Too simple!

The image we are looking at is a screen shot of another screen. There are lighting sources external to the monitor, and I suspect that the loss of contrast in the area above the SSFDR chassis is an artifact caused by numerous things, including color temperature, reflection, and external camera automatic focus and aperture issues. Nothing more.

snowfalcon2,

"In the middle of the picture both lamps have equal brightness and so each lamp cancels out the shadow cast by the second lamp (unless the feature is big enough so that the lamps create two overlapping shadows). The result is a low contrast area."

Clever explanation, but...why this would only happen at the central region of the image and not along the vertical axis of the photo?

mm43,

Lurking at this forum for months, I developed some respect for your opinions, but I have to disagree now. It seems too ad hoc. Alas, you can see a reflexion at the left superior border of the monitor. I think we could rule out the interference of some other light source in the picture.

I´m sure that in being so assertive some people here will begin to suspect that I have some hidden agenda, but I assure you that I have not an axe to grind. It only happens that I´m a guy that likes advocating for the Devil!:)

I have no reason to believe that someone would tinker with the image, but still I can´t make myself to believe this image is normal. Personally, I tend to agree with the guy that raised the possibility of "censorship" in the best interest of the families of the dead.

A pure SLF
 

http://i25.servimg.com/u/f25/11/75/17/84/chassi11.jpg


http://i25.servimg.com/u/f25/11/75/17/84/chassi10.jpg

The left hand bottom corner is into the silt a little. Could not the memory module still be there and buried??

How quickly this thread wanders off. And when it does then all sorts of inane comments are posted. MM43 has the most likely reason as to the differences in the picture. Cameras only record according to their settings. No cover up imo or anything sinister. Unless someone comes up with the suggestion that the media is down there trawling through the debris and has taken the module. OMG.
Maybe someone should go back to lurking.....

Promani,

I really don´t see any reason for your agressive comment. I argue in good faith and respect the other commenters here. More important, I have made clear that I don´t give credit to any conspiratory theory, or doubt that the people in charge of the investigation are doing their best.

If you are more interested in other aspects of this issue, that´s fine to me, but please note that this forum has plenty of space for that, with no need of being rude to other people. Unless, of course, you are a troll or worse.

Please recant or I´ll be forced to denounce your bullying behaviour to the moderators.

CSMU
 

crippen,

I had the same feeling at the first time i did see the picture;

Would be fantastic. But BEA said NO:

Information, 27 April 2011

@ Machinbird (post #258)

Indeed I haven't seen the "wreckage distribution and how it had been influenced by a slow moving current from E to W" theories as a fact.
I was under the impression those they looked a little too much like a "guesswork", based on a single sonar picture without proved link between significant parts and the said sonar image, to pay attention to them.
I'm afraid I therefore have no different theory of wreckage distribution to offer...

Rocket shaped tube?
 

Any thoughts on what the white rocket shaped tube is on the right hand side of the monitor picture is?

Flare perhaps?

All opinions / inklings are more than welcome.

CSMU likely detached from Rack at sea surface crash
 

Absolutely right!

Water surface for an stalled a/c at high sink rate is hard like soil.

And this crash into water destroyed the a/c.

As all of us can see the assembly of CSMU to the rack is not strong enough.

On texture and pixels:
I think the culprit of the 35+ posts is the suggestive ellipse drawn by Centrosphere in his post #246. Without that, the smooth area is about as wide as the DFDR 'box' but deeper than the ellipse suggests. In the nearly two years that this piece has been lying there, there must have been episodes of significant water currents across the 'abyssal plain'. The area we're looking at could well be the 'wind shadow' of the chassis, covered with finer material than the more exposed area's around it.

On impact forces:
What puzzles me is that the mounting platform of the CSMU is bent upwards, i.e. opposite to the inertia forces one would expect. That could be explained by the hydrodynamic forces acting either on the fuselage skin or directly on the DFDR mounting. But how was the CSMU then torn off its mountings?

