How is the RAPS system irrelevant? and if you really did understand the whole system you would not make a false statement like The NTSB converted analog readings into engineering units. You take that conversion for granted, in which case you are missing a very large chunk of the picture. No wonder your report is such a mess.
No. I am not. I understand the conversion perfectly, and it's not relevant to the discussion. The fact that you think this is relevant further
underlines (no pun intended) your lack of knowledge on this topic.
Do you want me to sit down and explain to you the basics of information theory and why data is encoded, digitally, the way that it is? If I tell you that they chose the encoding scheme that maximized the joint shannon entropy of the bits, would you believe me then? If I told you that sometimes they use a non-intuitive encoding because it provides optimal dynamic range and resolution tradeoffs (e.g, using integer encoding for a floating point value, or vice versa).
If I get into the gritty details of this process, just to prove I know it, what will it prove?
Your goal here is shoot your mouth off about a bunch of stuff that you don't understand but read about on the internet and hope something sticks to the wall. Inside the framework of my paper, the conversion between optimal digital encoding and engineering units is irrelevant. Yes, the issue is an important one for fully understanding how to design and build a digital recorded from scratch, but it's not important for understanding the flaws in CTers analysis of the actual FDR data.
This is a complex, but separate issue. Again, if you want to get into a pissing content of "who knows more than who", I am willing. You won't win, though.. and what will it change?
I know what you said, you missed this part, so I "critiqued" it for you. Something no one else here seems to care about doing. Hmm?
And I appreciate the critique of the style, semantics, and tone. I'll correct all of these stylistic issues when I finish the document. Of actual interest, however, is your crique of the science. And so far every scientific claim you've made has been proven false by your own graphic. You haven't even needed me, yet, to prove you wrong.
Regonizing how frames are represented and saying a CSV has frames are two different things.
Sounds like gibberish semantics to me.
I thought this scientific report was for people who dont' have any background.
It was expository and pedalogical (look them up). When you are writing expository papers, you don't bury people in technical details that they aren't expected to know, unless it's necessary. You provide motivation for the solution, before showing the solution. These are the basics of expository scientific writing, and you don't seem to get it. However, still, more stylistic talk... nothing of substance.
I gave you 2 graphics and I don't think you even understand the 2nd one really well.
You mean the one that contains two footnotse that submarines every substantive claim you've made? That one?
Maybe becuase it doesn't have volts/ampree/ohms in it's description.
Is that what you think electrical engineering is? Haha.
I'm sorry, you are backwards. What we don't have is the timestamp of the frame (or the frame reference number), what we do have (and what the CSV file represents) is the FDAU time stamp of the data which was converted from it's stored UTC/GMT to EST.
Completely and utterly wrong. This is the basic assumption on which all the CT analysis rests, and it's utterly wrong. Thanks for giving me a succinct pile of gibberish to point at.
