hello Greyrider,

don't waste your time on this .... you can not understand basic things Greyrider.
no offence to you ....but i am thinking that all you need is just some time to get what people are telling you and they are right Greyrider,absolutely...right...
so, just let it go for the moment and give some time to your mind to 'handle' these...'data'.i am sure that ,at the end, you will see the 'problem' .
just...let it go for now....

I doubt that spectrum analysis of sound signatures was even a gleam in its mother's eye!:D

Forget about having a database of signatures encompassing thousands of surface ships. All their computers were electro/mechanical analog. Before you can dream of methods you must have the tools and concepts necessary.

I think it's clear that using turn counts to measure target speed was a goal of theirs then, but they were only in the data acquisition phase of that. And that is the long and hard part, with no immediate rewards. Data acquisition is always the most difficult part of any scientific query.

We spent hundreds of years acquiring astronomical data before the first hint of the nature of a galaxy emerged. Even then limited imagination and experience ensured that our conclusions were entirely wrong. In 1900 nobody was able to see spiral structure in an external galaxy. Now I can do it easily with my 13" telescope. I've actually seen spiral structure in a 50mm spotter scope. If you have no concept of what you are looking for you cannot find it until it is forced upon you. Just look at greyrider's response to concise, precise and unambiguous proofs that 8010 is invalid from sources he prides himself in carefully quoting. If you have no concept of what you see, you cannot see it. We see with our brains, not with our eyes.

bothersome,

i have uploaded a 7020 mission for you, link is below.
jsgme installed to single missions folder.

the target bears 290, with 20 degree aob, target speed is 10.16 knots, course 90 degrees.
submarine speed to keep constant bearing of target is 3.7 knots, target range from collision point is 11.3 nm.
submarine distance to collision point is 4.15 nm.
mission time is approx 1 hour.
submarine is balao, 1945, two choices of torpedoes MK-14, MK-23.
mission is daytime.
radar and sonar available for tracking, when target becomes visible, periscope available for tracking.
when mission opens, you will have to go to control room knotmeter, and adjust sub speed to 3.7 knots, to keep target constant at
bearing 290, for a collision course. this will be a piece of work as you will see, because the knotmeter is usually about 4 tenths of a knot lower
than the speed you try to click for,
so try to click for 4.1 knots, and it should bring the speed of sub near 3.7 knots, the speed you need.
cant think of anything else thats mission essential.



http://www.filefront.com/17286966/seventy-twenty.rar/

thanks for the advice, but thats my discision, not yours, dont read it if its upsets you, there are many posts here, dont waste my time and yours, move on.
it works for me, under any and all circumstances.

The interesting thing is that we are not saying that we are right. We are producing solid evidence from the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual of 1946, demonstrating mathematical proof of the concepts therein, sometimes even diagramming alternate possibilities using original 1946 graphs and relating that to 8010. It is not we who are claiming of ourselves that we have the right idea. We are only quoting proofs from other unimpeachable sources. It is not our credibility against greyrider. It is the credibility of the US Navy against greyrider.

We are no smarter, we work no harder, we are not more cultured than those men of 1946. They were in every way our equal in abilities and imagination. There is nothing that any of us have done that was not possible in 1946.

However, deriving information from a digital sonar operator that somehow knows the target is approaching or going away, at slow, medium or fast speed and who bins those speeds within certain 100% infallible speeds in knots is a ridiculous gaming of a flawed system. If this were Runescape, exploiting a game bug is punishable by banning. While that is a bit extreme for a single player game, using that impossible data is still cheating and does not qualify as part of a valid targeting method in a submarine simulation. As tater has demonstrated, even cheating cannot demonstrate a 10º angle on the bow, only a range of possible angles on the bow, each having a markedly different and equally invalid conclusion.

Love how you make a 70/20 example, then set it up the same way—on a 90 degree collision in the set up. Giving yourself a known angle is part of everyone's problem, can't you see that?

You need an example where the ONLY data you have is a closing target at some arbitrary bearing. Then you put in on 80, and tell us the AOB. You cannot get the speed without knowing the AOB.

The game does cheat and gives you a speed range (I don't even know what that range is in TMO or RFB, since I've never considered using it past its face value). That in fact does limit the future position possibilities for the target, but doe NOT force it to be 10. It means that there is an arc that the target could be in. If the speed is known to be 8-12 knots, and the underwater max of the sub is 7, then you can know for sure the closing target is within an angle such that the projection of speed on that right triangle is under 7 knots. assuming you can hold the bearing.

The AOB is still in a decent sized arc, and values are in fact infinite within that arc.

You know what bothers me, been losing sleep over it. Grey actually seems very smart, seems to understand trig, ect, but even in my limited brain I can see the failure here without great brains like RR explaining.

How can one be so smart and not see the simple problems here. It appears when one thinks they've worked something out, they just defend it to the death.

I'm a long ways from a great brain, but I am a great translator between miltiarese, scienticese and English so that anyone can understand concepts that seem deliberately to be left without a handle for someone not in those fields.

The further breakdown of 8010 is that even if you COULD (you cannot) establish the AoB of the target perfectly precisely using passive sonar, the multiplying effect of a small change in your speed resulting in a large difference in target speed at a 10º AoB means that the accuracy necessary in determining your speed is way beyond the accuracy of your measuring devices. That leaves you unable to measure target speed better than a range of plus or minus five knots. That is an entirely meaningless measurement, rendering 8010 impotent.

