[Phanguye]

Originally posted by signal68:
BTW, Ph4nguye said he's going to point a pringles can at the cockpit next time he flies somewhere.

- $

the people want proof... ill give it to them

[AlbertWu]

I'll try my best to answer these.

Here are some things for you to ponder:

1. There is interference no matter where you are in the world.

true. the airplane is shielded to most of this.

2. Why is it that DURING the flight, you can turn on all these gizmos, but during takeoff and landing you cannot?

because during the takeoff and landing procedure, the pilot needs to be in constant contact with ground control for coordination and stuff like that. a short circuit or spark in a frayed wire in your device could act like a wide-band transmitter and disrupt those communications. once you're up in the air it's not so important, cause as long as autopilot works you really don't need to talk to the ground crew.

3. The planes lighting system sometimes has flourescents.... ever put a TV near a flourescent? THATS interference. A CD player or a palm pilot or a gameboy won't produce nearly as much as that.

electronic devices that are defective or that have frayed wires act as wide-band transmitters, disrupting communications. also, flourescents ON THE GROUND are on the 60 Hz frequency. well below any communications system used today. flourescents in the air don't produce nearly as much interference, because the current isn't alternating.

4. Do we have to turn off our watches? Pacemakers? Hearing aids?

see above.

[RAzaRazor]

Originally posted by signal68:
I've done that, and I didn't get any results that said "Airplanes cabins are electronically shielded".

I gave you the ****ing strings to search for. You have to look at the information and then use that brain of yours and realize 2 things.
A) A faraday cage blocks EM signals from entering the interior of the cage. (Or signals inside from escaping.)
B) The skin of the aircraft is essentially a faraday cage because:
1. It's made of metal.
2. It's a closed object. (the EM can't sneak in through the back side.)
3. The openings (windows) in the object are of a small enough size as to block signals with a wavelength of about 11 inches or more (that's 1GHz).

From these 2 facts, one can quite safely say that the airplane skin does in fact form a faraday cage.
I'm sorry there wasn't a nice neat website to say "Airplanes cabins are electronically shielded" for you. It's quite obvious to everyone that has read this thread that you don't know what you are talking about, and don't care to learn what you are talking about.
Why do you insist upon having everyone else in this thread (who are correct) prove themselves to you when you clearly don't desire to learn the truth? You are the minority voice in this, and as such the burden is on you to prove that we are wrong by citing scientific fact.

The truth is you are far out of your league here in this discussion. It obviously deals with a subject matter which is beyond your level of comprehension. There are people on these forums smarter than you and smarter than me. Rather than blindly rejecting what they say, it's to your advantage to question what you believe, look at the facts, and reevaluate your conclusions. That is the mark of a person who is willing to learn.

As a college student I would think that you would know this already, but it's clear that you attend school not because of any intellectual interest or desire to better yourself. More likely you went to school to smoke pot, "do" chicks, and avoid the fact that you need to join the real world, and see beyond yourself for once in your life.

[IUJHJSDHE]

Originally posted by signal68:
its no surprise that this article is from AUSTRAILIA. Is it from Britian? USA? Japan? A technologically advanced country? NO!

Anyway.

- Ca$h

Wow, that was the most ignorant post I have EVER seen on these forums.

Edit: Actually, Thats the most ignorant thing I have read on ANY forum.

[RAzaRazor]

Originally posted by IUJHJSDHE:
Wow, that was the most ignorant post I have EVER seen on these forums.

Kind of puts everything he says into perspective, doesn't it?

[iT4c0]

OMFG! Why do i hate a person that I dont even know!!! I am sorry, please f***ing ban him forever......I have never seen a person like c$ash in my life. I would punch him in the face if I see him walking on the street!

Back to the topic, Just because the airplane doesn't crash, it does not mean your little cd player doesn't cause any problem to the airplane.

*Deep breath* can anyone lock this thread and move on? I think I am not going to read c$sh's tread from now on. It just make me sound like a bad person.

