oldrover
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,057
Read about MRI(NMR) here: http://www.n-atlantis.com/mri.htm
The roots and original ideas behind all modern day technology originate pre 1930's.
P.E.T scan.
Read about MRI(NMR) here: http://www.n-atlantis.com/mri.htm
The roots and original ideas behind all modern day technology originate pre 1930's.
Allow me to repeat, you already said they ignored the instruments.Ghostisfort said:When the instruments started playing up, it's a fair conclusion to draw, that this was because the input from instruments was at odds with theory(gravity), hence the reboot?
If the problem was not gravity then what else could it possibly be?
The "FIX" is not explained.
Then Apollo 12 lands with ten times the accuracy. I'm saying that the gravity calculations were removed from the computer and all was well.
Self contradictory statement that you have not explained, I've already quoted it, and you quoted me quoting it, so you are certainly aware of it, without providing an explanation. Since it's self contradictory, there can of course not be one.Ghostisfort said:As can be seen, they were navigating by landmarks with constant alarms from the computer and incorrect data from all the other instruments.
You're welcome to read about the fix for Apollo 12 here, on page 17. http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/SchiesserER/SchiesserER_12-7-06.pdfGhostisfort said:Then Apollo 12 lands with ten times the accuracy. I'm saying that the gravity calculations were removed from the computer and all was well.
It seems as if there was another possible assumption.Ghostisfort said:I'm afraid that we are back to square one with the only possible assumption, that they jettisoned all gravity measurements and relied on radar Doppler and optical instruments for altitude and position.
Technology is assumed to be a spin-off from physics and is often called application of physics. My argument is that most of today's technology is derived from ideas that originated before the 1930's.oldrover said:P.E.T scan.Read about MRI(NMR) here: http://www.n-atlantis.com/mri.htm
The roots and original ideas behind all modern day technology originate pre 1930's.
I will look into this subject and include it in the MRI web page. These things more often than not, tend to be the ideas by unheard of or unsung heroes from much earlier dates.The concept of emission and transmission tomography was introduced by David E. Kuhl, Luke Chapman and Roy Edwards in the late 1950s. Their work later led to the design and construction of several tomographic instruments at the University of Pennsylvania. Tomographic imaging techniques were further developed by Michel Ter-Pogossian, Michael E. Phelps and others at the Washington University School of Medicine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_e ... hy#History
kamalktk said:Allow me to repeat, you already said they ignored the instruments.
Ghostisfort wrote:
As can be seen, they were navigating by landmarks with constant alarms from the computer and incorrect data from all the other instruments.
Self contradictory statement that you have not explained, I've already quoted it, and you quoted me quoting it, so you are certainly aware of it, without providing an explanation. Since it's self contradictory, there can of course not be one.
Who uses it?Monstrosa said:Just because you don't want to use QKD, that doesn't mean it is not useful to some. It is commercially available and used. Don't try to move the goalposts now.
You did not quote the transcript. You edited the transcript to fit your viewpoint by leaving out multiple paragraphs included in the original transmissions and leaving out explanatory paragraphs. I have already shown that.Ghostisfort said:kamalktk said:Allow me to repeat, you already said they ignored the instruments.
Ghostisfort wrote:
As can be seen, they were navigating by landmarks with constant alarms from the computer and incorrect data from all the other instruments.
Self contradictory statement that you have not explained, I've already quoted it, and you quoted me quoting it, so you are certainly aware of it, without providing an explanation. Since it's self contradictory, there can of course not be one.
I'm quoting from the transcript as you know, and they 'were' navigating by landmarks. I don't see a problem with this apart from the omission of quote marks. This is exactly what they were doing according to the transcript and I simply paraphrased.
It's interesting that you agree with my logical progression to a gravity problem and you say: "The fix was improving the gravity calculations." What does "improving" mean, exactly?
Which is too bad, since the AGC crashed due to engineering error in the rendezvous radar, causing the radar to request extra AGC computing power which it did not have available, as explained in the article on the AGC. In fact, the "obvious culprit" was a known and documented hardware design error that had happened only a single time during testing, once again as explained in the article on the AGC.Ghostisfort said:I'm afraid that one has to look else ware for an INPUT to the computer that would cause failure. The obvious culprit is the gravity formulas. As an engineer and not being a scientist, I would look at such things and not consider them as being sacred.
Don't confuse him with the facts, he's already made up his mind!kamalktk said:This is all fully sourced, and the specific sources are identified in the article.
Ghostisfort said:, you would have noticed that we did GPS, and no it isn't.
