So it is now common knowledge that Ocean Infinity has made a "reward" based offer to the Malaysian government to find 9M-MRO. A reward based offer means that they (Ocean Infinity) are not requesting payment of any kind unless and until the aircraft is found. The terms of the offer and the amount of the reward specified have not been made public.
As a general observation, reward based terms have not been common practice since the days of Jesse James, and it is indeed a strange way to do business, especially with a government entity who likes to have some periodic say in how the work is being conducted. That would, in my opinion, have a trickle down effect on a nation's taxpayers. I would be annoyed with the US for doing business on that basis. Even the US IRS, one of the most immoral and unscrupulous of US agencies, does not offer rewards to whistle blowers (maybe they do and I am not aware of it).
Actually, I checked into it, and the IRS does offer rewards to whistle blowers. Why am I not surprised - bastards.
A short while ago I took a pass at quantifying (on Victor's site) what the terms of the offer would be if I were running Ocean Infinity. I assigned a 70% probability of finding the aircraft in a search of 25,000 square kilometers (km^2). This choice was nothing but arbitrary, but it felt good and is conveniently close to a one sigma probability of 68% i.e. there would be a corresponding probability of ~95% of finding the aircraft in a search of 50,000 km^2. Based again on pure assumptions, I estimated Ocean Infinity's cost to search 25,000 km^2 to be USD 15M. The assumptions were Fugro's reported costs (~$30M for 25,000 km^2), and an arbitrary assignment of a twice as efficient search technology to the Ocean Infinity effort. Including a profit, startup cost, and the 70% probability the reward offer was estimated to be a minimum of USD 30M. The corresponding value for 50,000 km^2 with the same fee and startup cost would be USD 45M. In round terms the offer is likely to be in the $30M to $50M range which is what I posted on Victor's site.
So while you might well disagree with the numbers in the paragraph above, the methodology I believe is sound. The difference would be scale - search cost and probability estimation.
In the meantime, the press has reported that CSIRO and Geoscience have had a eureka moment relative to reducing the likely area of the terminus. Whether Ocean Infinity would sign up for these conclusions is not known, but I would not, and in my model I am running the company. Still, the Malays and the Aussies might endorse the new "findings", and if so it would certainly influence their decision making relative to signing up to the Ocean Infinity offer. They would reason that the new findings could create an opportunity for an Ocean Infinity "windfall" that could make them look foolish to the electorate (taxpayers). Not looking foolish is a high priority for all of us, but an even higher priority for an elected official.
Based on the above, the tripartite group might well conclude that they could fund Fugro to search a 10,000 km^2 area for about a $12M time and material cost with a very high probability of finding the aircraft. This is the path I believe the tripartite group will take. It is less expensive without the possibility of embarrassment. Whether a 10,000 km^2 search will find the aircraft is anyone's guess (my personal opinion is that it is ill advised), but it is a "safer" bet than the reward based contract.
It should be mentioned that Ocean Infinity's benefit in securing a search contract would include the underwater imagery which has a value they could realize, and a marketing value associated with a very high profile search. I have no way of assigning an estimated value to either of these entities, but it should slightly lower the cost estimate above.
more August 19, 2017
It can also be seen that a plausible reason for Malaysia canceling the notion of a reward in January of this year is the evolving nature of the terminal location information. Framing a fair reward amount in January/17 could become a windfall in August/17 due to new information. A reward based contract seems to not make sense in the context of finding 9M-MRO.
Friday, August 18, 2017
Thursday, August 10, 2017
Rant for the Month
So, I am mostly done with the book below.
It details the formation and subsequent demise of Long Term Capital Management, LTCM.
It details the formation and subsequent demise of Long Term Capital Management, LTCM.
An interesting read that underscores my long held belief that economists are poor mathematicians, and generally don’t know jack shit.
The basic problem is similar to the recurring problem I have with various very well educated and intelligent people relative to MH370.
Both the movement of stock value and the frequency of the MH370 oscillator strongly resemble a random walk. A random walk has the property that it is neither stationary nor ergodic. You cannot apply conventional log normal analytics to a random walk.
Stationary means that if I take statistics from any two random walks that they will converge. Not true.
Ergodicity means that if I take statistics from 20 one hour random walks they will be similar to statistics taken from one 20 hour random walk. Also not true.
We are conditioned to believe that given a set of numbers that we can compute a mean and variance that are meaningful. This is only true for stationary and ergodic processes (please Wiki stationarity and ergodicity). It would seem that people fall asleep in math class when the properties of data sets are discussed or maybe they are not discussed at all. We can take a mean and variance for any set of data. The math is trivial and well-defined. The problem is that it is often completely meaningless to do so.
The link below summarizes a post I made on this subject relative to MH370. I sent it to the ATSB (Australian search authority) and Dr. Holland readily admitted that the oscillator behavior is neither stationary nor ergodic. He did not explain why he went on to compute the mean and variance of oscillator data logged on previous flights.
