Private checkride went horribly wrong!

pflemming said:
Never mind.

The reality is that ultimately ground based transmitters are more vulnerable than space based transmitters if someone well and truly wants to disrupt a radio based navigation system, and the target is able to do whatever they can to avoid it.

But we are getting off topic.

I need to take a break, and wait until I have an update on my conversation with the DPE.

You guys are killing me!

:eek:
Click to expand...

Not really, this is very relevant to the topic, your lack of consideration of the importance of detail. In fact, space based systems are far more vulnerable to not on terrestrial based threats, but also space based natural phenomenon.
 
pflemming said:
Never mind.

The reality is that ultimately ground based transmitters are more vulnerable than space based transmitters if someone well and truly wants to disrupt a radio based navigation system, and the target is able to do whatever they can to avoid it.

But we are getting off topic.

I need to take a break, and wait until I have an update on my conversation with the DPE.

You guys are killing me!

:eek:
Click to expand...

Um...no.

Ground based transmitters are infinitely more difficult to disrupt because of (a) Proximity and (b) Power. They are both far higher power than anything that is economical to launch into space, and thanks to the fact that they're much, much closer and the magic of the inverse square law, it takes orders of magnitude more power to jam them.

And this just demonstrates that you are entirely unwilling to listen to other people and their correct advice.
 
Henning said:
Not really, this is very relevant to the topic, your lack of consideration of the importance of detail. In fact, space based systems are far more vulnerable to not on terrestrial based threats, but also space based natural phenomenon.
Click to expand...

Typical Henning. So you're an expert on space phenomena now?

By the way... What is your educational level seriously? You talk the talk, that is for sure.
 
JeffDG said:
Um...no.

Ground based transmitters are infinitely more difficult to disrupt because of (a) Proximity and (b) Power. They are both far higher power than anything that is economical to launch into space, and thanks to the fact that they're much, much closer and the magic of the inverse square law, it takes orders of magnitude more power to jam them.

And this just demonstrates that you are entirely unwilling to listen to other people and their correct advice.
Click to expand...

I take advice... maybe not yours because you're misinformed, but I've taken plenty advice from others on this board.
 
JeffDG said:
Um...no.

Ground based transmitters are infinitely more difficult to disrupt because of (a) Proximity and (b) Power. They are both far higher power than anything that is economical to launch into space, and thanks to the fact that they're much, much closer and the magic of the inverse square law, it takes orders of magnitude more power to jam them.

And this just demonstrates that you are entirely unwilling to listen to other people and their correct advice.
Click to expand...

I have no idea about jamming or disrupting through electronic counter measures, so I have no basis to agree or disagree on that front. But what about something a little more low tech, such as use of demolitions? It would seem easier to get access to a VOR on the ground than a satelite.
 
pflemming said:
Typical Henning. So you're an expert on space phenomena now?

By the way... What is your educational level seriously? You talk the talk, that is for sure.
Click to expand...
Do you not take advice from someone without a degree? Even if they're right? Is it possible for someone to know more about aviation than you even if they don't have a college education? Is your education even related to aviation?

FWIW I don't even have a high school diploma yet alone a college degree.
 
PPC1052 said:
I have no idea about jamming or disrupting through electronic counter measures, so I have no basis to agree or disagree on that front. But what about something a little more low tech, such as use of demolitions? It would seem easier to get access to a VOR on the ground than a satelite.
Click to expand...


Thank you, finally someone who is sane.

Just be greatful Jeff and Henning are not involved in planning military defense of our country, they would probably be advocating LORAN for military navigation!

Another fine example of how Jeff and Henning and some others live in the past. Ground based navigation was great back in the 1940s. Along with paper.
 
Well, if I'm going to get a lecture in electrodynamics from someone I'd like to know their qualifications. For a lesson in flying, yes sure, Henning is way ahead of me. I know that. Of course I know that.
 
pflemming said:
Well, if I'm going to get a lecture in electrodynamics from someone I'd like to know their qualifications. For a lesson in flying, yes sure, Henning is way ahead of me. I know that. Of course I know that.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you might accept some advice on airmanship from someone designated by the FAA as having some knowledge on the subject, but you don't seem capable of that.
 
JeffDG said:
Perhaps you might accept some advice on airmanship from someone designated by the FAA as having some knowledge on the subject, but you don't seem capable of that.
Click to expand...

:D

okay you got me there...

Working on it.
 
pflemming said:
Typical Henning. So you're an expert on space phenomena now?

