If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 21, 12:01 am, More_Flaps wrote:
On Jun 21, 3:43 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote: On Jun 20, 7:07 pm, More_Flaps wrote: On Jun 20, 5:52 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote: Where Electro-Mechanical control of air is concerned, we've all used a potentiometer to change the volume of our speaker system...for about 100 years. You may regard a speaker as an exceptionally finely controlled servo/solenoid and is pretty damn reliable and cheap. A normal speaker is certainly NOT a servo system. Get the basic ideas straight and you may begin to understnd the problem. Cheers See solenoid + electromagnetic speaker, yawn It's simple for me. Ken- Hide quoted text - Look up servo and try to undersrand that it is closed loop, a solenoid/speakers is not. Now do you understand? Simple for you -oh yeh! LOL Cheers Thanks Flaps. I've designed, tested and built servos, complete with the appropriate feedback damping, ugh. I did one servo that worked great except for one f**king thing, it was tuned to the local AM radio station at some setting. Funny, I'm in the lab, and I hear a radio playing, the darn servo needle was going to the beat of the music, a few caps solved that. Ken |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 21, 10:47*am, Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.aviation.student Nomen Nescio wrote: From: Le Chaud Lapin Very nice, and applies well to software too. Of course it's not true that software has 0 marginal cost. There are support costs, which can be significant. I said material cost, not marginal cost. But let's say that software really does have zero marginal cost. Well, this is extremely *bad* news for the use of software in GA, not good news as has been presented. Why? Because software costs a *lot* of money to make. And with zero marginal cost, the price is effectively the development cost divided by the size of the audience. GA is a pretty damn small audience. Why do you think you can buy a perfectly capable car GPS, with a database full of every road in the country, for under $200 but you'll spend ten times that much on something that's significantly less capable for your airplane? Certification and liability come into it, of course, but even ignoring those you would spend what seems to be an unreasonable amount of money. This is just because the development costs are fixed but the audience is microscopic. To keep costs down, you want something with low development costs, even if the material cost is significant. This mean proven designs, simple mechanical linkages, etc. And guess what, that's what we have. Software isn't going to save you any money unless you either find a way to make multipurpose software that the public can also use, increase the GA pilot population by an order of magnitude, or create a magical software-making machine that can cut your development costs by an order of magnitude. It is my belief that a software-controlled PAV, with the features outlined by NASA/CAFE/PAV would allow an increase the GA population by an order of magnitude (at least) because the machine would be easier to fly, etc. This is what the FAA, NASA, CAFE, DARPA, and aero/astro departments all over the United States and elsewhere would like to see, not just me. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
In article ,
Bob Noel wrote: In article , Le Chaud Lapin wrote: I have heard a lot of pilots complain that they cannot enjoy the scenery when they are PIC. The pilot I flew with said he liked for me to take the controls because he could enjoy the scenery for a change. what? There isn't a flight I've made that I didn't have lots and lots of time to enjoy the scenary as well as the rest of the flying experience. (the exception are my flights in IMC or under the hood) I've never heard one pilot complain about not having time to enjoy the scenary. Not one. Same here; else flying would be a lot less interesting for me. At the same time, I can't afford to get focused on photography while I'm PIC. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
It is my belief that a software-controlled PAV, with the features outlined by NASA/CAFE/PAV would allow an increase the GA population by an order of magnitude (at least) because the machine would be easier to fly, etc. There is nothing particularly difficult about flying an GA aircraft VFR; 7 year old kids have learned to do it. Lots of people want to fly but are put off by the cost, lots more than are put off by any preceived difficulty in learning. Your basic premise is utter nonsense and naive. Gee-whiz components will just drive the cost of flying up, further reducing the pilot population. And don't even bother with you childish blather about "commodities" as the mass market has to exist BEFORE something can become a commodity. The GA population would first have to increase by about 2 orders of magnitude before airplanes could become anything near a commodity. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 21, 4:15*pm, wrote:
Your basic premise is utter nonsense and naive. Gee-whiz components will just drive the cost of flying up, further reducing the pilot population. And don't even bother with you childish blather about "commodities" as the mass market has to exist BEFORE something can become a commodity. Hmm..are you sure? There are a lot of products that were created on the premise that, even though there is not yet a market present, the market will exist by virtue of the product: * ball-point pen * sticky-notes from 3M * Sony Walkman, Discman * Atari game console * waverunner * Kevlar * Velcro * microwave oven * various medicines and lubricants for psychosexual impotence and frigidity * gasoline additives * mosquito repellant * baby wipes * polarized sunglasses * pet rock (came and went) * USB memory sticks * DVD player The creators of these products speculate that the market might want the product, but the speculation is grounded in reason. The GA population would first have to increase by about 2 orders of magnitude before airplanes could become anything near a commodity. That is true for many commodity products. It is reasonable to assume that the market for a commodity products starts off small and increases some time after the product is brought to market. The demand for the product is determined by those consumers who purchase the product. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