[talisker]

Maybe being married doesn't suit the lad - he does seem to have plumbed new depths of ignorance and rudeness.

[Corintheus]

Originally posted by signal68:
and its no surprise that this article is from AUSTRAILIA. Is it from Britian? USA? Japan? A technologically advanced country? NO!

Yeah...

In addition to Finland, the most technologically advanced countries were the U.S., Sweden, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, the U.K., Canada, Australia and Singapore.

http://www.finnfacts.com/english/mai...ties/undp.html

ps. notice there is only one "i" in Australia.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by signal68:
That I'm not sure about. Prove your point, that the tubular body acts like a faraday cage. Link me and prove yourself.

Look, no crash.

Faraday cage.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by signal68:
GPS units do not transmit, they only recieve. same with radios. They only recieve signals that are already going through the airplane.

Hello.

As mentioned above, ANYTHING that recieves, TRANSMITS as well.

ANYTHING.

EE fact.

-s*

[AlbertWu]

pretty much anything metal and enclosed is a faraday cage. the g5 is a faraday cage, hence the need for the external antennas.

[IUJHJSDHE]

Originally posted by Corintheus:
Yeah...

In addition to Finland, the most technologically advanced countries were the U.S., Sweden, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, the U.K., Canada, Australia and Singapore.

http://www.finnfacts.com/english/mai...ties/undp.html

ps. notice there is only one "i" in Australia.

Yeah, if he is going to insult my country he might as well spell it right.

I have been to the USA. It's not really technologiclly more advanced then australia at all. Infact, I might be wrong, but wasn't our mobile phone service technology more advanced then in the US at not too long ago?

Sounds like everything cash knows about australia he got from TV.

Originally posted by iT4c0:
OMFG! Why do i hate a person that I dont even know!!! I am sorry, please f***ing ban him forever......I have never seen a person like c$ash in my life. I would punch him in the face if I see him walking on the street!

Back to the topic, Just because the airplane doesn't crash, it does not mean your little cd player doesn't cause any problem to the airplane.

*Deep breath* can anyone lock this thread and move on? I think I am not going to read c$sh's tread from now on. It just make me sound like a bad person.

Why lock this thread? If you locked every thread cash posts in there would be a problem. No point locking a perfectly good thread because cash is spreading his alarmingly high ignorance.

Incase you havn't noticed, the admins have tryed to ban cash. He must have almost a hundred banned usernames. But, you can't completely ban one person over the internet. It's even harder on cash because he is on aol, and his ip will change within a range very offen. Banning him would ban a good chunk if not all of aol. Not that, that would be all that much of a bad thing.

[RAzaRazor]

Actually, Ca$h has just switched to DSL, so his IP could be banned.
Just because he doesn't pay for a static IP, doesn't mean he doesn't get the same one everytime. DSL users frequently get the same IP address.

Everytime I would reset my DSL modem I got the same IP assigned to me. Same thing happens now with my Cable modem.

At the very least, the range of IPs can be banned, and it won't take out a major part of the AOL users who use MacNN. (Though banning all AOL IP addresses would be nice!)

[IUJHJSDHE]

Originally posted by RAzaRazor:
Actually, Ca$h has just switched to DSL, so his IP could be banned.
Just because he doesn't pay for a static IP, doesn't mean he doesn't get the same one everytime. DSL users frequently get the same IP address.

Everytime I would reset my DSL modem I got the same IP assigned to me. Same thing happens now with my Cable modem.

At the very least, the range of IPs can be banned, and it won't take out a major part of the AOL users who use MacNN. (Though banning all AOL IP addresses would be nice!)

Didn't know that, Anyway, like I said before, you can't ban one user online for sure. He could still use the forums, it all depends on how determend he is. And cash has always seemed pritty determend to spread his ignorance here as much as possable.

[Link]

I guess ca$h surgically replaced his brain with turn signals.

That would explain why he's inconsistant, REGULARLY inconsistent..