By the way... What is your educational level seriously? You talk the talk, that is for sure.
Click to expand...

I make my living using all this stuff, I learn the details like 'solar flares' and 'sun spots' disrupting satellite transmissions to earth by charging the ionosphere. Did you know they have NOTAMS in those regards? If it all fails and I still have a good clock, I can find my way around the world using a sextant and some papyrus sheets. I even had to use it once on the way back from Hawaii after a lightning strike blew out all our electronics. That's why in order to have an Oceans rating on my master's license, I had to pass a test on celestial navigation, which a bunch of people think is unnecessary because of GPS. No matter how advanced technology gets, you still have to be able to get home when it all goes to hell.
 
He is coming around.

Last week it was:
"And sorry to disappoint, but I will be flying with y'all. Flying circles around you in fact."

Today it is now everyone but Henning
"For a lesson in flying, yes sure, Henning is way ahead of me. I know that. Of course I know that."
 
PPC1052 said:
I have no idea about jamming or disrupting through electronic counter measures, so I have no basis to agree or disagree on that front. But what about something a little more low tech, such as use of demolitions? It would seem easier to get access to a VOR on the ground than a satelite.
Click to expand...

pflemming said:
Thank you, finally someone who is sane.
Click to expand...

OK. We have now confirmed that if your jammer of choice is a baseball bat, or a truck full of manure, it's easier to jam a VOR signal than a GPS satellite signal. Got it.
 
pflemming said:
Typical Henning. So you're an expert on space phenomena now?

By the way... What is your educational level seriously? You talk the talk, that is for sure.
Click to expand...

He may not be an EE (or maybe he is -- he's quite reasonably informed), but he's right.

One space based phenomenon that can interfere spectacularly with GPS signals is a coronal mass ejection directed in an unfortunate direction. There are also issues of "space junk" and just satellite breakage. They don't last forever, though there is more redundancy in the system than there used to be.

He "talks the talk" a lot better than you do. You claim to be an EE, but seem to be surprised by the inverse square law and transmitter power. While not all EEs are RF engineers, that IS part of core engineering education.

How interesting that you refuse to identify anything about yourself, but you want Henning's degree? Leaving aside that it's irrelevant to your wrong argument, isn't that a bit one-sided?
 
mtuomi said:
"electrodynamics"? :)
Click to expand...

See: Feynman, Richard. Lorenz, and Maxwell: Classic electrodynamics is the study of electrical charges, how they propagate, influence, and are influenced by magnetism, and other natural phenomenon(lightning, solar rad, northern lights, etc).

The OP was just going to lecture on this I believe. Should be good theater.

<Edit: and now I must edit, because I related the wrong research field. I first said quantum and meant classical. Sorry, my bad. MAK above has it right. I don't work in that stuff much, mostly networks and comp systems.>
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
See: Feynman, Richard. Lorenz, and Maxwell: Classic electrodynamics is the study of electrical charges, how they propagate, influence, and are influenced by magnetism, and other natural phenomenon(lightning, solar rad, northern lights, etc).

The OP was just going to lecture on this I believe. Should be good theater.
Click to expand...

I've only read Feynman Lectures and both of his "autobiographies" and I know enough to say "electrodynamics" is nothing our dear Peter tried to explain :)

edit: you edited while I posted :)
 
docmirror said:
See: Feynman, Richard, Lorenz, and Maxwell: Quantum electrodynamics is the study of electrical charges, how they propagate, influence, and are influenced by magnetism, and other natural phenomenon(lightning, solar rad, northern lights, etc).

The OP was just going to lecture on this I believe. Should be good theater.
Click to expand...

Electrodynamics (not QED) is just how electric and magnetic fields are affected by each other and moving charges. I.e., Maxwell, not Feynman.

Only slightly relevant.

What it really is is a form of name-dropping. He's trying to BS his way through it.

If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance,
Baffle 'em with bulls***.
 
MAKG1 said:
Electrodynamics (not QED) is just how electric and magnetic fields are affected by each other and moving charges. I.e., Maxwell, not Feynman.

Only slightly relevant.

What it really is is a form of name-dropping. He's trying to BS his way through it.

If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance,
Baffle 'em with bulls***.
Click to expand...
He will learn quickly that this is not the place to baffle people with bull****.
 
mtuomi said:
I've only read Feynman Lectures and both of his "autobiographies" and I know enough to say "electrodynamics" is nothing our dear Peter tried to explain :)

edit: you edited while I posted :)
Click to expand...

