura
That doesn't correlate with radar, terrain, and other
data, nor is it consistent with the longitudinal
acceleration recorded at the same time.
This is why it is important to read AND quote in context, Will. If you read the paragraph that quote was excised from, you will see the "scare quotes" and some old Jon Lovitz/SNL shtick. I am aware that sarcasm doesn't often translate to the internet- I'll try to remember the [/sarc] tag next time, but FYI- that really wasn't any "hypothesis" of mine.
Your hypothesis would imply at least 8 seconds missing
from the decodes performed by PfT and NTSB, instead of
the 4 seconds implied by hypotheses that correlate with
other data.
Most of us have been merging those four fields (from
three instruments) into a single radio height. Keeping
them separate will give you different rates of descent
for exactly the same reason that separating the stream
of pressure altitudes into four distinct streams, each
one or two seconds out of phase with each of the others,
would give you different rates of descent for each stream.
Lots of people understand linearity. Your grandmother
was one of them.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Also, "Minimum" does not mean "almost twice the amount".
But then again, you also thought the nose would be a perfectly fine point used exclusively to determine spatial orientation of an aircraft.
As is the Radar Altitude you claim supports an impact.
Originally posted by rhunter
I highly doubt that you ever knew my grandmother well enough to make that presumption. She only had an 8th grade education and married very young IIRC, but she was a hell of a cook! She quite likely may not have understood most definitions of "linearity" very well BTW.
Originally posted by cesura
One of the four radio height parameters I've been graphing
appears in that list, but its values are consistent with
the three primary radio heights. Hence none of my arguments
would be affected by ignoring it.
Originally posted by cesura
Originally posted by tomk52
I recognize the theoretical Nyquist criterion. I am neither a mathematician nor a scientist. I'm an engineer. I'll stick with 8x whenever possible. And move carefully down to 5x when forced to.
Entirely appropriate. The mathematical theorem says the Nyquist frequency is exactly 2x, but that theorem also says its conclusions hold only when the signal is bandwidth-limited to less than the Nyquist frequency. In most engineering applications, you won't have exact knowledge of the bandwidth, so you have to build in a margin of safety.
Originally posted by cesura
Originally posted by tomk52
The Moire effect is registered just fine by film, by cameras, by photoelectric cells, etc. Not only by biological visual systems. Therefore it is not caused by our visual systems. It's an objective phenomenon that is a spatial analog to "beat frequencies" in superposed oscillating systems with slightly different frequencies..
The Moire effect is a special case of aliasing, which is the objective phenomenon registered by all those systems: there are infinitely many signals that give rise to exactly the same data when sampled.
Originally posted by cesura
The mistake arises only when someone or something tries to impose some interpretation on that data, and chooses the simplest (low-frequency) interpretation instead of considering signals at or above the Nyquist frequency. It's basically an inappropriate use of Occam's razor.
Originally posted by cesura
Humans make that mistake quite naturally; it seems to be part of our cognitive programming. Computers and other devices can make that mistake also, but only when they're programmed to do so. That's an important difference between humans and computers: Computers are generally willing to regard data as mere data, without expressing or trying to defend any opinion regarding the original signal from which the data were sampled.
Originally posted by cesura
I haven't been trying to prove you wrong. I've just been trying to explain why I don't understand your point.
Will
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Sorry Will, couldn't resist. But you may want to tone down the pompous attitude a bit. Especially when you been proven wrong time and time again in this thread.
Originally posted by tomk52
Unfortunately, that gets us to seeing all kinds of patterns that really aren't there.
Including dragons in random cloud shapes, Jesus in grilled cheese sandwiches, and conspiracies in random events.
Originally posted by tomk52
...
I agree wholeheartedly that Balsamo is a pompous ass.
BTW, Tony Sz is not a structural engineer. He is, like me, a mechanical engineer.
He's just not nearly as good a MechE as I am. And his theories are riddled with nonsense.
TomK
Time Long. Accel.
(sec) (G's)
-6.00 0.177
-5.75 0.169
-5.50 0.130
-5.25 0.165
-5.00 0.171
-4.75 0.132
-4.50 0.141
-4.25 0.137
-4.00 0.134
-3.75 0.145
-3.50 0.143
-3.25 0.124
-3.00 0.175
-2.75 0.130
-2.50 0.139
-2.25 0.139
-2.00 0.187
-1.75 0.210
-1.50 0.200
-1.25 0.181
-1.00 0.173
-0.75 0.210
-0.50 0.014
-0.25 0.118
0.00 -1.083
Originally posted by cesura
Untrue. Both you and tezzajw have been "forgetting"
to mention the 3-dimensional vector that goes along
with that point. Both of you also have a habit of
ignoring words such as "about" and "approximate". For
example, I stated that even greater accuracy could be
achieved by adding a second 3-dimensional vector to the
point+vector representation, but that information was
not available with version 1.3 of Warren's decode.
Originally posted by tomk52
There is a very strong indication that something catastrophic happened within the last 2 data frames. Here is the longitudinal acceleration versus time to End of Data for the last 6 seconds.
Originally posted by turbofan
Assigned parameters are never 'floating' and will either see a logic 1, or
logic 0. In the case of the Flight Deck Door, it was reading ground which
means it was closed (logic 0).
[edit on 28-11-2009 by turbofan]
Originally posted by rhunter
Originally posted by tomk52
...
I agree wholeheartedly that Balsamo is a pompous ass.
BTW, Tony Sz is not a structural engineer. He is, like me, a mechanical engineer.
He's just not nearly as good a MechE as I am. And his theories are riddled with nonsense.
TomK
Now this quote is somewhat peculiar. How many MechE departments teach signal processing and capture/DAQ as part of their curriculum? I seem to recall that being a primarily EE (or possibly CS) endeavor with most of the universities that I'm aware of, and certainly with an overwhelming majority of the engineers that I have worked with over the years.
Anyway, we've now got the "tomk52 theorem" of 5x-8x "over"sampling of signals to prevent aliasing- you heard it first here at ATS. Perhaps a formal paper will be forthcoming at some point in the future.
Much of engineering ultimately comes down to economy, unfortunately. How much data analysis, money, time, equipment, and bandwidth would be wasted by increasing the dataset size by 2.5-4x? Those numbers would probably be fairly difficult to quantify.
Those on government contracts likely wouldn't care from what I have observed in the past.
Originally posted by 911files
Nice technobabble turbo, and mostly true, but that is not how a serial bit stream works. Logic 0 means no signal on the carrier.
[edit on 28-11-2009 by 911files]
Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by tomk52
Wow Tom, thanks for opening your ignorant "internet mouth" again.
Let me see if I can recap the list of errors you have made in the last
two posts:
1. There is nothing fancy about the word "electric". It is what, it is...
Originally posted by turbofan
2. ...blah, blah, blah ...
3. There is NO error associated with the device as you claim because
it's not even the SAME FREAKIN' INSTRUMENT!
Originally posted by turbofan
4. Do you know what an ABSOLUTE PRESSURE SENSOR is? I really
did expect you to understand the difference between absolute and gauge values.
Hint: It has nothing to do with "absolute readings"
content.honeywell.com...
Originally posted by turbofan
IE: A change in altitude in one second MUST reflect the change in
vertical speed in one second.