Ghostisfort said:What I'm asking for is new concepts derived from modern physics in the past 30 years
This is becoming ridiculous.Scientists have long known that the moon's gravity field is strangely uneven and tugs on satellites in complex ways. Without course corrections, orbiters end their missions nose down in the moondust! In fact, all five of NASA's Lunar Orbiters (1966-1972), four Soviet Luna probes (1959-1965), two Apollo sub-satellites (1970-1971) and Japan's Hiten spacecraft (1993) suffered this fate... To minimize the effects of mascons, satellite orbits have to be carefully chosen. GRAIL's gravity maps will help mission planners make those critical decisions. Moreover, the maps GRAIL scientists will construct are essential to NASA's intended human landing on the moon in the next decade. The gravity of the moon's far side and polar regions, where future landings are targeted, is least understood.
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/scitech/dis ... ST_ID=2265
Let's bear all of this in mind and consider Apollo 12, that landed with a ten times improved accuracy?The Apollo Guidance Computer returned errors because it was overloaded. The rendezvous radar was requesting AGC computer time when it shouldn't, and the AGC was already operating at near maximum capacity during the descent, causing the AGC to not have enough computing power to do it's job.
wembley9 said:Ghostisfort said:What I'm asking for is new concepts derived from modern physics in the past 30 years
There are no new concepts, everything is based on earlier concepts. When was this not true? Steam power was discovered centuries before it was put to practical use, electricity ditto, nuclear took many decades to go from theory to practice, ditto space rockets etc etc.
But there are increasing numbers of mature applications based on better understanding of physics, which is why we have this unprecedented wealth of new technology arriving at an ever-increasing rate.
Timble2 said:It occurs to me that teleportation has been achieved...
Ghostisfort said:The roots and original ideas behind all modern day technology originate pre 1930's.
You're determined to shoehorn everything into your 'golden age'. But the transistor as we know it today was not developed and demonstrated until the 1940s (and it earned its developers a Nobel prize in 1956).Ghostisfort said:There was a golden age of discovery from the beginning of the 19th century to the first decades of the 20th. Such things as AC power and distribution, radio, television, aviation, semiconductors and transistors, radio astronomy and even such exotics as Terahertz waves, all had their debut in this period that ended in the 1930's.
I didn't say that. The link you provided said that there was a 3 mile error that had nothing to do with gravity, http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.landing.html I've already pointed that out, also how you edited that out when you quoted from it.Ghostisfort said:First your argument was that it was not gravity that caused the landing positional error
is a claim by you that is 100% incorrect, once again as previously posted in this thread, this fix was improving the gravity calculations to account for mascons. You simply ignore the engineering fixes for the three miles.Ghostisfort said:I'm afraid that we are back to square one with the only possible assumption, that they jettisoned all gravity measurements and relied on radar Doppler and optical instruments for altitude and position.
You don't need an exact map to improve the calculations, you merely need a better map. Since mascons had already been discovered (once again as already posted), Apollo 12 had more mascon data to go from, since it was able to use the data from Apollo 11. Better map.Ghostisfort said:How did it manage to do this if the cause was mascons?
They were not mapped at that time.
How did Apollo 12 manage to avoid mascons?
No, the rendezvous radar was in standby, it's data was not being used. Once again, this has already been posted in this thread. Your statement says that the rendezvous radar had control over the computer to request data from it, that the radar would then compare to it's reading. So you are saying the radar is the true computer? That's not how instruments work, they feed data to the computer. The problem, once again as already posted in this thread, is that the rendezvous radar was asking for time when it should not have been, it was not operating as it should have been in standby mode.Ghostisfort said:And now we are back to computer error which is where we started.
It was overloaded because of dodgy gravity calculations not agreeing with instrument inputs. The rendezvous radar was requesting AGC computer time because the computer was giving readings that did not agree with actual real time Doppler measurements.
No. This has been covered already in this thread, and indeed already in this post. It was also covered in the link, that you said you read, on the page I already posted.Ghostisfort said:I read the link that you supplied and for what it was worth and it does say that there was a gravity program installed in the onboard computer.
I can only assume that the FIX was to remove it and fly by instrument readings only.
There is no firm conclusion given in the transcript as to what caused the problem , hence my phrase "for what it's worth". But above it's clearly stated that gravity (mascons) played a large part and it's admitted that there was scant knowledge. Aldrin seems surprised that they did so well at only three miles.kamalktk said:Ghostisfort said:.For those still interestedI'm putting you on ignore. Ignore, it seems fitting .
This is from just below the extract that you(kamalktk gone) have posted above:
[And, finally, Hamish LIndsay, author of Tracking Apollo to the Moon notes that imperfect knowledge of the effects of mascons (mass concentrations) may have also contributed. In 2006, Hamish consulted with Jerry Bostick, who served as Flight Dynamics Officer on Gene Kranz's White Team. Bostick tells us, "It's one of those things that is hard to definitely prove one way or the other, but my opinion is that it was a combination of the tunnel pressure and us not completely understanding - being able to accurately model - the mass concentrations."]