[vod[k]a]

Originally posted by IUJHJSDHE:

I have been to the USA. It's not really technologiclly more advanced then australia at all. Infact, I might be wrong, but wasn't our mobile phone service technology more advanced then in the US at not too long ago?

Sounds like everything cash knows about australia he got from TV.

No offense, mate, but I happen to know quite a bit about Australia. I eat at Outback Steakhouse, I have seen all the Crocodile Dundee movies, and I've watched a good portion of the Crocodile Hunter TV series. I can tell you for sure that when Paul Hogan came from Australia to the US, he was blown away by our technology, ie, cars, buildings, beds, &c.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by vod[k]a:
No offense, mate, but I happen to know quite a bit about Australia. I eat at Outback Steakhouse, I have seen all the Crocodile Dundee movies, and I've watched a good portion of the Crocodile Hunter TV series. I can tell you for sure that when Paul Hogan came from Australia to the US, he was blown away by our technology, ie, cars, buildings, beds, &c.

damn. I almost peed in my lederhosen.

Good thing I could use my steel helmet to catch ze Dropplets.

-s*

[signal68]

The aussie comment was a jab at Cipher; I was just kidding. Sorry the sarcasm wasn't so apparent. Anyway, I'll provide retorts in a few hours.

[Avenir]

Here's my take on it... so maybe it makes sense that they don't allow electronics during take off and landing because the margin for error is a lot less that while flying. If that is indeed the case, and it seems likely, then I'd be willing to bet that the FAA would LOVE to ban electronics during the ENTIRE flight, but think of the backlash. Can you imagine what would happen if they banned everything? So maybe it is always a risk, but it's much less of one when in the air, and worth the alternative of banning everything all the time.


edit: I'd also like to add that I'm stoked since this is probable the first topic post of mine that's made it over 3 pages

[Spheric Harlot]

Avenir: bingo.

That's all there is to say.

-s*

[signal68]

Originally posted by iT4c0:
OMFG! Why do i hate a person that I dont even know!!! I am sorry, please f***ing ban him forever......I have never seen a person like c$ash in my life. I would punch him in the face if I see him walking on the street!

Back to the topic, Just because the airplane doesn't crash, it does not mean your little cd player doesn't cause any problem to the airplane.

*Deep breath* can anyone lock this thread and move on? I think I am not going to read c$sh's tread from now on. It just make me sound like a bad person.

Ok look newb, you need to chill the f*ck out. We may all have differing opinions, but there's no need for that. (ANd I know I need to chill out sometimes also; I shouldn't have wished death upon iTomato.) But yeah, please meet me in real life. If you punched me in the face I could sue your ass.

- Ca$h

[signal68]

Originally posted by AlbertWu:
2. Why is it that DURING the flight, you can turn on all these gizmos, but during takeoff and landing you cannot?

because during the takeoff and landing procedure, the pilot needs to be in constant contact with ground control for coordination and stuff like that. a short circuit or spark in a frayed wire in your device could act like a wide-band transmitter and disrupt those communications. once you're up in the air it's not so important, cause as long as autopilot works you really don't need to talk to the ground crew.

BRILLIANT POST! Okay, NOW I see a valid reason why we should NOT use electronic devices during takeoff/landing; the possibility of a short would indeed produce a lot or interference. It makes sense, it FINALLY makes sense. See, if only they had told us that instead of 'playing tetris could cause inteference'.

electronic devices that are defective or that have frayed wires act as wide-band transmitters, disrupting communications. also, flourescents ON THE GROUND are on the 60 Hz frequency. well below any communications system used today. flourescents in the air don't produce nearly as much interference, because the current isn't alternating.
4. Do we have to turn off our watches? Pacemakers? Hearing aids?

see above.

However, there's still a flaw to your post. You claim that the flourescents in the air are NOT alternating current...um..

http://home.howstuffworks.com/fluorescent-lamp4.htm

I was aware that ANY flourescent light operated on AC.

And there's also yet another flaw: Gameboys, CD players, laptops, all are DC devices, so if you claim the flourescents are OKAY because they're DC devices, surely the gameboys, cd players & laptops should be okay.

