this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2023
235 points (100.0% liked)

News

49 readers
2 users here now

Breaking news and current events worldwide.

founded 1 year ago
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

OK. Explain why they would have more trouble working at that depth.

[–] PabloDiscobar@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] SporkBomber@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's dealing with communication through the water. Presumably the controller wouldn't have water between it and its receiver under ideal conditions.

[–] PabloDiscobar@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Show it. "Presumably" won't cut it.

For the records, so far the only one with a source is me.

[–] iThinkergoiMac@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] PabloDiscobar@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] TechnoBabble@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

...

I...

That's not...

...

Sigh...

[–] PabloDiscobar@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well - how about out if the receiver is on the the hull - and the bluetooth signals don't have to travel through any water?

[–] PabloDiscobar@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You were replying to me. I'm still here.

[–] PabloDiscobar@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

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.