You know, there are two times during the day that if I consult a broken analog non-military clock, it will reflect the correct time. It would be foolishness for me to contend that meant that any other time I consulted it I would get the correct time. Greyrider is making that claim without laughing! He hasn't even cracked a smile. Everyone KNOWS that he is aware that he is peddling snake oil but he lacks the magician's flair to turn embarrassment into entertainment. Johnny Carson was at his best with a blown joke. Greyrider is no Johnny Carson but his joke is blown.

Greyrider's stunt is a version of the old rolling runway riddle. What if you had a conveyor belt for the runway of an airplane. And you had a motor and sensor arrangement that could at all times move the runway backwards at the exact speed the plane's wheels were rotating. Could the plane take off? All kinds of mayhem breaks out and weird cockamamie twisted logic flies in all directions. And all the time nobody analyzes what happens on a normal runway.

A plane takes off not from any thrust generated by its wheels. In fact they can turn like crazy (hold the airplane still while the runway moves underneath it) without the plane moving at all! Let's take the case of taking off from a normal runway. The speed of the wheels is always equal to the speed of the runway plus the speed of the plane through the air. Move the runway and that remains true. If takeoff speed is 90 mph and you rotate the runway under the plane in the same direction as the motion of the plane (a negative 90 mph speed) you can actually take off with 90 mph plane speed minus the 90 mph runway speed and take off without the wheels rotating at all!

In the case above where you hold the airplane still with wheels in contact with the rolling runway, the rolling speed of the wheels is still the speed of the plane (zero) plus the speed of the runway, isn't it?

Now lets move the runway opposite the speed of the plane at 90 mph. Our plane can still roll forward without restriction because there is no mechanical connection between the wheels and the plane that ties the two speeds together. Our plane travels in 90 mph in one direction, the runway travels in 90 mph the other direction, our formula says the wheels are rolling at 90+90 or 180 mph. All that is possible and clearly understood without confusion. The rotational speed of the wheels is ALWAYS the speed of the plane plus the speed of the runway.

What the original riddler has not told you is that they have made a ridiculous change in the rules of engagement! They are saying "Assume the speed of the runway equals the rolling speed of the wheels." Well we've already experimentally proved that the rolling speed of the wheels always equals the speed of the runway plus the speed of the plane. The premises themselves are a farce! The conditions posited by the riddle are impossible! Any reasoning based on the false premises is itself ridiculous.

8010 isn't quite impossible. 8010 is more like the stopped clock than the rolling runway gimmick. it is just very, very unlikely and impossible to determine those few times when the relationship is true, way too limited in its application and we have no way to achieve the precision necessary to measure target speed. Other than that it's the cat's meow!:har:

Mythbusters
 

RR;
I don't know if you watch the program "Mythbusters" on Discovery Channel but they had an episode based on your aircraft and treadmill idea and proved exactly your point. They even went full-scale with a very, very long "carpet" pulled by a truck to simulate the treadmill concept and a small plane sitting on it. The truck pulled, the plane looked to be standing still on the moving carpet, despite the wheels spinning away, the speeds matched etc, the plane took off and jaws dropped. Even the pilot was surprised. The Mythbusters explained exactly as RR has done in that the engine is pulling the plane NOT the wheels pushing, which throws everybodies expectations completely off,LOL. If you haven't seen Mythbusters, I highly recommend it.

Oh, but the tellers of the riddle (who know the thing is a farce so they can handle themselves very well) can twist your mind into a pretzel with their tangents and implications. They are very good at what they do. Unfortunately, in order to be good at selling snake oil it is very helpful to know it doesn't work. That way when they figure out one irrelevant distraction you can be ready with others. 8010 has been quite like that.

Groundspeed versus Airspeed debate ... I remember I had a 'Deja Vu' when I started reading this thread. (8010)

Please don't make it into a real groundhog-day experience with that Mythbusters example:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=172783

So, what would happen if you put a helicopter on a conveyor belt going backwards? :timeout:

Highly intelligent people sometimes have trouble believing that they are capable of being wrong.

[raising hand and shaking it vigorously]
Ooohh! Ooh! Ohh! Pick me! Pick me!
[/lowers hand]

We/I see this all the time in just about everything nowadays. Common sense is no longer common.

Latest great example of this... Bought myself a new car stereo. One of the high end ones. No CD or DVD. Those come as add-ons now. Has a SD chip that can hold 16GB of MP3 and WMA songs... But the menu sucks. It's hard to navigate and make settings. And it won't play songs seamlessly. Makes you wonder how people that are smart enough to design and make such a compact computer playing stereo that fits in a car dash can't figure out the simple stuff. It's like they don't use the product themselves to know what is needed. It surely boggles the mind.

I see this in most software too. There is always something wrong that common sense would have said "do it another way."

i am not upset with you Geyrider ...not upset at all !

in fact i have moved on... long time ago from this thread.

you will remember my advice at the future and will understand ....but you will not understand now...becuase,atm, you only 'see' me as an 'intruder' of your thread (which is not true)

anyway, do as you wish...i hope not to take long for you....