- Rob

[signal68]

Originally posted by RAzaRazor:
faraday nyar!!!!!!

I've told you I know what a faraday cage is. And yes, up until you pointed it out, I hadn't realize that the airplanes skin effectively blocks most interference, and if you'll notice I haven't mentioned ground related interference since. So since we both agree that the airplanes skin is a faraday cage, and that it shield outside interference, we can now delve into the meat and potatoes of this argument. Small electronic devices and how they might affect the plane.

The truth is you are far out of your league here in this discussion. It obviously deals with a subject matter which is beyond your level of comprehension. There are people on these forums smarter than you and smarter than me. Rather than blindly rejecting what they say, it's to your advantage to question what you believe, look at the facts, and reevaluate your conclusions. That is the mark of a person who is willing to learn.

Ah the irony. Anyway, I have been re-evaluating my viewpoints; the comment about the flourescent lighting 'dimming' on takeoff was something I hadn't thought about before, and was a great observation. This has changed my viewpoint somewhat. You on the otherhand, have been BLINDLY defending your viewpoint since post numero uno. The truth is.... a gameboy could not cause an accident. HOWEVER... a gameboy that had a faulty wire and shorted out, COULD in fact cause quite a bit of interference. This alone is reason enough for me to stop 'turning on my gadgets' during takeoff/landing.

- Ca$h

[vod[k]a]

Originally posted by signal68:
Okay, NOW I see a valid reason why we should NOT use electronic devices during takeoff/landing

See, we told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! told you so! :-P

[signal68]

Originally posted by IUJHJSDHE:
And cash has always seemed pritty determend to spread his ignorance here as much as possable.

Ahhh more irony. I may be spreading my opinion, but at least I'm not spreading 'pritty' and 'possable'.

- Ca$h

[signal68]

Originally posted by vod[k]a:
See, we told you so! told you so!^99

No, actually you didn't. You defended something without comprehending it. According to YOU, the simple use of playing a gameboy could 'somehow' cause the plane to crash. You never once explained that a possible 'short' of said electronic device would create quite a bit of interference. Reread what was posted. Nobody brought this possibility up.

- Rob

[vod[k]a]

But we were right and you were wrong. Can't deny that!

[benb]

You know how in Die Hard 2: Die Harder, the bad guys recalibrate the ILS to -200 feet and make the plane crash into the runway?

Even if there is a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance your CD player could cause something like that to happen, the world would still expect you to turn it off. Why? Well someone so big on being considerate and using turn signals ought to know.

[benb]

Originally posted by vod[k]a:
But we were right and you were wrong. Can't deny that!

$50 says he can and will.

[signal68]

Originally posted by vod[k]a:
But we were right and you were wrong. Can't deny that!

In a way. However, you hadn't thought about WHY you were saying what you saying, and I had.

Anyway, yeah I was wrong, I hadn't thought about the whole 'shorting out' scenario. At least I was thinking for myself, unlike you VodKa.

- Rob

[signal68]

Originally posted by benb:
$50 says he can and will.

Please email me so I can arrange to accept $50 from you via paypal.

- Ca$h

[thunderous_funker]

Sweet zombie Jesus!!

This thread is the most spectacular group smackdown I have ever witnessed!

Ca$h has been so ruthlessly, relentlessly and thoroughly smacked-down by the lot of you that he must have been pushed back several stages on the evolutionary scale. Admittedly he operated from a compromised evolutionary position to begin with, but the sheer magnitude of the collective smackdown surely has rendered him precambrian.

Another such thread an he will probably slip from his feeble grasp on Proterozoic existence, pass retrogressively through Hadean time and into utter annihilation.

Truly remarkable. I thank you all for providing me with such blissful reading.

<deep bow>

I owe you all a drink. Especially RazaRazor and ThinkInsane who did the yeoman's work. Simply shattering.

[vod[k]a]

Originally posted by signal68:

Anyway, yeah I was wrong

oh yes, that concession was CASH MONEY!



