IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Speed Ground Ual175, Le calcul des vitesses par le NTSB

tournesol01
post Apr 6 2014, 12:13 PM
Post #21





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 45
Joined: 2-April 14
Member No.: 7,759



Could someone tell me if he tried my excel table and what he thinks?

I want to know this smooth curve is envisagable as compulsorily older credible, realistic approach and that we must consider.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tournesol01
post Apr 17 2014, 07:00 AM
Post #22





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 45
Joined: 2-April 14
Member No.: 7,759



I added more blocks to my Excel file.
For now here are their geographic positions:

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tournesol01
post Apr 19 2014, 05:36 AM
Post #23





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 45
Joined: 2-April 14
Member No.: 7,759



Some tell me that I must take into account several radars to get a more accurate curve.
This is impossible with the uncertainty of the timestamp between two different radars.
In addition, provide additional points on a curve, then they will also be scattered will only increase the possibilities to draw a curve.
It is better to make a curve of each radar and compare the results.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tournesol01
post Apr 20 2014, 04:55 AM
Post #24





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 45
Joined: 2-April 14
Member No.: 7,759



Has anyone tried my Excel file?

whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tournesol01
post Apr 22 2014, 08:54 AM
Post #25





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 45
Joined: 2-April 14
Member No.: 7,759



For simplicity, an electromagnetic wave emitted from an antenna consisting of a simple vertical mast , as the wave propagates created by dropping a pebble in water.
We observe concentric waves that move away from the place where the stone was " splash "

For a radar antenna , one should consider, at time t , a sector oriented , more or less wide , previous concentric circles.
Radar sprinkles its electromagnetic wave while a sector simultaneously.
If a boat replaces here the plane , when the wave will reach , its location is random in the sector .

However , the azimuth radar is necessarily that given by the determined angle between the geographic North and the angle bisector of the sector oriented
when the wave reaches the boat .

The boat can be at the right or left of the bisector , we have here a correction to find the actual azimuth of the boat.

Bringing to a more realistic azimuth angle changes the distance between the radar blips . It is found that with a speed increased so that one side and down the other .
This is what I want to convey in my Excel file.



This post has been edited by tournesol01: Apr 22 2014, 08:56 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tournesol01
post Apr 22 2014, 11:44 AM
Post #26





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 45
Joined: 2-April 14
Member No.: 7,759



rolleyes.gif Mr Balsamo, could you contact for me the member of your forum which specializes in radar, Mr Hammish Brannan ?

I would like to discuss with him my theory !

This post has been edited by tournesol01: Apr 22 2014, 11:47 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tournesol01
post Apr 25 2014, 09:24 AM
Post #27





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 45
Joined: 2-April 14
Member No.: 7,759



dunno.gif Why do you prefer to say:

Speed ​​is too high, then it is not a usual plane that hit the WTC

Rather than:

A boeing hit the WTC but the speed given by the NTSB may be overstated

It is still easier and convincing to believe miscalculations than seeking shenanigans with aircraft doctored, right?

This post has been edited by tournesol01: Apr 25 2014, 09:25 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tournesol01
post Apr 26 2014, 02:30 PM
Post #28





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 45
Joined: 2-April 14
Member No.: 7,759



I can still show you that I do not do just about anything with the data NTSB:



This post has been edited by tournesol01: Apr 26 2014, 02:32 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lurker
post Apr 27 2014, 09:02 AM
Post #29





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 41
Joined: 29-March 08
Member No.: 3,061



hello tournesol01

I am not in the position to help you because my knowledge of mathematics has faded somhow and I have no idea of aeronautics, but to get a clue what you are after could you please describe the problem you think you found in the data in simple words, so that a layman gets an idea what this is all about?

maybe it is better to write an answer in french, because I also have trouble to understand your english ....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tournesol01
post Apr 27 2014, 01:40 PM
Post #30





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 45
Joined: 2-April 14
Member No.: 7,759



Sorry for my english, but this is a translation in line with translate.google.fr
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tournesol01
post Apr 28 2014, 10:08 AM
Post #31





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 45
Joined: 2-April 14
Member No.: 7,759



By what means the NTSB as smoothed the curve?
The blue curve is the curve without retouching

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tournesol01
post May 1 2014, 03:15 PM
Post #32





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 45
Joined: 2-April 14
Member No.: 7,759



Si quelqu'un parmis vous pouvait me dire le type, la marque et la précision en azimut du radar de Newark en 2001, je pourrais continuer ma démarche......
J'ai mis, pour obtenir ce graphe une précision de +/-0,3° et la courbe donnée par le NTSB tombe en dessous dans les dernières secondes. Pourquoi ?

If anyone among you could tell me the type, brand and azimuth accuracy of radar Newark in 2001, I could continue my approach ......
I put, for this graph an accuracy of + / -0.3 ° and the curve given by the NTSB falls below in the final seconds. Why?

Visiblement, c'est une hérésie de ce servir d'un radar pour établir la vitesse d'un avion !

