Comment by Phanatik@kbin.social on "Debris field" found near Titanic in search for missing sub, U.S. Coast Guard says

The sub went missing while carrying five people to the wreckage of the Titanic.

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?

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?

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 yes, if they use something in a way specifically contraindicated by the nature of the technology then that’s problematic.

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.

or are you going to reddit your way out of this conversation?
Wtf? Was that an attempt at condescension?

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

I know that. What makes you think that the other part was not in the water? Do you have any source for that?

What makes you think that the other part was not in the water?

…

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.

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.

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).

Breaking news and current events worldwide.

"Debris field" found near Titanic in search for missing sub, U.S. Coast Guard says(www.cbsnews.com)

News

!news@kbin.social

Community stats

Community moderators