It's always a great feeling knowing that I was right, even if I didn't know why! To be honest, I don't even grasp the concepts put forth by you, or Razaarazor and ThinkInsane.

[signal68]

Apparently you did not read it. The main issue was USING electronic devices INSIDE the plane's cabin. Razarazor got me with the faraday cage (hadn't thought of that), but still has failed to explain how operating a small DC device such as a gameboy could down a plane.

AlbertWu, however, contributed the most noticeable response in this entire thread, which was the possibility of any electrical device shorting out, and creating quite a bit of interference.

However, he also stated that watches and hearing aids operate on DC, so they wouldn't be a problem (which should mean that gameboys and CD players also shouldn't be a problem). AND he stated that the flourescent fixtures in the cabin are DC, which is just plain wrong. As far as I know, flourescents only operate with AC. Hence. INTERFERENCE.

Anyway....

this debate isn't over. I'm not going to turn on electronic devices BECAUSE of the possibility of a short (however small that may be).... BUTTTTTTTTTT nobody has effectively explained how running a gameboy (which has no moving parts and runs on DC) could possibly down a plane.

- Ca$h

[signal68]

Originally posted by vod[k]a:
To be honest, I don't even grasp the concepts put forth by you, or Razaarazor and ThinkInsane.

Nice pic.

- Ca$h

[vod[k]a]

I thought this argument was about toucans getting sucked into jet engines and causing crashes.

I'm not kidding. (well maybe)

[talisker]

A thought on the flourescent light thing - surely the fundamental difference between them and passengers' electronic devices is not whether they are AC, DC or whatever, but that they are an integral part of the aircraft design. Whatever interference they might produce would have been factored into the design when the aircraft was made, and the wiring designed appropriately, or shielding installed.

[signal68]

Originally posted by talisker:
A thought on the flourescent light thing - surely the fundamental difference between them and passengers' electronic devices is not whether they are AC, DC or whatever, but that they are an integral part of the aircraft design. Whatever interference they might produce would have been factored into the design when the aircraft was made, and the wiring designed appropriately, or shielding installed.

I don't see how you can block the inteference caused by them...

- Rob

[Earth Mk. II]

Quick! Call Bill Nye!


No, really... The guy worked as an engineer for Boeing (helped design parts of the 747, iirc) before his shtick on PBS. He probably would know.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by signal68:
Ok look newb, you need to chill the f*ck out. We may all have differing opinions, but there's no need for that.

The problem here wasn't that you were disagreeing about *opinions*, but *facts*, and then flaunting you ignorance and a magnificent carelessness that could have cost some four HUNDRED people their lives.

-s*

[RAzaRazor]

Originally posted by signal68:
Apparently you did not read it. The main issue was USING electronic devices INSIDE the plane's cabin. Razarazor got me with the faraday cage (hadn't thought of that), but still has failed to..NYAARR!

- Ca$h

What do you think Laptops run on? DC! A gameboy runs on 3V and a laptop on 5V batteries. The type of the current isn't the issue. (Though AC is a lot noisier.)
The noise is generated by the microprocessor.
A gameboy has multiple microprocessors, a electronic dictionary has a microprocessor. Anytime you have electricity zooming about on a metal pathway a signal is generated. The traces on the PCB act as little antennas. The clock is running at so many megahertz, and as a result the emitted signal is at that same frequency.

I would think the fluorescent cabin lights are more prone to causing problems because they are directly tied into the aircraft power busses. Their noise can directly feed back into the bus and into other systems. And yes, there are DC florescent lights. Google for it.

I was never trying to tackle proving to cash that the small devices cause problems. He brought up the whole "more interference close to the ground" garbage. My main point is that the interior of the aircraft is effectively shielded from outside signals by the fuselage, and consequently, any signals from inside the cabin are not likely to escape. (That whole faraday cage thing, again.) This means that the noise from all the electronic devices is just bouncing around all over inside the cabin.

