AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[R.Mackey]

No you don't know how they work, or you never would have touched the
six second "erased upon impact" nonsense.

Overvoltage? Did you forget about the integral LRC filter circuits and regulators?

Damage nearby cells! LMFAO!

You would smoke the entire chip before you 'damaged a cell'. We're talking
microns here, not miles buddy.

Give it up. Seriously, give it up. You are a joke. Any electronics engineer
would slap you if they read your reply.

Sorry, but you're completely wrong.

When you're in a write operation, you're accessing a particular cell. That makes the EEPROM more susceptible to power supply problems. If, instead of a metered charge going into that cell, you get a sudden burst of high voltage or alternating current, this preferentially affects the nearby cells. This is because they are closest, and thus the most affected by parasitic capacitance. It is not at all unusual for this to damage an EEPROM without totally destroying it. This is one reason why electrostatic discharge is an issue in sensitive electronics. It doesn't take much, if the signal path is already established, as it is during a write operation.

Besides, as remarked before to you several times, this completely misses the point. FDR losses of data after collisions happen all the time. We don't even have to explain why. We only do because the explanation is simple, and it also exposes that you're all talk and very, very little wisdom. Now, for the last time, please drop the act and try to learn something. That is, after all, what this place is for.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Turbo, why could they not get the data form the CVR?

 

[Turbofan]

Sorry, but you're completely wrong.

When you're in a write operation, you're accessing a particular cell. That makes the EEPROM more susceptible to power supply problems. If, instead of a metered charge going into that cell, you get a sudden burst of high voltage or alternating current, this preferentially affects the nearby cells. This is because they are closest, and thus the most affected by parasitic capacitance. It is not at all unusual for this to damage an EEPROM without totally destroying it. This is one reason why electrostatic discharge is an issue in sensitive electronics. It doesn't take much, if the signal path is already established, as it is during a write operation.

Besides, as remarked before to you several times, this completely misses the point. FDR losses of data after collisions happen all the time. We don't even have to explain why. We only do because the explanation is simple, and it also exposes that you're all talk and very, very little wisdom. Now, for the last time, please drop the act and try to learn something. That is, after all, what this place is for.

OMG! OMG! I can't stop laughing. I took a screen capture of your reply
and I'm going to post it to every electronics and networking board on the
planet.

I'll wait for all the replies, and then I'll link you to all the sites so I can prove
how friggin' STUPID that nonsense really is!

First off: If there is a data collision on a network , the packet is resent.

But wait, that's not all...this is a dedicated system and more of logic
controller operation than an open network...so too bad for you again.

Also, the FDR is accepting serial data from ONE source (FDAU). I'd believe
that garbage if you said it happened within the FDAU

Again, the data that was captured and retrieved from the FDR shows
it was received in good form. So those particular cells arlready show
altitude too high!

WOw, I can't wait to send this all over and expose you a third time!

You can't even lie to save your life.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Uh oh, turbo is confused with networking now. I hope he includes his reply in his screen shot. Did he even read the post he is replying to? Now THAT is funny stuff! Could bhe a stundie if the post replied to is included.

 

[R.Mackey]

Personally, I'm hoping he makes good on his threat. That should be the last we hear from him.

 

[Turbofan]

Oh yeah, this is funny stuff.

Mackey thinks that the FDR had power six seconds after initial impact
to wipe out six seconds of data

Sorry to say, but you get 256 wps...I might buy...na, I wouldn't
buy any of your guesses.

now you're just making stuff up to save face, and it's making
it worse for you.

P.S. it's not a threat, it's promise!

Your theory doesn't even account for the time stamps,
or recovered data that still shows the impact with AA77
was impossible.

 

[R.Mackey]

Oh yeah, this is funny stuff.

Mackey thinks that the FDR had power six seconds after initial impact
to wipe out six seconds of data

I said nothing even approaching that. You, sir, are a bald-faced liar.

I only hope you're not lying about your "promise." Maybe the response will cure you of whatever ails you...

 

[WildCat]

OMG! OMG! I can't stop laughing. I took a screen capture of your reply
and I'm going to post it to every electronics and networking board on the
planet.

I'll wait for all the replies, and then I'll link you to all the sites so I can prove
how friggin' STUPID that nonsense really is!

