AF 447 Search to resume (part2)
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Metal objects
mm43
The oscillator frequency changes near a metallic object.
Not just ferrous! And the memory type inside is insensitive to magnetic field.
A low frequency tuned inductive loop could also be used for detecting a buried steel object. The oscillator frequency would "dip" if a ferrous object intersected its field. A bit like "treasure hunting".
Not just ferrous! And the memory type inside is insensitive to magnetic field.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: France
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Figaro.fr 27APR
(Excerpt)
.../...
Parmi les pièces de l'avion qui devraient être relevées: des éléments de voilure pour observer son état au moment de l'impact, les moteurs ou encore le cockpit et les calculateurs si ceux-ci étaient également retrouvés.
.../...
Among the aircraft parts that should be raised: wing components to observe its condition at the time of impact, the engines and also the cockpit and the calculators if they were also found.
About the picture of the chassis:
Photo Copyright Maître Johann Peschel ECPAD (Établissement de Communication et de Production Audiovisuelle de la Défense (Establishment of Communication and Audiovisual Production of Defense) taken 26APR2011 18H37 (?local time?). Software used : Adobe PS CS5. Camera :Nikon D3 (French Army has a good equipment) f11 1/25s ISO800 with flash, focal f50.
(Excerpt)
.../...
Parmi les pièces de l'avion qui devraient être relevées: des éléments de voilure pour observer son état au moment de l'impact, les moteurs ou encore le cockpit et les calculateurs si ceux-ci étaient également retrouvés.
.../...
Among the aircraft parts that should be raised: wing components to observe its condition at the time of impact, the engines and also the cockpit and the calculators if they were also found.
About the picture of the chassis:
Photo Copyright Maître Johann Peschel ECPAD (Établissement de Communication et de Production Audiovisuelle de la Défense (Establishment of Communication and Audiovisual Production of Defense) taken 26APR2011 18H37 (?local time?). Software used : Adobe PS CS5. Camera :Nikon D3 (French Army has a good equipment) f11 1/25s ISO800 with flash, focal f50.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JD-EE - huh?? The cameras were 70mm Hasselblads with special Kodak Ektachrome film of typical ASA, 80 and 160. All that was missing from an earthly scene was the Japanese tourist wielding it. The television cameras were very low resolution - the linked photos are still frames made with the Hasselblads. If you want to see more, go to
Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
If you want to know how good the cameras were and how free of defects, read my article here:
Venus over The Apollo 14 LM
Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
If you want to know how good the cameras were and how free of defects, read my article here:
Venus over The Apollo 14 LM
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London Under EGLL(LHR) 27R ILS
Age: 31
Posts: 500
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Makes me wonder why nobody has mentioned, that the seperation of the chassis and the in reference to the csmu, that the CSMU could have stayed a float during impact? Obviously the CSMU is shaped in such away that it can stay afloat? (Just placing a bottle of shampoo or a can of coke in a bath shows this theory)
Without going into much, if indeed it stays a float where would that part go? Direction wise?
I am strongly behind the theory, that this could be the case.
Without going into much, if indeed it stays a float where would that part go? Direction wise?
I am strongly behind the theory, that this could be the case.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Brazil
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Look Centrosphere, you should be around long enough before you start correcting people and implying that they don't know what they are saying."
Well, this is a textbook example of "argument from authority". There is no interest to me in knowing your previous wanderings, since you seems to be factually wrong. I´m not claiming I´m better than you, but our arguments have at least the same weight here. Please look at this photo:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6803.jpg
It was also taken from an Hasselblad in the Moon. The problem here is that most of the luminous effects in lunar photos have something to do with the interaction between light, the lenses, the iris, and luminous objects into our outside the field of vision. But the ROV photo quite obviously doesn´t have a luminous object outside the field, since the lights are positioned behind the camera. Besides that, I hate to be repetitive but the region I marked in the photo is not a flare of any kind.
And please don´t try to play the victim:
"Really, has conspiracism just become a given fact of modern life?"
I´m trying to be very cautious in not advancing conspiratory theories. Of course I have a pet theory, at least until someone come with a convincing natural explanation to that subtle anomaly in the picture. It can be news to you, but this is the process by which science advances: one has a theory, other more clever guy disproves it. Go read Popper or some popularizer of science more suitable to you, please.
Proof that the issue isn´t going "to bed" is that we already have a lot of possible explanations beside the manipulation hipothesys: "vanishing shadows", "compression artifact", "dust on the lens", etc.
Well, this is a textbook example of "argument from authority". There is no interest to me in knowing your previous wanderings, since you seems to be factually wrong. I´m not claiming I´m better than you, but our arguments have at least the same weight here. Please look at this photo:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6803.jpg
It was also taken from an Hasselblad in the Moon. The problem here is that most of the luminous effects in lunar photos have something to do with the interaction between light, the lenses, the iris, and luminous objects into our outside the field of vision. But the ROV photo quite obviously doesn´t have a luminous object outside the field, since the lights are positioned behind the camera. Besides that, I hate to be repetitive but the region I marked in the photo is not a flare of any kind.