... On Jun 21, 4:15 pm, wrote: Your basic premise is utter nonsense and naive. Gee-whiz components will just drive the cost of flying up, further reducing the pilot population. And don't even bother with you childish blather about "commodities" as the mass market has to exist BEFORE something can become a commodity. Hmm..are you sure? There are a lot of products that were created on the premise that, even though there is not yet a market present, the market will exist by virtue of the product: * ball-point pen * sticky-notes from 3M * Sony Walkman, Discman * Atari game console * waverunner * Kevlar * Velcro * microwave oven * various medicines and lubricants for psychosexual impotence and frigidity * gasoline additives * mosquito repellant * baby wipes * polarized sunglasses * pet rock (came and went) * USB memory sticks * DVD player The creators of these products speculate that the market might want the product, but the speculation is grounded in reason. The GA population would first have to increase by about 2 orders of magnitude before airplanes could become anything near a commodity. That is true for many commodity products. It is reasonable to assume that the market for a commodity products starts off small and increases some time after the product is brought to market. The demand for the product is determined by those consumers who purchase the product. -Le Chaud Lapin- Except for the Pet Rock, which putatively had a low developement cost, everything on your list had a presumed market more than two orders of magnetude greater than general aviation. Further, all are physical products--so that most of the cost is ongoing materials, production, and packaging--and most are consumable or disposable products which are sold multiple times to each customer. No credible comparison can be drawn between software and any product on your list--it is like comparing oranges to sawdust! Peter |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Jun 21, 6:43*pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in ... On Jun 21, 4:15 pm, wrote: Your basic premise is utter nonsense and naive. Gee-whiz components will just drive the cost of flying up, further reducing the pilot population. And don't even bother with you childish blather about "commodities" as the mass market has to exist BEFORE something can become a commodity. Hmm..are you sure? There are a lot of products that were created on the premise that, even though there is not yet a market present, the market will exist by virtue of the product: * ball-point pen * sticky-notes from 3M * Sony Walkman, Discman * Atari game console * waverunner * Kevlar * Velcro * microwave oven * various medicines and lubricants for psychosexual impotence and frigidity * gasoline additives * mosquito repellant * baby wipes * polarized sunglasses * pet rock (came and went) * USB memory sticks * DVD player The creators of these products speculate that the market might want the product, but the speculation is grounded in reason. The GA population would first have to increase by about 2 orders of magnitude before airplanes could become anything near a commodity. That is true for many commodity products. It is reasonable to assume that the market for a commodity products starts off small and increases some time after the product is brought to market. The demand for the product is determined by those consumers who purchase the product. -Le Chaud Lapin- Except for the Pet Rock, which putatively had a low developement cost, everything on your list had a presumed market more than two orders of magnetude greater than general aviation. *Further, all are physical products--so that most of the cost is ongoing materials, production, and packaging--and most are consumable or disposable products which are sold multiple times to each customer. *No credible comparison can be drawn between software and any product on your list--it is like comparing oranges to sawdust! I was not making a comparison between software and the products that I listed. I was merely pointing out that, if a product is made, before anyone knows what it is, they will still buy it if they like it, which obviously can only occur after it has been made and made public. Part of the problem with PAV is not that people do not want it, but no one has made anything practical yet. If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message ... Part of the problem with PAV is not that people do not want it, but no one has made anything practical yet. If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response. -Le Chaud Lapin- Not from me; and from what I have read on this thread, the possible market in this newsgroup can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Of that small number, you would be the only one willing to spend money--presuming that you are willing to do so. Personally, for the foreseeable future and without any regard for which costs more money or less, I will continue to be more satisfied with cables and tie rods than with any plausible firmware and servo solution. The idea of software on general purpose, or multipurpose, hardware is just too dangerous to consider--having done a bit of professional maintenance on workstations, including some on networks, I don't even want to be in the same county! Peter BTW, this topic has been beaten to death multiple times over the last decade. So, in the event that you are not just trolling, a little effort with a search engine will yeild a lot of good information. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Future of Electronics In Aviation