[Armstrong - "We ended up three miles long."]
[Aldrin - "I think it's pretty remarkable that, this early in the burn, we could estimate that. Good guess."]
[Armstrong - "We picked a number of landmarks (to look at) while we were still in the face-down mode."]
http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.landing.html
How many?Monstrosa said:Banks and other financial services use QKD.
Everyone was attempting to make a transistor in the thirties and forties and even earlier and I have records of several more successes. The large electronic companies were searching for technology, as they do today, to make a buck.rynner2 said:You're determined to shoehorn everything into your 'golden age'. But the transistor as we know it today was not developed and demonstrated until the 1940s (and it earned its developers a Nobel prize in 1956).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor"The first patent for the field-effect transistor principle was filed in Canada by Austrian-Hungarian physicist Julius Edgar Lilienfeld on October 22, 1925, (basically the same as William Shockley's "invention") but Lilienfeld published no research articles about his devices, and they were ignored by industry.
When Brattain, Bardeen, and Robert Gibney tried to get patents on their earliest devices, most of their claims were rejected due to the Lilienfeld patents."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Edgar_Lilienfeld
In 1934 German physicist Dr. Oskar Heil patented another field-effect transistor. There is no direct evidence that these devices were built, but later work in the 1990s show that one of Lilienfeld's designs worked as described and gave substantial gain. Legal papers from the Bell Labs patent show that William Shockley and a co-worker at Bell Labs, Gerald Pearson, had built operational versions from Lilienfeld's patents, yet they never referenced this work in any of their later research papers or historical articles." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_transistor
Oskar Heil, FET
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Heil ... transistor
Having an idea, and getting that idea to work, are two very different things.However, Lilienfeld did not publish any research articles about his devices nor did his patents cite any specific examples of a working prototype. Since the production of high-quality semiconductor materials was still decades away, Lilienfeld's solid-state amplifier ideas would not have found practical use in the 1920s and 1930s, even if such a device were built.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor
The same number as angels can dance on the head of a pin.Ghostisfort said:How many?Monstrosa said:Banks and other financial services use QKD.
I would guess that someone writing in a popular science mag' has said that it MAY be useful to banks and other financial services IN THE FUTURE. This is what passes for fact on this forum.
Pietro_Mercurios said:Theory to practice and only forty odd years later, they were not only making transistors, but they were making them into integrated circuits sophisticated enough to build computers that could get men in rockets a quarter of a million miles to the moon and back, without them ending up as a smear on the landscape.
Pretty impressive and all done without the use of Tesla's theory of aether, or of gravity.
What this means is that when the first transistors arrived, quantum physics did not exist in any form recognisable today. It also coincided with the "Golden Age"(for rynner)."The old quantum theory was a collection of results from the years 1900-1925 which predate modern quantum mechanics." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_quantum_theory
rynner2 said:Gif's claim for Lilienfield as the inventor of the transistor is a distortion of the facts.
"Solid State Physics Group leader William Shockley saw the potential in [Bardeen and Brattain's early prototype], and over the next few months worked to greatly expand the knowledge of semiconductors." They did the work, they got the Nobel...
And here is what you have been waiting for...your famous LED.Legal papers from the Bell Labs patent show that William Shockley and a co-worker at Bell Labs, Gerald Pearson, had built operational versions from Lilienfeld's patents, yet they never referenced this work in any of their later research papers or historical articles." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_transistor
In the early 1920s Russia, devastated by civil war, Oleg Losev was experimenting with applying voltage biases to various kinds of crystals, with purpose to refine the reception. The result was astonishing – with a zincyte (zinc oxide) crystal he gained amplification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Losev
Another transistor:In course of his work as a radio technician, he noticed that crystal diodes used in radio receivers emitted light when current was passed through them. In 1927, Losev published details in a Russian journal of the first-ever light-emitting diode...
His observations of LEDs languished for half a century before being recognized in the late 20th and early 21st century. In 1907, H. J. Round made a very brief report (only 2 paragraphs) in Electrical World regarding light coming from SiC by electrical excitation.[3] Losev's papers provided much more detailed information than Round.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Losev
The revisionists and presentists would have us believe that Shockley et al invented the transistor, but cock deaf ear and a blind eye toward the true history. The motive is to create the illusion that modern scientists are actually doing something and to elevate their paper heroes to the sainthood of science... To create a scientific, textbook, mythology that beatifies their own for sham academic agrandisement.Robert George Adams, founder of the New Zealand Section of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) claimed to have produced a transistor around 1933.
http://electronic-geek.com/the-lost-transistor/
Ghostisfort said:Everyone was attempting to make a transistor in the thirties
wembley9 said:Ghostisfort said:Everyone was attempting to make a transistor in the thirties
And 'everyone' failed.
This shows once more that even in your golden age the development process took decades at least.
So what's new?