Oh please do this! I also hope you tell us in advance which ones, so we can watch the train wreck in real time!

When will you be doing this and where?

eta: this sooo reminds me of when that idiot fraud Rob Balsamo took his crap to a pilot's forum and got smacked around 9 ways to Sunday!

 

[Turbofan]

I said nothing even approaching that. You, sir, are a bald-faced liar.

I only hope you're not lying about your "promise." Maybe the response will cure you of whatever ails you...

Really?

You said that cells can be damaged during write time!

Well, how long is your transient spike? 6 seconds long?

Each bit gets about 300 useconds to store, and how do suppose
you can erase 6 seconds worth of data with a transient spike?

How do you suppose the duration of that spike extends for 6 seconds
after power is lost upon impact?

What's your guess as to how all the cells are addressed and the address
lines are enable after power is lost?

Do you need another shovel?

Do yourself a favour and stop responding to electronic related threads.

WC: I'll let you know once I spread the news. The sad part is you can't
see how impossible his statements are.

 

[R.Mackey]

You do not need a six second spike to erase six seconds of data. Data corruption is the issue here. It takes as little as two bad bits to undo two entire frames of data if you're unlucky. Which bits are affected by power fluctuations varies, but depends on physical location on the chip, not the time duration of the transient event. A big enough spike will corrupt every single value on the chip in a microsecond. Seriously, that inference redefines idiocy.

I think the biggest laugh so far is Turbofan equating "data" and "collisions" (viz. the aircraft hitting the Pentagon) with "data collisions."

That's even better than his mix-up of data and power lines earlier in this thread, or the "Hertz per second" gaffe... In any case, I think we've all laughed at him enough. If there remains anyone who has any doubt about the FDR phenomenology, besides of course the unfortunate Turbofan, feel free to ask and I'll do what I can.

ETA: My mistake. The "Hertz per second" mistake was hxstamper, not Turbofan. Their posting style is so similar that I confused the two.

 

[Turbofan]

Psst...Mackey, you're losing it again.

When did the frames get corrupt? Before , or after impact?

Please answer this so I can hammer this home for the last time.

 

[R.Mackey]

During impact.

I cannot even begin to speculate a means of comprehending the faintest possibility of an apprehension of ever gaining an inkling into the slightest bit of insight as to how anyone would conclude otherwise.

 

[Myriad]

Really?

You said that cells can be damaged during write time!

Well, how long is your transient spike? 6 seconds long?

Each bit gets about 300 useconds to store, and how do suppose
you can erase 6 seconds worth of data with a transient spike?

How do you suppose the duration of that spike extends for 6 seconds
after power is lost upon impact?

What's your guess as to how all the cells are addressed and the address
lines are enable after power is lost?

Do you need another shovel?

Do yourself a favour and stop responding to electronic related threads.

WC: I'll let you know once I spread the news. The sad part is you can't
see how impossible his statements are.

To anyone who knows anything about electronic systems, this makes about as much sense as claiming that because it takes twenty minutes to write a page of text with pen and ink, it would take twenty minutes to ruin the words on the page by spilling ink on it.

Substitute electric charge for ink, and speed up the time scale, and the analogy is quite close. ("How do you suppose you can erase 20 minutes of writing with a transient ink spill?")

Please, PLEASE someone let me know if Turbofan takes this to electronics forums. I don't want to miss the fun!

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[T.A.M.]

During impact.

I cannot even begin to speculate a means of comprehending the faintest possibility of an apprehension of ever gaining an inkling into the slightest bit of insight as to how anyone would conclude otherwise.

That's quite a mouthful there Mack.

TAM

 

[WildCat]

Psst...Mackey, you're losing it again.

When did the frames get corrupt? Before , or after impact?

Please answer this so I can hammer this home for the last time.

When will you be posting on the electronics forum Turbofan?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Again, turbo cannot get past thinking that the end of data means the time of impact and he cannot comprehend how data can be written, and then lost later from damage.

This is really kind of sad.

 

[Turbofan]

During impact.

I cannot even begin to speculate a means of comprehending the faintest possibility of an apprehension of ever gaining an inkling into the slightest bit of insight as to how anyone would conclude otherwise.

OK now. So the data before impact is fine.

You say the corruption took place during impact.