And please don´t try to play the victim:
"Really, has conspiracism just become a given fact of modern life?"
I´m trying to be very cautious in not advancing conspiratory theories. Of course I have a pet theory, at least until someone come with a convincing natural explanation to that subtle anomaly in the picture. It can be news to you, but this is the process by which science advances: one has a theory, other more clever guy disproves it. Go read Popper or some popularizer of science more suitable to you, please.
Proof that the issue isn´t going "to bed" is that we already have a lot of possible explanations beside the manipulation hipothesys: "vanishing shadows", "compression artifact", "dust on the lens", etc.
Last edited by Centrosphere; 29th Apr 2011 at 13:33. Reason: correction of text
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SUSSEX UK
Age: 76
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Falling objects in fluid
I don't think that mass or density play much here as do things like drag coefficients (shape).
The US Navy conducted a number of studies circa 2000 for determining the location of mines on the sea bottom from airborne and ship launch platforms. I recall there is also data from research carried out by the Oil industry where the interest was in determining what happened (trajectory) to drill stringers when they fell off rigs in deep water.
The link below shows the behaviour of a cylinder (1M L x 0.17M D) when descending to sea bottom, aprox 12M deep, at a US Navy test range.
ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting
a) CG = CV horizontal entry
b) CG = CV vertical entry - trend is to revert back to horizontal descent.
c) CG slightly deviated from CV angled entry with trend to 'See - Saw' descent.
d) CG deviated from CV more than case (c) - angled entry with trend to plane in the direction of CG displacement from CV.
Given the above and assuming the memory module has a CG coincident, or nearly so, with CV, and that during the descent to the seabed the module was not wedged in any co-descending wreckage, it is reasonable to suppose that it landed horizontally on the silt bottom. Whether or not it is hidden under other wreckage is another matter.
I would be interested to hear if anybody on this forum has experience of how surface mount (Mil spec or otherwise) survive under 400 atmos pressure - I'm thinking here about the QDR memory, and the various non volatile memories in other subsystems FADECs etc.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Brazil
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JD-EE,
"Centrosphere, what you are seeing is compression artifacts."
Good take, but what kind of compression technique these cameras utilize? I really doubt it will be something different from the standard JPEG 4, what is a quite developed standard and delivers high picture quality. Alas, the ROV is tethered, they probably don´t have a problem with bandwidth.
Actually, this is an excerpt from a report concerning the use of the Remora 6000 in the Tictanic shipwreck:
"Fiber optic technology played a major role in the research. One of the robotic submarines, the Remora 6000, which can reach the depths of 6,000 meters, was attached to the research ship, the RV Jean Charcot, by a fiber-optic tether. Telecast Fiber’s tiny three-inch long Rattler 3G was used aboard the Remora 6000 to transmit high-definition and 3D HDTV video and other data via fiber up to the ship."
Telecast Fiber Helps Transmit 3D Video from the Titanic - Telecast Fiber Systems - pitchengine.com
Of course I don´t know if this is the same technology they are using now, but you can see the magnitude of the file sizes involved when you have fiber optics.
"Centrosphere, what you are seeing is compression artifacts."
Good take, but what kind of compression technique these cameras utilize? I really doubt it will be something different from the standard JPEG 4, what is a quite developed standard and delivers high picture quality. Alas, the ROV is tethered, they probably don´t have a problem with bandwidth.
Actually, this is an excerpt from a report concerning the use of the Remora 6000 in the Tictanic shipwreck:
"Fiber optic technology played a major role in the research. One of the robotic submarines, the Remora 6000, which can reach the depths of 6,000 meters, was attached to the research ship, the RV Jean Charcot, by a fiber-optic tether. Telecast Fiber’s tiny three-inch long Rattler 3G was used aboard the Remora 6000 to transmit high-definition and 3D HDTV video and other data via fiber up to the ship."
Telecast Fiber Helps Transmit 3D Video from the Titanic - Telecast Fiber Systems - pitchengine.com
Of course I don´t know if this is the same technology they are using now, but you can see the magnitude of the file sizes involved when you have fiber optics.
Ok, so are we all done with the distraction related to the picture of the SSFDR? I think a number of folks have posted plausible explanations, assuming there is something to be explained, but to be honest after revisiting the original BEA website and looking at the original picture again - there seems to be very little to get excited about. Without the "oww, look here" oval, highlighting the alleged area of tampering, the picture looks normal to me, given the nature of the lighting and image format (.jpg).
To test this theory, I got a sampling (10 people) of my work colleagues to look at the picture, half without the yellow oval, half with. Guess what - none of the "withouts" mentioned the suspect area once. For those with the oval, 3 of the 5 who looked, thought there might be something going on, until they saw the original - 2 of them were divers and used to seeing odd stuff on the seabed - after explaining the reason for my poll, all agreed this was nothing to worry about.
P.S. We are NOT looking at an original from the ROV camera feed, but a picture taken of a screen. So the original fidelity of the image has CERTAINLY been compromised.