No, that's correct, it isn't. I was just lucky enough to be at one of Feynman's CalTech lectures in the mid 80s. Every seat was taken, people standing in the wings, and on the sides, and it was recorded as well. We all just gaped, with our mouths open as this guy walked us through Quantum fields and Feynman diagrams as if it were paint by numbers. A thrilling moment for me and one I'll never forget.
 
MAKG1 said:
Electrodynamics (not QED) is just how electric and magnetic fields are affected by each other and moving charges. I.e., Maxwell, not Feynman.

Only slightly relevant.

What it really is is a form of name-dropping. He's trying to BS his way through it.

If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance,
Baffle 'em with bulls***.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to me as name dropping? I just edited my first post to reflect my inaccuracy and gave you credit. Now, I can BS with the best of them, but I really have studied this stuff, it was just a few centuries ago, and far away on the left coast.
 
docmirror said:
No, that's correct, it isn't. I was just lucky enough to be at one of Feynman's CalTech lectures in the mid 80s. Every seat was taken, people standing in the wings, and on the sides, and it was recorded as well. We all just gaped, with our mouths open as this guy walked us through Quantum fields and Feynman diagrams as if it were paint by numbers. A thrilling moment for me and one I'll never forget.
Click to expand...

I *think* that lecture may be on YouTube somewhere.

Feynman was a very, very gifted lecturer. His "lectures on physics" 3-volume set is also among the best classical physics books out there, though they aren't useful as textbooks due to lack of problem sets.

As a former math student, his renormalization ideas make me cringe -- he's reordering divergent series! But the idea of sequences of diagrams is nothing short of brilliant.
 
MAKG1 said:
Except from Rodney Dangerfield. Which seems strangely appropriate....
Click to expand...

Some situations are a bit more appropriate for Rodney than Monty (Python)
 
mtuomi said:
"electrodynamics"? :)
Click to expand...


Well yes, ultimately Maxwell's equations dictate everything, and the study of that is electrodynamics. I see some other nonsense being sprouted above about QED and Feynman? Not applicable to attenuation of RF not at this level anyway (non quantum effects)! Feynman was brilliant, I have read many of his lectures. Stop trying to impress me, you won't.

I know none of you believe me so why do I bother. I have a bachelor's degree, a Masters in Applied Mathematics and a PhD in CS/EE. Not bad for a 15 year old, huh?

Don't expect you to believe me. Don't. I don't care.
 
pflemming said:
Well yes, ultimately Maxwell's equations dictate everything, and the study of that is electrodynamics. I see some other nonsense being sprouted above about QED and Feynman? Not applicable to attenuation of RF not at this level anyway (non quantum effects)! Feynman was brilliant, I have read many of his lectures. Stop trying to impress me, you won't.

I know none of you believe me so why do I bother. I have a bachelor's degree, a Masters in Applied Mathematics and a PhD in CS/EE. Not bad for a 15 year old, huh?

Don't expect you to believe me. Don't. I don't care.
Click to expand...
It is nice that you are telling us a little about yourself. Now, why are you learning to fly? What sort of flying have you done already?
 
pflemming said:
The reality is that ultimately ground based transmitters are more vulnerable than space based transmitters if someone well and truly wants to disrupt a radio based navigation system, and the target is able to do whatever
Click to expand...

And that right there proves that you don't have a clue.

If' you've been reading this board as you claim, you would know that we have several folks here that are experts in electromagnetic compatibility ("interference"). And not just in the user sense, but folks that are or have been recognized as international experts in the matter. Some even know about countermeasures...

I think perhaps the folks on the board should just start referring to you as "Lady Malibu".
 
pflemming said:
have a bachelor's degree, a Masters in Applied Mathematics and a PhD in CS/EE. Not bad for a 15 year old, huh?
Click to expand...

And I'm a Labrador Retriever...hey, on the internet no one knows you're a dog.

If one is able to get past a PHD committee then a DPE is a cake walk. There is one thing you learn in academia and that is to walk softly even when correct. Grumpy old academics with tenure are much less cooperative than some government appointed examiner whose income depends at least to some extent on good relations with CFI's and examinees.
 
wsuffa said:
I think perhaps the folks on the board should just start referring to you as "Lady Malibu".
Click to expand...

Seriously, I have never been on this board before and don't all these people who are being brought up. I don't know who "Lady Malibu" is so this comment is totally over my head. This must be a private joke with the long timers here.

All this conspiracy theories about me. Just crazy. I'm just some dude (a brilliant good looking one sure) who is trying to get a PPL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top