Next Question:
How long do you think the FDAU and FDR had power after impact?

Myriad, I'm going to post your ink analogy too. That's just as funny.

you and Mackey should get together and look at the links I just posted
and explain how data is erased in EEPROM memory.

 

[R.Mackey]

OK now. So the data before impact is fine.

You say the corruption took place during impact.

Yes. Data recorded before impact was fine. During the impact, data currently being written was lost, and there is potential for corruption of previously recorded data.

Next Question:
How long do you think the FDAU and FDR had power after impact?

Not precisely worded enough. From the instant the nose of the aircraft contacted the Pentagon wall, the FDR might have had stable power for approximately 1/10th of a second. This is roughly how long it takes for the aircraft engines to reach the wall, at which point power generation must have been disrupted, based on the aircraft size and its speed. However, depending on how the power buses failed, power might have been destabilized or cut almost instantly.

It is also barely possible that the FDR's own power supply could have remained stable until it too was damaged, another 1/10th of a second later, when the tailcone reached the wall. So the upper bound is approximately 200 milliseconds. Lower bound, < 10 milliseconds.

I also fail to see how this question is relevant.

you and Mackey should get together and look at the links I just posted
and explain how data is normally erased in EEPROM memory.

Added an important word for you. Nobody here is discussing normal EEPROM erasure. We're talking about physical damage. Why are you having so much trouble understanding the distinction? I'm utterly baffled at this.

 

[Turbofan]

Yes. Data recorded before impact was fine. During the impact, data currently being written was lost, and there is potential for corruption of previously recorded data.

OK for bold section.

Not OK for red section. The address lines for those specific cells would
not be enabled.

For the third, or forth time you can't erase single cells without wiping out
pages and blocks. See the link!

Not precisely worded enough. From the instant the nose of the aircraft contacted the Pentagon wall, the FDR might have had stable power for approximately 1/10th of a second. This is roughly how long it takes for the aircraft engines to reach the wall, at which point power generation must have been disrupted, based on the aircraft size and its speed. However, depending on how the power buses failed, power might have been destabilized or cut almost instantly.


It is also barely possible that the FDR's own power supply could have remained stable until it too was damaged, another 1/10th of a second later, when the tailcone reached the wall. So the upper bound is approximately 200 milliseconds. Lower bound, < 10 milliseconds.

That's far from 6 seconds of data! Where's the other 5.80 seconds?

I also fail to see how this question is relevant.

This doesn't surprise me.

Electrically Erasable Programmable ReadOnly Memory

ELECTRCIALLY

You can't erase, write , or read without power! I'll give you the 200 msecs,
but the 'missing' data (as you call it) does not fit your theory.

Added an important word for you. Nobody here is discussing normal EEPROM erasure. We're talking about physical damage. Why are you having so much trouble understanding the distinction? I'm utterly baffled at this.

I am baffled that you can't grasp how EEPROM's work. Damage? 3400 g's?
The memory itself was not physically damaged. I guess you didn't see the report?
No dice on this guess...sorry Mackey.

Impact wiping out a few seconds of data? With 200 msecs of power?

May I add this to my posts on the electronic engineering forums?


Keep on posting Mackey, every reply gets you deeper in the hole.
You should just admit your error and try a new theory.

 

[X]

You are still arguing strawmen, Turbofan.

Your assertions of what Ryan Mackey has said are false. This has been pointed out to you time and time again. You only response has been to re-state your assertion, and try to back it up with misunderstandings that make you look like a fool.

Additionally, you are getting more and more vitriolic.
Note that Ryan Mackey has been incredibly civil to you throughout. I feel myself losing patience just reading your posts, and you aren't even insulting me.

Frankly, I'm amazed Ryan hasn't put you on ignore yet. You are plainly interested only in spewing your preconceptions, and have no intention of trying to learn anything.

I say this because if you did, you would not continue mis-stating what Ryan Mackey said.

It makes you appear to be either a moron, someone pretending to be a moron in order to avoid admitting he doesn't understand what he is talking about, or an out-and-out liar.

Go ahead, post Mackey's post on every electronics message board you can find.
Don't forget to link them here so they can see the context.
And do please tell us where you post it.
If posted, it'll be found anyway. If not, you are simply full of bluster and know you are wrong, but are unwilling to admit it.