Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Jun 21, 12:01 am, More_Flaps wrote:
On Jun 21, 3:43 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Jun 20, 7:07 pm, More_Flaps wrote:

On Jun 20, 5:52 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Where Electro-Mechanical control of air is concerned,
we've all used a potentiometer to change the volume of
our speaker system...for about 100 years.
You may regard a speaker as an exceptionally finely
controlled servo/solenoid and is pretty damn reliable
and cheap.

A normal speaker is certainly NOT a servo system.
Get the basic ideas straight and you may begin to understnd the
problem.

Cheers

See solenoid + electromagnetic speaker, yawn
It's simple for me.
Ken- Hide quoted text -

Look up servo and try to undersrand that it is closed loop, a
solenoid/speakers is not. Now do you understand?
Simple for you -oh yeh! LOL
Cheers

Thanks Flaps.
I've designed, tested and built servos, complete
with the appropriate feedback damping, ugh.
I did one servo that worked great except for one
f**king thing, it was tuned to the local AM radio
station at some setting.
Funny, I'm in the lab, and I hear a radio playing,
the darn servo needle was going to the beat of
the music, a few caps solved that.
Ken

On Jun 21, 10:47*am, Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.aviation.student Nomen Nescio wrote:

From: Le Chaud Lapin

Very nice, and applies well to software too. Of course it's not true that
software has 0 marginal cost. There are support costs, which can be
significant.

I said material cost, not marginal cost.

But let's say that software really does have zero marginal cost. Well,
this is extremely *bad* news for the use of software in GA, not good news
as has been presented.

Why? Because software costs a *lot* of money to make. And with zero
marginal cost, the price is effectively the development cost divided by
the size of the audience.

GA is a pretty damn small audience. Why do you think you can buy a
perfectly capable car GPS, with a database full of every road in the
country, for under $200 but you'll spend ten times that much on something
that's significantly less capable for your airplane? Certification and
liability come into it, of course, but even ignoring those you would spend
what seems to be an unreasonable amount of money. This is just because the
development costs are fixed but the audience is microscopic.

To keep costs down, you want something with low development costs, even if
the material cost is significant. This mean proven designs, simple
mechanical linkages, etc. And guess what, that's what we have. Software
isn't going to save you any money unless you either find a way to make
multipurpose software that the public can also use, increase the GA pilot
population by an order of magnitude, or create a magical software-making
machine that can cut your development costs by an order of magnitude.

It is my belief that a software-controlled PAV, with the features
outlined by NASA/CAFE/PAV would allow an

increase the GA population by an order of magnitude (at least)

because the machine would be easier to fly, etc.

This is what the FAA, NASA, CAFE, DARPA, and aero/astro departments
all over the United States and elsewhere would like to see, not just
me.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In article ,
Bob Noel wrote:

In article ,
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

I have heard a lot of pilots complain that they cannot enjoy the
scenery when they are PIC. The pilot I flew with said he liked for me
to take the controls because he could enjoy the scenery for a change.

what? There isn't a flight I've made that I didn't have lots and lots
of time to enjoy the scenary as well as the rest of the flying experience.
(the exception are my flights in IMC or under the hood)

I've never heard one pilot complain about not having time to enjoy
the scenary. Not one.

Same here; else flying would be a lot less interesting for me.

At the same time, I can't afford to get focused on photography while I'm
PIC.

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

It is my belief that a software-controlled PAV, with the features
outlined by NASA/CAFE/PAV would allow an

increase the GA population by an order of magnitude (at least)

because the machine would be easier to fly, etc.

There is nothing particularly difficult about flying an GA aircraft VFR;
7 year old kids have learned to do it.

Lots of people want to fly but are put off by the cost, lots more than
are put off by any preceived difficulty in learning.

Your basic premise is utter nonsense and naive.

Gee-whiz components will just drive the cost of flying up, further
reducing the pilot population.

And don't even bother with you childish blather about "commodities"
as the mass market has to exist BEFORE something can become a
commodity.

The GA population would first have to increase by about 2 orders of
magnitude before airplanes could become anything near a commodity.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 21, 4:15*pm, wrote:
Your basic premise is utter nonsense and naive.

Gee-whiz components will just drive the cost of flying up, further
reducing the pilot population.

And don't even bother with you childish blather about "commodities"
as the mass market has to exist BEFORE something can become a
commodity.

Hmm..are you sure?

There are a lot of products that were created on the premise that,
even though there is not yet a market present, the market will exist
by virtue of the product:

* ball-point pen
* sticky-notes from 3M
* Sony Walkman, Discman
* Atari game console
* waverunner
* Kevlar
* Velcro
* microwave oven
* various medicines and lubricants for psychosexual impotence and
frigidity
* gasoline additives
* mosquito repellant
* baby wipes
* polarized sunglasses
* pet rock (came and went)
* USB memory sticks
* DVD player

The creators of these products speculate that the market might want
the product, but the speculation is grounded in reason.

