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.
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.
Bluetooth is not powerful enough to punch through any part of that hull. Not the 5 inches of carbon fiber wrap, and forget about transmitting through the metal end-caps.
Those older bluetooth controllers are often stopped by an inch of wooden desk in their way.
For outside equipment, OceanGate would be forced to use a control method that is received by a machine inside the hull, then converted to point-to-point wireless to punch through the carbon fiber, with wires on either side. Or something similar to that.
So the Bluetooth has to be communicating to a machine inside the vessel.
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.
OK. Explain why they would have more trouble working at that depth.
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.
That’s dealing with communication through the water. Presumably the controller wouldn’t have water between it and its receiver under ideal conditions.
Show it. “Presumably” won’t cut it.
For the records, so far the only one with a source is me.
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.
I know that. What makes you think that the other part was not in the water? Do you have any source for that?
…
I…
That’s not…
…
Sigh…
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.
Sure, I’ll bite.
Bluetooth is not powerful enough to punch through any part of that hull. Not the 5 inches of carbon fiber wrap, and forget about transmitting through the metal end-caps.
Those older bluetooth controllers are often stopped by an inch of wooden desk in their way.
For outside equipment, OceanGate would be forced to use a control method that is received by a machine inside the hull, then converted to point-to-point wireless to punch through the carbon fiber, with wires on either side. Or something similar to that.
So the Bluetooth has to be communicating to a machine inside the vessel.
Well - how about out if the receiver is on the the hull - and the bluetooth signals don’t have to travel through any water?
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.
You were replying to me. I’m still here.
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.
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.