FDR CVR
 

@crippen


Yes, it looks like it could be there, but no doubt once it was turned over by the submersible, the truth was revealed. I think why we can see more of the PSU and drive electronics box in the photo is due to the crater surrounding the box, formed at the time of impact. The fact that there is no crater under the chassis which supports the memory section, suggests that the memory section is missing. The memory module, as can be seen from the fixings to the chassis, is designed to detach with minimal force in order to be free of any constraints and be able to survive becoming trapped and crushed amongst collapsing structures during high G impacts - hence the choice of spherical or cylindrical construction. However, like in any design, there are trade-offs, one of which is size, governed by the amount of fireproofing insulation needed to protect from high temperatures, and recognition - it's no good having a survivable device if it's too small to be found in wreckage. With the latter consideration in mind, the FAA standard for crash protected enclosures is to apply minimum dimensions for major axis.

For the elliptical cylinder example; the major axis (a), minor axis (b), and length (c) of the enclosure, must conform to the relationship:

a, b, c >= 2.0 inches
a + b + c >= 9.0 inches

The same applies for a rectangular shape, while for spherical shaped enclosures, the average radius must be => 3inches.

Given that the memory unit and the chassis have different shape form factors, I would be surprised if they arrived at the same location after a 4Km descent. Dependent on the CG & mass to vol, the cylinder/sphere is less likely to plane than the chassis (tumble maybe) and so will probably be found near heavy items from the empennage.

Small craters on the seabed are not likely to last long. However, one things underwater archaeologists have encountered is that submerged objects will often have areas around them dug out by the current. Basically, what happens is as the current encounters the object and is forced to go up over it, that causes the water right next to the object to become turbulent, which can push sediment away from the object. In archaeological terms, that allows later material to be deposited, which is why stratigraphy is of little use in underwater archaeology, even though it is of critical importance by land.

In terms of this situation, if there is a depression next to the recorder casing, it could indicate the direction in which the local currents tend to flow, and the depression was excavated by turbulent water from the current being forced over the recorder casing.

ushumgal;
Your analysis is correct.

However, in terms of the various photographs we have seen taken on the bottom, I would venture to say that current movement on the bottom is virtually nonexistent. Go back to the original photos and examine the left-hand MLG. You will note that the rear wheels touched down first and turned about 90 degrees, picking up some sediment from the bottom. The front wheels dug in, and there has been no sign of scouring in nearly two years.

BJ-Eng, thanks for your explanation on the design considerations.

I'm willing to wager however, that if the ultimate result of this search is two chassis units recovered, and nil memory modules, that design philosophy will be revisited, and likely revised.

Hi,

About the CSMU: do anybody knows the respective weights of the two parts?

About the "abnormal" spot on THE picture: could it be the result of Remora robot vertical thrusters: perhaps the robot "look at" the FDR from the other side before to take this picture and has disturbed the soil there?

I'm sure glad they didn't find the memory module first. I'd have lost out on a lot of entertainment.

I've puzzled about how the CSMU/ULB departed, and the only explanation I can come up with is:-

• The 'g' forces at impact were complex, and the initial underside impact caused the the whole SSFDR to be punched up, and at the same time the mass of the CSMU tried to continue forward and to port, resulting in the securing bolts pulling then shearing off.
• Perhaps a further look at the V/S clevis joints damage may help explain it.

That doesn't give a satisfactory explanation as to why the CSMU/ULB left its mount before the SSFDR, unless the tensile strength of the CSMU bolts were less than those of the SSFDR securing bolts.

I don't think that mass or density play much here as do things lke drag coefficients (shape).

So to me from a shape factor, it looks like a minature engine.

At any rate it's more likely to be closer to the engines than anything else.

But since I'm not the guy looking for it, my opinon has little value :)

I once bought a 5 lb magnet for the sole purpose of recovering objects like this from the mud (I used to have it snapped to the underside of my "steel-case" desk and most couldn't even pull it loose.

Just to put this to bed, here is what happens when you get moon dust on a lens at f/16.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6818HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6826HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6813HR.jpg

The camera is behind an optical window that can withstand immense pressure, meaning it is probably spherical. Since this protrudes from the underside of the ship, it's very possible that it can become smudged with whatever detritus it is maneuvering around in.

Really, has conspiracism just become a given fact of modern life? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

"sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". Monica would not agree with that statement :ok: but it is unfortunate that conspiracists would likely also say the moon shots were fake so reject these superb examples as well. Could the damage also be from water entering the tail during "touchdown" when the tail fin mounts/support ribs were deformed and the plane was still 'moving forward dragging the tail'. ie the tail ribs were bent backwards from memory indicating possibly a large 'wave' of water entering the tail from the front. FF

Hi,

The find of the pingers will be also interesting.
As now we know that they are certainly in the (or around) the debris field .. this was at the time of the acoustic researches (results negative) no environemental constraints (other than the water depth) as mountains or crevices reducing the field of emission
So it will be interesting to know if they had some malfunctions

Were you perhaps waiting for Professor Einstein to visit the crash site and formulate a formal theory? For many reasons, that won't happen.:}
Thinking men look at data and form theories regarding the underlying factors at work. Others look at the theory and point out weak concepts, and the theory is adjusted to improve its fit to the observed data. Just because a theory has not been examined by a formal board of scientists does not mean it is without value. A plan based on underlying theories is actionable. Worst case, you will gain better data to adjust the theory further. Without a plan, you are just a lost kid waiting for your mother to lead you back home.
Without better information regarding the factors distributing the wreckage, I would look East of the FDR chassis for the memory module, against the apparent current that distributed the wreckage. With an accurate wreckage map and hydrodynamic drag data for the FDR chassis and memory unit from the manufacturer, it would not be guesswork to locate the memory module. Not even a SWAG.
Both of these units started their trip to the bottom from the same initial location near the surface. Unless one became entrapped by another part, they will fall as gravity and ocean currents direct them.

Long way to the shop.:}

Suspect they'll butcher a loudspeaker or two for permanent magnets should all else fail.:ok:
So would I, but then neither of us are going to influence the outcome.:{

deSitter,

"Just to put this to bed, here is what happens when you get moon dust on a lens at f/16."

I´m afraid you´re quite wrong. The effect in these NASA pictures is more probably due to "blooming":

"Blooming
Techniques > Glossary > Blooming

Streaks or halos appearing around bright areas of an image that are caused by gross overexposure to the CCD. It's like an electronic equivalent of flare."

Mutatis mutandis, also overexposure of the film´s emulsion. That´s clearly the case at NASA pictures and clearly NOT the case at the ROV´s picture since the central region is actually darker than the surroundings.

Yep, I know that these moon photos have frequented a lot of conspiracy sites. I know also that the "dust" explanation was first presented by NASA itself (tentatively), so you´re not being original. This explanation carries some power, since we know that the Moon´s dust is very sticky due to being electrically charged. Actually, it took some time until the comprehension that dust has a complex cycle on Moon´s surface landed at NASA´s astrophysicists minds _ even some nominally open-minded scientists can have trouble in recognizing the unexpected, see?

By now, I´m gradually coming to terms with the funny fact that the bigger conspiracy theory here at this forum is that one built by some members to call other people conspiracy theorists, no matter how these people shout they aren´t. This is a little bit sad, but unfortunately, well inside the known range of human stupidity.

MM43
 

You must be making the comment "tongue in cheek" magnets as you know will erase the memory chip caboolture

Look Centrosphere, you should be around long enough before you start correcting people and implying that they don't know what they are saying. I started doing black and white darkroom photography centuries ago, I'm an amateur astronomer, I know how photography and optics work. This is not blooming - it's a normal exposure, most likely 1/250th second at f/16 or f/22, onto a special Kodak 70mm thin emulsion specifically designed to minimize unwanted artifacts - it's dirt on the lens, "dirt dirt" as Pete Conrad called it.

Where is the CSMU
 

1) Likely separated from yet located rack just after a/c surface crash
2) Due geometry and weight i guess in grater chances to be near tail parts of similar weight and compatible geometry. (similar geometry?)
3) Buried? Difficult to say!
4) East or West to rack? Use K.I.S.S. approach (Keep It Simple, Stupid)
The one that made Kelly Johnson put an Angel to the skies, flying near
the coffin corner in just 80 days. The legendary U2.

Both of you JCL's are wrong.

Astronauts Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins & Buzz Aldrin talk about UFOs

I stand corrected :) I have to stand because by empennage hurts after what they did to me.

You mean to say that BEA hasn't learned to come to PPRUNE for hints?
Darn! I thought they had better sense than that, particularly after their prior search troubles.:E

caboolture;
Was kind of hoping that the CSMU is using "flash" memory, i.e. electric field and not magnetic field to change data state. A permanent magnet shouldn't have any effect.