So it goes with Black-Scholes. It is deeply flawed for the same reason. The process it is trying to model, stock price movement, is neither stationary nor ergodic. It simply cannot be done using log normal statistics which are the basis for the Black-Scholes model. LTCM found this out the hard way - by losing billions of dollars of other people’s money.
End of rant. I feel better now.
Sunday, June 25, 2017
Base Station - Street View
ALSM's 5.388290 100.282694 location at Grain Loaf.
Street view taken from Google Earth - Chrome. Looking ~North.
Street view taken from Google Earth - Chrome. Looking ~North.
Thursday, June 1, 2017
And So It Goes (18:25:27 BFO Value)
Much discussion has taken place recently regarding the 18:25:27 SATCOM logon event during the disappearance of MH370. As usual, the IG thinks they have it figured out, and that it was a result of removing power from the left bus. No explanation for why a pilot would remove power from the left bus (and subsequently restore it) is provided, but it is none-the-less invoked to explain the SATCOM logon event.
It turns out that Dr. Holland of the DSTG provides an extended discussion of the 18:25:27 logon event in his paper "The Use of Burst Frequency Offsets in the Search for MH370". A link to that paper is provided below.
Holland Paper
This narrative will use screen shot cut-pastes from the Holland paper.
The first screen shot below shows the BFO data logged at and following the 18:25:27 event.
When one looks at Figure 7 above it is tempting to characterize it as an "overshoot" commonly associated with control system transient behavior. That is the conclusion reached by the IG and independent blogger DrB. However, when one looks at all the other logon events presented in the Holland paper, no other logon BFO history has an overshoot signature. Several such events are shown below (screen shot from Figure 9 of the Holland paper).
Only logon 7 (the MH370 18:25:27 logon) displays what resembles an overshoot. Holland himself does not attempt to explain the 18:25:27 BFO data as overshoot behavior. Instead he elects to discard the 18:25:27 BFO as an outlier.
A casual reader might find the outlier explanation acceptable. Unfortunately other data does not support this conclusion. In particular the radar data logged at the time of the 18:25:27 event is as presented by the DSTG below.
Aircraft Speed: 510 knots
Aircraft Track: 296 degrees @6.8N 95.9E
When one computes the BFO associated with the above radar data, one finds a value of 142Hz which just happens to be the value logged by Inmarsat at 18:25:27, and discarded by Holland as an outlier. The IG/DrB do not discard the first logged value, but insist it is simply part of the overshoot behavior associated with the OCXO warmup after turn-on, and it is serendipitous that it happens to agree perfectly with the expected BFO value. The IG/DrB are also apparently not disturbed by the fact that none of the other logon events presented by Holland exhibit any sign of overshoot behavior.
And so it goes... Draw your own conclusions.
It turns out that Dr. Holland of the DSTG provides an extended discussion of the 18:25:27 logon event in his paper "The Use of Burst Frequency Offsets in the Search for MH370". A link to that paper is provided below.
Holland Paper
This narrative will use screen shot cut-pastes from the Holland paper.
The first screen shot below shows the BFO data logged at and following the 18:25:27 event.
When one looks at Figure 7 above it is tempting to characterize it as an "overshoot" commonly associated with control system transient behavior. That is the conclusion reached by the IG and independent blogger DrB. However, when one looks at all the other logon events presented in the Holland paper, no other logon BFO history has an overshoot signature. Several such events are shown below (screen shot from Figure 9 of the Holland paper).
Only logon 7 (the MH370 18:25:27 logon) displays what resembles an overshoot. Holland himself does not attempt to explain the 18:25:27 BFO data as overshoot behavior. Instead he elects to discard the 18:25:27 BFO as an outlier.
A casual reader might find the outlier explanation acceptable. Unfortunately other data does not support this conclusion. In particular the radar data logged at the time of the 18:25:27 event is as presented by the DSTG below.
Aircraft Speed: 510 knots
Aircraft Track: 296 degrees @6.8N 95.9E
When one computes the BFO associated with the above radar data, one finds a value of 142Hz which just happens to be the value logged by Inmarsat at 18:25:27, and discarded by Holland as an outlier. The IG/DrB do not discard the first logged value, but insist it is simply part of the overshoot behavior associated with the OCXO warmup after turn-on, and it is serendipitous that it happens to agree perfectly with the expected BFO value. The IG/DrB are also apparently not disturbed by the fact that none of the other logon events presented by Holland exhibit any sign of overshoot behavior.
And so it goes... Draw your own conclusions.
Friday, May 12, 2017
ICON A5 Lake Berryessa Crash
Crash occurred on May 8, 2017 at approximately 9AM.
NTSB preliminary report here. Location data and weather information included in the report. Weather info was from the airport the aircraft started from (Nut Tree Airport in Vacaville), and generally agrees with data from a nearby MESOWEST station located ~10 miles NorthEast of the lake.
Google Earth View of crash location (North up)
Goggle Earth view of crash location (North up).
Elevation profile of crash location (North up).
The purpose of the flight was an introductory flight for a new employee who was the passenger. The aircraft had not made a water landing before this point in the flight. Obviously, a demo flight would include a water landing. Given the wind direction (30 degrees) and speed (less than 5 knots), the water at the end of the cove had to be as smooth as glass.