Obviously, this is a heresy that used radar to determine the speed of an airplane !




Vous pouvez dans ce fichier entrer la valeur de précision de votre choix.
Merci de bien vouloir critiquer mon travail et de me donner les corrections à appliquer si vous trouvez des mauvais calculs.

You can in this file enter the value of precision of your choice.
Thank you kindly to critique my work and give me the corrections to be applied if you find any miscalculations.

Fichier Excel
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tournesol01
post May 2 2014, 03:20 AM
Post #33





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 45
Joined: 2-April 14
Member No.: 7,759



QUOTE (lurker @ Apr 27 2014, 02:02 PM) *
hello tournesol01

I am not in the position to help you because my knowledge of mathematics has faded somhow and I have no idea of aeronautics, but to get a clue what you are after could you please describe the problem you think you found in the data in simple words, so that a layman gets an idea what this is all about?

maybe it is better to write an answer in french, because I also have trouble to understand your english ....


Hello lurker

Pour vous répondre, je dis ici dans mes propos que la vitesse donnée par le NTSB est peut-être surévaluée pour cause de précision insuffisante du radar.

To answer your question, I said in my remarks here that the speed given by the NTSB may be overstated on grounds of lack accuracy of the radar.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tournesol01
post May 2 2014, 08:33 AM
Post #34





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 45
Joined: 2-April 14
Member No.: 7,759



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post May 3 2014, 12:58 PM
Post #35





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 477
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



May we please see the UA175 speed data source?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tournesol01
post May 4 2014, 01:24 PM
Post #36





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 45
Joined: 2-April 14
Member No.: 7,759



Yes, this is the source FAA:

4-n90-67-plot-printout-ual175-erit.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 5 2014, 08:11 PM
Post #37



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (tournesol01 @ Apr 25 2014, 09:24 AM) *
A boeing hit the WTC but the speed given by the NTSB may be overstated


The speeds you have calculated, reaching 540 knots... and closing at nearly 500 knots. (in which you admit you may have made errors), are still too excessive for a standard Boeing 767 based on precedent....






With that said, when cross-checking the various radar data, the NTSB, and their video speed study, the NTSB calculations are accurate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tournesol01
post May 6 2014, 04:45 AM
Post #38





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 45
Joined: 2-April 14
Member No.: 7,759





La précision requise pour un calcul de vitesse est insuffisante.
Au mieux avec un écart max de +/- .7° par rapport à l'axe du lobe principal,
la marge d'erreur est de 140 kts!
Et encore, il faut pour cela être à moins de 10 miles nautique du radar.

ASR-9 et ARSR-4 ont la même imprécision.

The precision required for a calculation speed is low.
At best with a maximum deviation of + / - .7 ° relative to the axis of the main lobe,
the margin of error is 140 kts!
And again, this requires to be less than 10 nautical miles from the radar.

ASR-9 and ARSR-4 have the same vagueness.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 6 2014, 04:48 AM
Post #39



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (tournesol01 @ May 6 2014, 04:45 AM) *
The precision required for a calculation speed is low.
At best with a maximum deviation of + / - .7 ° relative to the axis of the main lobe,
the margin of error is 140 kts!


With such a large margin for error... (according to you) how can thousands of aircraft possibly arrive and depart the NYC terminal Area safely each day with speed assignments referenced from ASR radar in real time?

QUOTE
the margin of error is 140 kts!


Just so we have this clear. You are saying that the speeds reported could be in error as much as 650 kts... and as low as 370 kts?

And that those who are assigned speeds using ASR radar.... for example.. ATC assigns 200 knots upon arrival into JFK..... but really NY TRACON would be seeing as much as 340 knots or as low as 60 knots on their ASR screens?

Really?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tournesol01
post May 6 2014, 03:45 PM
Post #40





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 45
Joined: 2-April 14
Member No.: 7,759



Un contrôleur aérien doit maintenir les avions, dont il a la charge, espacés d'au moins trois miles nautiques. Cet espace est très supérieur à un écart dû à la précision du radar.
Qu'il n'y est pas d'incident est donc normal.

An air traffic controller must maintain the aircraft, which he is responsible, spaced at least three nautical miles. This space is greater than a difference caused by the precision of the radar.
That there is no incident is normal.

Les vitesses qui sont calculées, oui ! En théorie, mais je sais qu'un avion ne vole plus en dessous de sa vitesse de décrochage.

Speeds that are calculated , yes! In theory, but I know a plane stops flying below its stall speed.


NON ! Les vitesses affichées sur les écrans radar sont celles envoyées par le transpondeur !
Il n'y a pas, dans ce cas, de calculs à effectuer. Je ne sais pas si une vitesse s'affiche si le transpondeur est en mode 3/A. A vous de me le dire !!

NO ! The speeds displayed on the radar screens are those sent by the transponder !
There is not , in this case , to perform calculations . I do not know if speed is displayed if the transponder is in mode 3 / A.
You tell me !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 15th November 2019 - 10:51 PM