[Xeo]

Not to rain on your parade Cash, but the following quote is from page 2. I guess you didn't see it or make the connection at the time.

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
There are a ton of devices that can do it. Hell, a damaged device can do it. One that wasn't repaired correctly can.

[icruise]

Not to further rain on your parade, but I posted this on the first page of the thread!

Originally posted by Icruise:
Also keep in mind that while most electronic equipment might be safe, a malfunctioning or badly designed piece of equipment could very well cause problems.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Not to further rain on your parade, but I posted this on the first page of the thread!

I thought I remembered something like that from the first page. However, I used the keywords "short" and "damage" to try and find it. You used the world "malfunction." Ah well.

[AlbertWu]

flourescents with advanced enough controllers can be run on DC. AC just eliminates the need for a particularly advanced current-regulator because it is constantly changing.

you can't get AC on a plane. inverter technology is SO inefficient it's not even funny. running a plane's worth of flourescent lights off of inverters would be a pain.

[Spheric Harlot]

And it's odd that Ca$h would find the communications issue convincing.

I would have thought the navigation issues a whole lot more serious, especially with all those real-life examples given on the previous page.

Twelve miles off course is fine and dandy when you're at 30,000 feet. (Though it was enough to get KAL 123 shot down.)

At an altitude of 500 feet, during approach to an airfield, that looks a *little* different.

-s*

[Macpilot]

This a load of crap. I do not know of any accidents/incidents where interference was a causal factor.

I think the real problem is that the newer cockpits are so full of electronics that sometimes don't play well together.

My powerbook has not killed any of my passengers yet.

Nor has my iPod or digital camera or cell phone.

Maxims and Hustlers.....now THAT might be problem.

Seriously, you have a lot more to worry about than what your fellow passenger is doing on his laptop....like what your friendly neighborhood arab-extremist is up to now that he made it through airport security!

[RAzaRazor]

Originally posted by Macpilot:

Seriously, you have a lot more to worry about than what your fellow passenger is doing on his laptop....like what your friendly neighborhood arab-extremist is up to now that he made it through airport security!

No. It seems that we need to worry why the **** the pilot is up in the cockpit playing with the laptop or listening to an iPod.

Dick.

[Macpilot]

Originally posted by RAzaRazor:
The answer is Altitude, and Margin of Error.t.

When problems happens at 35,000 feet, there is a lot of room to correct the situation. There is NO margin for error during takeoff and landing,

Actually, this is not correct.

There is NOT a lot of room for correction when your assigned Flight Level (altitude) is 2000 feet below the other guy, and BOTH aircraft get false traffic warnings (one to climb, the other to descend). This is why I think the whole notion of not having these devices turned "on" during takeoff and landing is nonsense. They can cause just as serious consequences at high altitude as during any other phase of flight.

There is not a lot of room for correction when your MMo (maximum mach speed redline) at cruise flight is let's say .80 and you are travelling at .799. One good gust or inadvertant flight control movement could cause bad things.

Conversely, there is margin for error during takeoff and landing, as this is how the FAA and aircraft manufacturers determine performance limitations such as approach speeds. Pilots use the electronics and thier own senses to stay aware of this margin.

For example, the calculated Target Speed, which is the speed an airliner tries to maintain when fully configured for landing (flaps, slats, landing gear all in proper position for final approach) already has a built-in "fudge factor" which is this margin. You don't drop out of the sky if you are a few knots below this speed, or break apart a few knots above.

Test pilots fly the airplane slower and faster and higher and heavier than the charts show, and this is one way a safe margin is determined for the airline pilot to utilize when carrying passengers.

Although you are correct in the fact that most accidents happen in the takeoff and landing phases of flight, this has nothing to do with passenger electronics, and everything to do with pilot workload/fatigue/error/weather/maintenance, etc.

EMB145 Captain

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by signal68:
It's an old wive's tale, and its no surprise that this article is from AUSTRAILIA. Is it from Britian? USA? Japan? A technologically advanced country? NO!

Got to go. The tent pegs are coming loose.