On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 20:18:00 +0100
Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote:
I'm posting this from inside an Ethiopian 787, on the ground, with
the doors closed. I just completed a fifteen-minute voice call
initiated from inside the plane, with reasonable reception and no
drops, while the doors
nuts wrote:
Regarding radiation, I've used my Geiger counter at mile high altitudes
in Nevada and never got a count per second, even with the gamma shield
not used. You can look at the DOE CEMP stations:
1 Mile high is still on the ground compared to an airplane's 8 miles high.
Those 7
On 6/3/14, 5:51 AM, Chuck Harris wrote:
nuts wrote:
Regarding radiation, I've used my Geiger counter at mile high altitudes
in Nevada and never got a count per second, even with the gamma shield
not used. You can look at the DOE CEMP stations:
1 Mile high is still on the ground compared
Jim Lux wrote:
...
makes an interesting point that a number calculated back in the 60s (orders of
magnitude too high) has achieved urban legend status.
The correlations I was mentioning were for amateur measured fluxes while
flying at about 40,000 ft.
One thing worth mentioning is that all
1) When I fly I often use my iPhone while on the ground, before take-off or
after landing.
2) I sometimes carry a GPS receiver. When permitted (varies by airline), it's
fun to log NMEA data for a flight and later plot the flight path and duration
with UTC accuracy.
3) On occasion I also bring
Did they make any announcements regarding this? Most people aren't going
to care about GPS, but many people are used to using their cell phones
while waiting for the door to close and/or as soon as the wheels touch
the ground when landing. If this doesn't work in a 787 I would think
that they
In message BB41DBA7E336413BB9D643DF4D4F613D@pc52, Tom Van Baak writes:
I know, because my Geiger counter was wonderfully close to 60 CPM
(= 1 CPS) in a hotel near NIST. Yes, I have the 1PPS ADEV plot for
this and, yes, background radiation makes the world's worst atomic
clock.
Only for short
On 6/2/14, 1:55 AM, Tom Van Baak wrote:
Has anyone else noticed this? Or know about this? Please respond only if you
have real information. I can speculate as well as anyone; so it's solid
technical, RF, EMF, or composite carbon fiber engineering info I'm looking for.
I haven't noticed it
On 6/2/14, 2:27 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
It would be trivial to add a passive GPS repeater to the plane, but
the airtraffic industry has never been happy about people being
able to receive navigation signals inside planes, worrying that
somebody might try to blow up the plane at some
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Jim Lux jim...@earthlink.net wrote:
On 6/2/14, 2:27 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
It would be trivial to add a passive GPS repeater to the plane, but
the airtraffic industry has never been happy about people being
able to receive navigation signals inside
I build and fly large model rockets. Many use carbon fiber in their
construction. I can tell you that carbon fiber does conduct electricity...
not quite as well as pure metals, but pretty darn good... and the conduction
is anisotropic (better conduction along the fibers than across their
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:55 AM, Tom Van Baak t...@leapsecond.com wrote:
But last week I flew the new composite Boeing 787 Dreamliner and noticed
something quite different. From the second I entered the plane, I lost both
cell and GPS reception. It didn't matter how close I was to a window or
In message 538c82b8.5020...@earthlink.net, Jim Lux writes:
The reason for radio receiver ban originally [...]
Actually, there was a very specific incident where somebody brought
a television on a plane in order to see something important. We're
talking 1950-1960 timeframe and and a
Wonderful. It also means cell phones will crank up their power searching for a
signal, and the passengers are sitting inside a microwave oven since the RF
energy can't escape.
Thankfully there are alternative ways to fly.
Bye,
Said
Sent From iPhone
On Jun 2, 2014, at 8:45, Chris Albertson
On 2 Jun 2014 10:03, Tom Van Baak t...@leapsecond.com wrote:
Now I have never had a problem with reception in the terminal, walkway,
or even while seated inside a plane. I figured the aluminum frame of the
plane was thin enough that photons at cell, GPS, and gamma frequencies
easily pass through
Said Jackson saidj...@aol.com wrote:
Wonderful. It also means cell phones will crank up their power
searching for a signal [...]
At least with GSM, a mobile station needs to receive a base station
signal before it transmits anything at all. If no cell network signals
are received at all, the
I've flown on 787s three times before, and am about to do so again later today.
The prior times I used my cell phone as normal and didn't give it any thought.
This time I'll pay particular attention and report back. Twice for me have
been Ethiopian Air, once London-Addis, once Dulles-Addis.
I'm posting this from inside an Ethiopian 787, on the ground, with the doors
closed. I just completed a fifteen-minute voice call initiated from inside the
plane, with reasonable reception and no drops, while the doors were open. And
I was able to get a new GPS location in less than two
On 6/2/14, 7:16 AM, Brian Lloyd wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Jim Lux jim...@earthlink.net wrote:
O, and since navigation using the ADF and tuning to a AM
broadcast station wasn't unusual.
Well, it is quite unusual for IFR (instrument flight rules) operation. But
VFR pilots would
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Jim Lux jim...@earthlink.net wrote:
On 6/2/14, 7:16 AM, Brian Lloyd wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Jim Lux jim...@earthlink.net wrote:
O, and since navigation using the ADF and tuning to a AM
broadcast station wasn't unusual.
Well, it is quite
20 matches
Mail list logo