The GA population would first have to increase by about 2 orders of
magnitude before airplanes could become anything near a commodity.

That is true for many commodity products.

It is reasonable to assume that the market for a commodity products
starts off small and increases some time after the product is brought
to market.

The demand for the product is determined by those consumers who
purchase the product.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
...
On Jun 21, 4:15 pm, wrote:
Your basic premise is utter nonsense and naive.

Gee-whiz components will just drive the cost of flying up, further
reducing the pilot population.

And don't even bother with you childish blather about "commodities"
as the mass market has to exist BEFORE something can become a
commodity.

Hmm..are you sure?

There are a lot of products that were created on the premise that,
even though there is not yet a market present, the market will exist
by virtue of the product:

* ball-point pen
* sticky-notes from 3M
* Sony Walkman, Discman
* Atari game console
* waverunner
* Kevlar
* Velcro
* microwave oven
* various medicines and lubricants for psychosexual impotence and
frigidity
* gasoline additives
* mosquito repellant
* baby wipes
* polarized sunglasses
* pet rock (came and went)
* USB memory sticks
* DVD player

The creators of these products speculate that the market might want
the product, but the speculation is grounded in reason.

The GA population would first have to increase by about 2 orders of
magnitude before airplanes could become anything near a commodity.

That is true for many commodity products.

It is reasonable to assume that the market for a commodity products
starts off small and increases some time after the product is brought
to market.

The demand for the product is determined by those consumers who
purchase the product.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Except for the Pet Rock, which putatively had a low developement cost,
everything on your list had a presumed market more than two orders of
magnetude greater than general aviation. Further, all are physical
products--so that most of the cost is ongoing materials, production, and
packaging--and most are consumable or disposable products which are sold
multiple times to each customer. No credible comparison can be drawn
between software and any product on your list--it is like comparing oranges
to sawdust!

Peter

On Jun 21, 6:43*pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in ...
On Jun 21, 4:15 pm, wrote:

Your basic premise is utter nonsense and naive.

Gee-whiz components will just drive the cost of flying up, further
reducing the pilot population.

And don't even bother with you childish blather about "commodities"
as the mass market has to exist BEFORE something can become a
commodity.

Hmm..are you sure?

There are a lot of products that were created on the premise that,
even though there is not yet a market present, the market will exist
by virtue of the product:

* ball-point pen
* sticky-notes from 3M
* Sony Walkman, Discman
* Atari game console
* waverunner
* Kevlar
* Velcro
* microwave oven
* various medicines and lubricants for psychosexual impotence and
frigidity
* gasoline additives
* mosquito repellant
* baby wipes
* polarized sunglasses
* pet rock (came and went)
* USB memory sticks
* DVD player

The creators of these products speculate that the market might want
the product, but the speculation is grounded in reason.

The GA population would first have to increase by about 2 orders of
magnitude before airplanes could become anything near a commodity.

That is true for many commodity products.

It is reasonable to assume that the market for a commodity products
starts off small and increases some time after the product is brought
to market.

The demand for the product is determined by those consumers who
purchase the product.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Except for the Pet Rock, which putatively had a low developement cost,
everything on your list had a presumed market more than two orders of
magnetude greater than general aviation. *Further, all are physical
products--so that most of the cost is ongoing materials, production, and
packaging--and most are consumable or disposable products which are sold
multiple times to each customer. *No credible comparison can be drawn
between software and any product on your list--it is like comparing oranges
to sawdust!

I was not making a comparison between software and the products that I
listed.

I was merely pointing out that, if a product is made, before anyone
knows what it is, they will still buy it if they like it, which
obviously can only occur after it has been made and made public.

Part of the problem with PAV is not that people do not want it, but no
one has made anything practical yet.

If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

wrote:
Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
exist anytime in the near future.

Um, you may want to start doing a bit of catch-up reading before making any
further categorical statements like the above since you appear to be making
claims outside your realm of knowledge or expertise. It appears you are
probably unaware of current development in this area. Autonomous vehicles
are probably in the near future; this is what DARPA's Grand Challenge was
intended to accomplish:

http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa_grand_challenge

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
...

Part of the problem with PAV is not that people do not want it, but no
one has made anything practical yet.

If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Not from me; and from what I have read on this thread, the possible market
in this newsgroup can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Of that small
number, you would be the only one willing to spend money--presuming that you
are willing to do so.

Personally, for the foreseeable future and without any regard for which
costs more money or less, I will continue to be more satisfied with cables
and tie rods than with any plausible firmware and servo solution. The idea
of software on general purpose, or multipurpose, hardware is just too
dangerous to consider--having done a bit of professional maintenance on
workstations, including some on networks, I don't even want to be in the
same county!