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:35:25 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote in : wrote: Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will exist anytime in the near future. Um, you may want to start doing a bit of catch-up reading before making any further categorical statements like the above since you appear to be making claims outside your realm of knowledge or expertise. It appears you are probably unaware of current development in this area. Autonomous vehicles are probably in the near future; this is what DARPA's Grand Challenge was intended to accomplish: http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa_grand_challenge Here's a concept that should be pursued: http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/pr97-12/p32.htm Actual Hands-off Steering: And Other Wonders of the Modern World by Bob Bryant This article discusses the demonstration of automated highway system technologies by the National Automated Highway System Consortium, in which the federal Highway Administration is a partner; in San Diego, Calif., on Aug 7 to 10, 1997. See "Demo '97: Proving AHS Works" of the July/August 1997 issue of Public Roads for a general description of the demonstration, its background, the demonstration scenarios, and the consortium Eight car platoon demonstrates vehicles traveling as a unit. In the platoon scenario, eight cars in a tight formation - 6.5 meters apart - at nearly 105 km/h traveled the demo course as coordinated unit with the vehicles "communicating" with each other 50 times per second. (Photo courtesy of California PATH) Demo '97 It's magic! Or so it seems -- cars driving themselves. Well, we know, it's not magic. It's very technical and explainable -- the logical culmination of years of study, development, and testing. But that doesn't detract from the wonder of it all. It's like the tricks of the master magicians and illusionists; you know that there is a logical explanation for all the apparently supernatural feats, but it is still exciting. You know the magician did not really saw the woman in half, and the Statue of Liberty did not really disappear. But we're still amazed. Even if it's not magic, the cars did drive themselves -- at least without the help of human drivers. I know that is true hecause I saw them. I even rode in three of the automated vehicles at Demo '97, the demonstration of automated high-way system (AHS) technologies in San Diego on Aug. 7 to 10, 1997. I rode in a car, a minivan, and a bus, and it was exhilarating to barrel down that 12.2-km segment of the Interstate 15 high-occupancy-vehicle lanes at 105 km/h with the drivers' feet tucked under their seats and their hands in their laps -- truly "hands-off, feet-off" driving. Even though it is a very overused cliche, I couldn't help thinking, "Look Ma, no hands -- or feet!" Demo '97, -- put on by the National Automated Highway System Consortium (NAHSC), an industry-government-academia collaboration -- was a congressionally mandated demonstration to prove that it is technically "feasible" to use these AHS technologies to significantly alleviate several of the most enduring transportation problems in the United States -- and in the rest of the world as well. AHS addresses three major concerns, explained Bill Stevens, the NAHSC Program technical director. One is safety; second is congestion; and the third is environmental problems. Each year in the United States, more than 40,000 people are killed and 5 million people are injured in automobile crashes. Because human error is a leading factor in nine out of 10 crashes and because AHS promises to significantly reduce the element of human error, AHS offers a great potential for saving lives and avoiding injuries. AHS can reduce congestion and increase mobility in several ways, but primarily, by being able to safely reduce the distance between vehicles, AHS "can double or triple the capacity of our roadways at today's legal speeds and make trips faster and trip times more reliable by avoiding the backups due to stop-and-go traffic and congestion," said Jim Rillings, former NAHSC program manager. Congestion is another leading factor in automobile crashes; so, reducing congestion will also have safety advantages. Vehicles traveling in a tight, automated platoon with about half a vehicle-length interval have a dramatic reduction in aerodynamic drag that results in a 20-percent to 25-percent improvement in fuel economy and emissions reduction. AHS will also have great economic advantages. Today's vehicles are about as crash-worthy as it is possible to make them within reasonable cost. Therefore, the automobile companies, as well as the federal government, are now turning to crash avoidance as a way of avoiding injuries and death and also as way of saving economic losses due to crashes, which amount to approximately $150 billion per year. The economic losses due to highway congestion are in the neighborhood of $50 billion per year. Adding those up, a sizable amount of money is lost each year due to motor vehicle crashes and congestion," Rillings said. Different approaches to AHS were showcased in seven different "scenarios" during the demo. Cutting-edge technologies to provide adaptive cruise control, collision warning, obstacle avoidance, lane departure warning, and lateral and longitudinal control (steering and interval) were used to show variations on an AHS of the future. The 1,350 passengers who rode in the Demo '97 vehicles were the first people to experience s... It appears that it is being pursued by come capable folks: http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/Videos/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: 1-Day-Left: 3 Advanced AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Mel[_2_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 8th 07 01:37 PM |
FA: 3 Advanced AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Derek | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 3rd 07 02:17 AM |
FA: 1-Day-Left: 3 AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Jeff[_5_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 1st 07 12:45 PM |
FA: 3 AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Jon[_4_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 24th 07 01:13 AM |
FA: 3 ADVANCED AVIATION Books: Aviation Electronics, Air Transportation, Aircraft Control and Simulation | Larry[_3_] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 6th 07 02:23 AM |