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".:cool:

Machinbird;

Good post on "speculation" etc. I think it is entirely reasonable to use available information to form theories from knowledge and experience, but the basis for theory must be there for all to see and where disagreement arises, the facts must be available to demonstrate same.

The BEA 2nd Interim Report states that AF447 had a Honeywell SSFDR 980-4700-42. Information on this recorder may be easily found on the web using standard search techniques. It may help with a few details. The link can't be posted because it is commercial material. The SSFDR weighs about 13 lbs and is mounted between frames 84 & 85 very close to the bottom of the airframe.

mm43;
I think that is a very reasonable description. I think the broken CSMU should not a complete surprise in the circumstances of the impact on a relatively light section of the structure. Loss of the CSMU has occurred once before as has been posted, and been found again so we can expect that it is a matter of time. There will be opportunity in the future to discuss designs and why the separation, (something Honeywell is likely talking about now), but at the moment finding the CSMU is primary, and then reading it.

It may be bolt tensile strength was exceeded or that the bolt-heads may have pulled through the bottom of the casing. Either way, a clear dimpling of the bottom surface can be seen where the bolts were and the casing itself has been stressed sufficiently to bend upwards in a same way that mirrors many other recovered parts in accordance with the impact described in the BEA Interim Reports.

The first place I would be looking would be the tail section and where the tail section lay. The area above the recorder is relatively clear and the pressure bulkhead is just forward and the heavy HS wing box, THS equipment, rudder control equipment and of course the APU, aft of the HS box. The CSMU may very well have shot upwards in the instant of impact into the collapsing framework from below and above.

Anyway, as you say, it's all reasonable speculation but I don't think they're reading here for advice. I look forward to news of finding the CSMU.

Centrosphere
 

One could argue that in this picture there is in fact a tendency that the off-centrepoint shadows do become deeper when going in the horizontal direction than in the vertical direction. At least I can see no tendency of the opposite effect.

Also: Any offset of the lamp mounts relative to the lens (either in the vertical direction or along the optical axis) would have the effect of introducing off-centrepoint shadows along the vertical axis. This means that the "vanishing shadows" effect weakens along the picture's vertical axis.

Another thing to consider is that according to the spec, the ROV has four searchlights. If all four were lit (assuming they are not mounted on the same horizontal line, and are aimed with converging beams) , the effect would also be that the "vanishing shadows" weakens along the picture's vertical axis.

However, we don't know the specifics of this lighting setup, so this is partly what-if speculation. I'm just trying to point out some possible explanations to what can be observed in the picture.

Machinbird, I meant no offense, sorry if my poor english let you under that impression. :uhoh:

What I wanted to say is:
"wreckage distribution and how it had been influenced by a slow moving current from E to W"
can't that be:
"wreckage distribution and how it had been influenced by a slow moving current from W to E" ?
I guess I'll have to browse back the first topic, I certainly may have missed some information there. Will do that ASAP.

Sure it won't. But I hope the research teams will find & publish the facts & theory in due time. In the mean time, I'm indeed sitting (mostly) still :)

What about the QAR?
 

QAR data have been helpful in crash investigations before: Strasbourg for example, where the FDR itself was destroyed by fire, or Gonesse, where the QAR recording medium was more conveniently accessible (optical disc vs. magtape).

The interim report mentions only the CVR and FDR models installed on AF 447 (Honeywell 6022 and 4700, respectively), nothing about the QAR. Does anyone know what kind of device that might have been?

Centrosphere, what you are seeing is compression artifacts. I don't think you can draw any conclusions out of them. I'd personally not cry wolf until I really see one.

mm43, old disk drives often have small but very strong magnets for the head positioning mechanism.

Centrosphere, I believe you will find that the cameras used on the Moon were vidicons, empty state electronics, that are very susceptible to blooming. With CCDs blooming should not be a significant problem compared to what you get with vidicons.

(Somewhere around here I have some vidicon cameras from the 80s. Their blooming is VERY dramatically worse than what I get with the CCD camera I have.)

Caboolture, please say that bit about magnets erasing solid state memory cards, again. I need good laughs from time to time. The memory technology in SSDs does not involve anything more magnetic than what you get with the very very low currents on integrated circuit conductor traces.