231
"Debris field" found near Titanic in search for missing sub, U.S. Coast Guard says (www.cbsnews.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/news@kbin.social
189 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The sub went missing while carrying five people to the wreckage of the Titanic.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 3 years ago (1 child)

OK. Explain why they would have more trouble working at that depth.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/34816-underwater-wireless-communication-using-em-waves

    Now it's your turn, tell us what make you think that it would work as usual.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Your link is for wireless transmissions going through water. In this case, it’s still going through air.

    It’s not the altitude or depth that matters, it’s the medium through which the signal goes. It will work just fine, from a technical standpoint.

    That being said, wireless things are inherently unreliable compared to wired, and it’s stupid to make something so important not as reliable as possible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    It’s not the altitude or depth that matters, it’s the medium through which the signal goes. It will work just fine, from a technical standpoint.

    I know that. What makes you think that the other part was not in the water? Do you have any source for that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    What makes you think that the other part was not in the water?

    ...

    I...

    That's not...

    ...

    Sigh...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    aka "the easy way out".

    You take for granted that the wireless was for inside equipment, I don't. I asked if someone has a source about the design but no one brought anything. That's where we are.

    You don't need no attitude here, if you know something then write it and mention the source.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Well - how about out if the receiver is on the the hull - and the bluetooth signals don't have to travel through any water?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Maybe. And? Don't overthink it, I'm answering to someone who boldly claimed:

    "OK. Explain why they would have more trouble working at that depth"

    and who is long gone btw.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    You were replying to me. I'm still here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Well, I gave you a reason why it would cause problem, if the device piloted was out, in the water.

    Do you have a schematic of the sub? I don't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    Do you have a schematic of the sub? I don't.

    You were the one who called the decision to use Bluetooth "Delusional". I'm the one who said we have no idea whether it was a good idea or not - so I think we can leave it here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent