BT devices got problems only when water is in between anetna1 and antena2. It does not matter at what altitude the devices are, just what is inbetween them.
Well yes, if they use something in a way specifically contraindicated by the nature of the technology then that’s problematic.
Do you have evidence that this was the case, or are you moving the goal posts to the “no shit sherlock” zone for an easy win?
Do you have evidence that this was the case, or are you moving the goal posts to the “no shit sherlock” zone for an easy win?
Don’t put on me your burden of proof.
Well yes, if they use something in a way specifically contraindicated by the nature of the technology then that’s problematic.
Well, turns out they did. So now that we have established that they don’t follow protocol, are you going to show us their design or are you going to reddit your way out of this conversation?
Source that they did? I’ve seen nothing to support that to date.
That’s exactly my point, no one here has any source about the design. Why don’t YOU ask the people above about THEIR source?
Do you have evidence that this was the case, or are you moving the goal posts to the “no shit sherlock” zone for an easy win?
Don’t act surprised when I answer you the same way you answer me. Now either you bring some source to support the question that was made by someone above you or I’m done. I’m not your source magic machine.
The person who started this chain of conversation is gone btw. I don’t know the point you are trying to make.
The guy above is correct, altitude has no effect on the BT transmission. You can assume they used the tech in a way it can’t (or nearly can’t) be used if you want, I guess. I’m not going to go and prove that they didn’t because that was your assertion, not mine. The vessel had many successful dives before this happened, so logic would dictate that the wireless implementation was working.
BT devices got problems only when water is in between anetna1 and antena2. It does not matter at what altitude the devices are, just what is inbetween them.
What if they command something in the water? Have you seen the design?
Well yes, if they use something in a way specifically contraindicated by the nature of the technology then that’s problematic.
Do you have evidence that this was the case, or are you moving the goal posts to the “no shit sherlock” zone for an easy win?
Don’t put on me your burden of proof.
Well, turns out they did. So now that we have established that they don’t follow protocol, are you going to show us their design or are you going to reddit your way out of this conversation?
Source that they did? I’ve seen nothing to support that to date.
That’s exactly my point, no one here has any source about the design. Why don’t YOU ask the people above about THEIR source?
Don’t act surprised when I answer you the same way you answer me. Now either you bring some source to support the question that was made by someone above you or I’m done. I’m not your source magic machine.
The person who started this chain of conversation is gone btw. I don’t know the point you are trying to make.
The guy above is correct, altitude has no effect on the BT transmission. You can assume they used the tech in a way it can’t (or nearly can’t) be used if you want, I guess. I’m not going to go and prove that they didn’t because that was your assertion, not mine. The vessel had many successful dives before this happened, so logic would dictate that the wireless implementation was working.
I never said otherwise and we both know it.
I’m not gonna play the reddit game with you. I have no burden of proof. Find another strawman to play with.
The designer is dead.
The designer is dead so the wireless didn’t work?
Does that count as a coherent argument to you? I wouldn’t make fun of redditors if you can’t make a better argument than that…
If you want to command something in the water, you run a wire from that something to a receiver in the cabin.