Peter

BTW, this topic has been beaten to death multiple times over the last
decade. So, in the event that you are not just trolling, a little effort
with a search engine will yeild a lot of good information.

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:35:25 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

wrote:
Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
exist anytime in the near future.

Um, you may want to start doing a bit of catch-up reading before making any
further categorical statements like the above since you appear to be making
claims outside your realm of knowledge or expertise. It appears you are
probably unaware of current development in this area. Autonomous vehicles
are probably in the near future; this is what DARPA's Grand Challenge was
intended to accomplish:

http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa_grand_challenge


Here's a concept that should be pursued:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/pr97-12/p32.htm
Actual Hands-off Steering:
And Other Wonders of the Modern World

by Bob Bryant

This article discusses the demonstration of automated
highway system technologies by the National Automated Highway
System Consortium, in which the federal Highway Administration is
a partner; in San Diego, Calif., on Aug 7 to 10, 1997. See "Demo
'97: Proving AHS Works" of the July/August 1997 issue of Public
Roads for a general description of the demonstration, its
background, the demonstration scenarios, and the consortium

Eight car platoon demonstrates vehicles traveling as a unit.
In the platoon scenario, eight cars in a tight formation -
6.5 meters apart - at nearly 105 km/h traveled the demo
course as coordinated unit with the vehicles "communicating"
with each other 50 times per second.
(Photo courtesy of California PATH)
Demo '97

It's magic! Or so it seems -- cars driving themselves.

Well, we know, it's not magic. It's very technical and
explainable -- the logical culmination of years of study,
development, and testing. But that doesn't detract from the wonder
of it all.

It's like the tricks of the master magicians and
illusionists; you know that there is a logical explanation for all
the apparently supernatural feats, but it is still exciting.

You know the magician did not really saw the woman in half,
and the Statue of Liberty did not really disappear. But we're
still amazed. Even if it's not magic, the cars did drive
themselves -- at least without the help of human drivers.

I know that is true hecause I saw them. I even rode in three
of the automated vehicles at Demo '97, the demonstration of
automated high-way system (AHS) technologies in San Diego on Aug.
7 to 10, 1997. I rode in a car, a minivan, and a bus, and it was
exhilarating to barrel down that 12.2-km segment of the Interstate
15 high-occupancy-vehicle lanes at 105 km/h with the drivers' feet
tucked under their seats and their hands in their laps -- truly
"hands-off, feet-off" driving. Even though it is a very overused
cliche, I couldn't help thinking, "Look Ma, no hands -- or feet!"

Demo '97, -- put on by the National Automated Highway System
Consortium (NAHSC), an industry-government-academia collaboration
-- was a congressionally mandated demonstration to prove that it
is technically "feasible" to use these AHS technologies to
significantly alleviate several of the most enduring
transportation problems in the United States -- and in the rest of
the world as well.

AHS addresses three major concerns, explained Bill Stevens,
the NAHSC Program technical director. One is safety; second is
congestion; and the third is environmental problems.

Each year in the United States, more than 40,000 people are
killed and 5 million people are injured in automobile crashes.
Because human error is a leading factor in nine out of 10 crashes
and because AHS promises to significantly reduce the element of
human error, AHS offers a great potential for saving lives and
avoiding injuries.

AHS can reduce congestion and increase mobility in several
ways, but primarily, by being able to safely reduce the distance
between vehicles, AHS "can double or triple the capacity of our
roadways at today's legal speeds and make trips faster and trip
times more reliable by avoiding the backups due to stop-and-go
traffic and congestion," said Jim Rillings, former NAHSC program
manager. Congestion is another leading factor in automobile
crashes; so, reducing congestion will also have safety advantages.

Vehicles traveling in a tight, automated platoon with about
half a vehicle-length interval have a dramatic reduction in
aerodynamic drag that results in a 20-percent to 25-percent
improvement in fuel economy and emissions reduction. AHS will also
have great economic advantages. Today's vehicles are about as
crash-worthy as it is possible to make them within reasonable
cost. Therefore, the automobile companies, as well as the federal
government, are now turning to crash avoidance as a way of
avoiding injuries and death and also as way of saving economic
losses due to crashes, which amount to approximately $150 billion
per year. The economic losses due to highway congestion are in the
neighborhood of $50 billion per year. Adding those up, a sizable
amount of money is lost each year due to motor vehicle crashes and
congestion," Rillings said.

Different approaches to AHS were showcased in seven
different "scenarios" during the demo. Cutting-edge technologies
to provide adaptive cruise control, collision warning, obstacle
avoidance, lane departure warning, and lateral and longitudinal
control (steering and interval) were used to show variations on an
AHS of the future.

The 1,350 passengers who rode in the Demo '97 vehicles were
the first people to experience s...


It appears that it is being pursued by come capable folks:
http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/Videos/