265
"Debris field" found near Titanic in search for missing sub, U.S. Coast Guard says
(www.cbsnews.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2023
265 points (99.6% liked)
News
1751 readers
1 users here now
Breaking news and current events worldwide.
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think the fact that the controller was wireless gets highlighted enough. Bluetooth devices have a hard time working above sea level and you're expecting it to work 3800m below the surface. Delusional.
BT devices got problems only when water is in between anetna1 and antena2. It does not matter at what altitude the devices are, just what is inbetween them.
What if they command something in the water? Have you seen the design?
If you want to command something in the water, you run a wire from that something to a receiver in the cabin.
Right, exactly. Or for a "sub" that only holds 5 people... maybe just spend the 10 cents and wire it lol.
I mean, the sub had reached Titanic several times, right?
So even without the design documents, we know it was previously capable of operating at depth.
Which we means we know the hull wasn't made of cotton candy, we know it wasn't propelled under water by an internal combustion engine, and we know it wasn't controlled by a device that stops working in water.
Well yes, if they use something in a way specifically contraindicated by the nature of the technology then that's problematic.
Do you have evidence that this was the case, or are you moving the goal posts to the "no shit sherlock" zone for an easy win?
Don't put on me your burden of proof.
Well, turns out they did. So now that we have established that they don't follow protocol, are you going to show us their design or are you going to reddit your way out of this conversation?
Source that they did? I've seen nothing to support that to date.
That's exactly my point, no one here has any source about the design. Why don't YOU ask the people above about THEIR source?
Don't act surprised when I answer you the same way you answer me. Now either you bring some source to support the question that was made by someone above you or I'm done. I'm not your source magic machine.
The person who started this chain of conversation is gone btw. I don't know the point you are trying to make.
The guy above is correct, altitude has no effect on the BT transmission. You can assume they used the tech in a way it can't (or nearly can't) be used if you want, I guess. I'm not going to go and prove that they didn't because that was your assertion, not mine. The vessel had many successful dives before this happened, so logic would dictate that the wireless implementation was working.
I never said otherwise and we both know it.
I'm not gonna play the reddit game with you. I have no burden of proof. Find another strawman to play with.
The designer is dead.
The designer is dead so the wireless didn't work?
Does that count as a coherent argument to you? I wouldn't make fun of redditors if you can't make a better argument than that...
The people who trusted the guy are dead. You take his logic as gospel, good for you.
Now I got from other sources that the wifi was commanding the propeller. Meaning that yes, the wifi signal was supposed to travel through the water.
No either you have something of value to the discussion and you post it, or you don't post and we're done.
We know for a fact that wifi signal was not supposed to travel through the water, because the sub successfully reached Titanic several times before it was destroyed.
If someone had designed the sub in the bizarre way that you suggested, then it would never have completed a single mission.
You've been thoroughly unpleasant to chat with, so I think we're done either way.
Take care.
edit: Judging by your reputation points it seems the community already warned me. Guess I'll check that first in the future.
This was your opener, "Mr Good Manners":
You kept insisting that I made an assertion when I didn't.
About my reputation, if this is a metric for you then maybe I should downvote you, right? I didn't downvoted you so far but maybe I should?
Let's try this!
HOOOOOO, look! you went from 2 to -4! It goes fast, right? Right? What a metric! You are a negative reputation now. And I only downvoted you in this thread! Now people will have a surprise when they look at your reputation.
I took the liberty of downvoting you more. You are now at -45. It's a good experiment on how flawed the reputation system works. Maybe you will, like me, refrain from smashing this downvote button and focus more on the content you write. You would see that you strawmen from the very beginning.
Have a fantastic day!
OK. Explain why they would have more trouble working at that depth.
https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/34816-underwater-wireless-communication-using-em-waves
Now it's your turn, tell us what make you think that it would work as usual.
That's dealing with communication through the water. Presumably the controller wouldn't have water between it and its receiver under ideal conditions.
Show it. "Presumably" won't cut it.
For the records, so far the only one with a source is me.
Your link is for wireless transmissions going through water. In this case, it’s still going through air.
It’s not the altitude or depth that matters, it’s the medium through which the signal goes. It will work just fine, from a technical standpoint.
That being said, wireless things are inherently unreliable compared to wired, and it’s stupid to make something so important not as reliable as possible.
I know that. What makes you think that the other part was not in the water? Do you have any source for that?
...
I...
That's not...
...
Sigh...
aka "the easy way out".
You take for granted that the wireless was for inside equipment, I don't. I asked if someone has a source about the design but no one brought anything. That's where we are.
You don't need no attitude here, if you know something then write it and mention the source.
Sure, I'll bite.
Bluetooth is not powerful enough to punch through any part of that hull. Not the 5 inches of carbon fiber wrap, and forget about transmitting through the metal end-caps.
Those older bluetooth controllers are often stopped by an inch of wooden desk in their way.
For outside equipment, OceanGate would be forced to use a control method that is received by a machine inside the hull, then converted to point-to-point wireless to punch through the carbon fiber, with wires on either side. Or something similar to that.
So the Bluetooth has to be communicating to a machine inside the vessel.
Well - how about out if the receiver is on the the hull - and the bluetooth signals don't have to travel through any water?
Maybe. And? Don't overthink it, I'm answering to someone who boldly claimed:
"OK. Explain why they would have more trouble working at that depth"
and who is long gone btw.
You were replying to me. I'm still here.
Well, I gave you a reason why it would cause problem, if the device piloted was out, in the water.
Do you have a schematic of the sub? I don't.
You were the one who called the decision to use Bluetooth "Delusional". I'm the one who said we have no idea whether it was a good idea or not - so I think we can leave it here.
Does higher air pressure affect Bluetooth signals?
Also, buy better Bluetooth devices, I haven't had to deal with disconnections with quality modern gear outside of battery issues. My first run steam controller hasn't given me any issues with wireless connections while playing, and all of my headphones stay connected to the proper device even when I'm stupid far away (like, I left my phone in the car and I didn't notice any drop in quality until after I entered the store).