To test this theory, I got a sampling (10 people) of my work colleagues to look at the picture, half without the yellow oval, half with. Guess what - none of the "withouts" mentioned the suspect area once. For those with the oval, 3 of the 5 who looked, thought there might be something going on, until they saw the original - 2 of them were divers and used to seeing odd stuff on the seabed - after explaining the reason for my poll, all agreed this was nothing to worry about.
P.S. We are NOT looking at an original from the ROV camera feed, but a picture taken of a screen. So the original fidelity of the image has CERTAINLY been compromised.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Separation of Memory Module from chassis
Following the loss of GOL1907 in the Brazilian jungle, the FDR was recovered complete but only the chassis of the CVR. After nearly four weeks of intensive searching in the jungle by about 200 Brazilian Army troops equipped with metal detectors, the memory module of the CVR was finally found. The module was discovered intact, separated from other wreckage pieces, embedded in about 20cm/8 in of soil. There is a picture of the module ‘in situ’ in the jungle on Wikipedia.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The APU.
The forward and aft parts of the airplane are broken apart and mixed up, which means that a time-consuming systematic search is required.
No lifting operations have yet been undertaken as priority has been given to the search for the flight recorders.
No lifting operations have yet been undertaken as priority has been given to the search for the flight recorders.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Brazil
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Without the "oww, look here" oval, highlighting the alleged area of tampering, the picture looks normal to me, given the nature of the lighting and image format "
OK, GarageYears.
Funny. Now the meta-conspirators find culpable the mere act of observing and making the observation more useful to others. Regrets!
Of course in my place you would only, say, put the original photo here and politely ask, "Hey, do you see something strange in this picture, please?".
That would sound very normal indeed.
For god´s sake...
ps: btw, if you are someone skeptical of the importance of careful observation, I have enlightening news for you:
10 Fascinating Mysteries Solved by Photos
OK, GarageYears.
Funny. Now the meta-conspirators find culpable the mere act of observing and making the observation more useful to others. Regrets!
Of course in my place you would only, say, put the original photo here and politely ask, "Hey, do you see something strange in this picture, please?".
That would sound very normal indeed.
For god´s sake...
ps: btw, if you are someone skeptical of the importance of careful observation, I have enlightening news for you:
10 Fascinating Mysteries Solved by Photos
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bangkok,Thailand
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proof that the issue isn´t going "to bed" is that we already have a lot of possible explanations beside the manipulation hipothesys: "vanishing shadows", "compression artifact", "dust on the lens", etc.
Science!
I believe we are looking at the aft end of the APU, although orientation about the longitudinal axis is less obvious; the photograph is taken facing the forward starboard of the unit. Some parts may be identifiable from the diagram. - PJ2
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Brazil
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Razoray,
The "pet theory" was already spelled here, and in fact was first advanced by snowfalcon2, re #254: that maybe they did it to conceal some human remains (to avoid arousing sensivities, let me say that he prefers another theory).
On second thoughts, I would expect most of the human remains to be found mixed, and probably bounded to, some heavy structures. But I know nothing about the water currents at the site.
Until the hipothesys arose, I had no idea of why one would like to tinker with the photo. That´s why I find the accusations of "conspiracy" deeply offensive. I´m really curious about that "stain", but my inquiry is scientific since I´m only searching for explanations.
But I also consider fair game if you only look at the photo and say, "I don´t see nothing". I´m really not so sanguine about this, and don´t want to kidnap the thread. So this is my last post about this.
The "pet theory" was already spelled here, and in fact was first advanced by snowfalcon2, re #254: that maybe they did it to conceal some human remains (to avoid arousing sensivities, let me say that he prefers another theory).
On second thoughts, I would expect most of the human remains to be found mixed, and probably bounded to, some heavy structures. But I know nothing about the water currents at the site.
Until the hipothesys arose, I had no idea of why one would like to tinker with the photo. That´s why I find the accusations of "conspiracy" deeply offensive. I´m really curious about that "stain", but my inquiry is scientific since I´m only searching for explanations.
But I also consider fair game if you only look at the photo and say, "I don´t see nothing". I´m really not so sanguine about this, and don´t want to kidnap the thread. So this is my last post about this.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Strictly conjecture, but the Squarish transition of the oil cooler to the cooling airduct is present, as is a good deal of the other ductwork, and rather than at first seeing a squashed nozzle, I think it looks rather circular. On the whole less obliterated than I would imagine (first structure on scene of impact) would present. The APU is fairly lonely and absent a lot of structure that is present in other areas of the tail, so its relative good look is a surprise to me.....perhaps it lost connection to the tail cone immediately. lomapaseo or Turbine D would know better, but does this power unit's condition suggest it was not running at impact??
edit to add for deSitter: By no means am I attempting to minimize the impact forces, elsewhere I refer to "it appears nothing remains attached to anything...."
edit to add for deSitter: By no means am I attempting to minimize the impact forces, elsewhere I refer to "it appears nothing remains attached to anything...."
Last edited by bearfoil; 29th Apr 2011 at 17:57.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BEA again have a non reduite version of the image, more pixels but no more detail I feel
http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....images/apu.jpg
http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....images/apu.jpg