My speculation is that the pilot intended to land at the end of cove, misjudged his sink rate over the last piece of shoreline he needed to cross for the landing to the North, revved the engine to gain altitude, but it was too late. The plane hit the shoreline.
The gentle taper of the elevation profile at the end of the cove does not suggest that a rapid climb to get out of the canyon was needed. The observables are consistent with a botched landing attempt.
My guess is that people at ICON can confirm that this location was used for water landings on previous flights to this area.
more May 13, 2017
So a colleague suggested fog formation as a possible contributing factor.
From the NTSB report using the weather at the Nut Tree Airport (origin of subject flight), the air temperature was logged as 18C, and the dew point as 11C. Much too great a difference for fog to form. However, the Nut Tree location is not representative of the conditions at the crash site. (2.5C is actually equivalent to 4.5F.)
Location of Nut Tree below relative to Berryessa (North up).
The Nut Tree is at an elevation of 100' and very close to the San Francisco Bay/Delta. A MESOWEST weather station in Brooks (BKSC1) is slightly closer to the lake, at an elevation of 354' (lake is 500'), and is more representative of conditions at Berryessa.
Location of BKSC1 relative to Berryessa (North up)
A graph of air temperature and wet bulb temperature (dew point) taken from the BKSCI data log is shown below. The time of the accident was approximately 9AM on May 8, 2017. The temperature difference logged below is much more conducive of fog formation than the conditions logged at the Nut Tree Airport. Fog almost certainly formed in the early morning hours, the questions are how long it persisted, if it was present at 9AM, and was it pushed into the area along the West side of Little Portuguese Canyon by the wind?
It is possible that a fog layer formed as illustrated below. The light wind from 30 degrees would compress the fog against the steep bank of the lake. The pilot seeing a clear landing zone descended through what he perceived as a thin fog layer, and believed he was over water at the time since the shoreline was not visible through the fog layer. When he finally got low enough to realize that he had not quite cleared the small shoreline extension into the lake he attempted to ascend, but it was too late. A very reasonable scenario, IMO.
(North up)
Wind speed and gust data from BKSC1 (below) also shows a slightly different picture than the Nut Tree data in the NTSB preliminary report. It was very calm on the morning of the May 8. Even the wind gust speed was below 5 mph which would favor fog formation near the surface of the lake.
Unrelated to the above is a map of Berryessa presumably showing areas where amphibious aircraft can operate (green?). This map would contradict the notion that the pilot was attempting to land in Little Portuguese Canyon. It is not entirely clear what is meant by "seaplane operations". If it means flying, then the pilot was in violation of "permitted only on the main body of water" when he turned up little Portuguese Canyon.
and more May 15, 2017
Close examination of the crash site pictures shows no evidence of scaring in the bank or of a debris "trail" both of which one would expect if there was a significant component of horizontal velocity at the point of impact. This observation would suggest a structural failure or a stall.
However, the picture below suggests that a crash site investigator was examining something South of the crash site (to the left of the crash site in picture below). Possibly a tree impact which would have dramatically slowed horizontal velocity and spun the plane into the bank. Lots of questions remain.
edit May 17, 2017
This is big. From the link below.
"ICON initially suspended all flight operations of the A5 fleet immediately after the accident. Flight operations have now resumed following the NTSB preliminary report."
big
This tells me that a mechanical or structural problem has been largely ruled out by the preliminary investigation, and the data on the flight data recorder. Details of which are not in the public domain as yet.
more May 18, 2017
The picture below has appeared on the Web in a couple of blogs.
Speculation has been made that what appear to be wires in the the 10 o'clock and 1 o'clock positions are a power line that the aircraft ran into and were the cause of the crash.
My own opinion is that these are simply lines used by first responders to secure the wreckage to the shore. Detailed examination of satellite imagery shows no evidence of power lines in this area. BTW, the newest version of Google Earth compatible with the Chrome browser is fabulous.
update May 20, 2017
Well, the Berryessa incident is following a familiar pattern relative to both journalism and the NTSB. Google shows nothing in the last 24 hours, and the ICON corporate website has been turned off. Check back once a month? Icon taking their website down is a big negative for me. I was prepared to regard them in a positive light until then. They are being sleazy now.
edit June 5, 2017
Interesting picture below taken from a location on the opposite shore of the canyon from the crash site. View is to the West. Flight path was from left to right in the photo. Arrow marks the approximate crash site.
more July 17, 2017
No more info from the NTSB (not surprising at this date) or from the manufacturer. The following two screen shots are from the Jeff Wise blog "Aviation Section". Jeff is mainly dedicated to the search for MH370, but did introduce an Icon blog section after the Berryessa incident. The posters below fall into the "take it for what it is worth category", but they sound like they know what they are talking about.
more August 9, 2017
NTSB report news.
Conclusion - pilot error.
NTSB report - final report.
NTSB Report
more September 8, 2017
Lake Berryessa News
NTSB preliminary report here. Location data and weather information included in the report. Weather info was from the airport the aircraft started from (Nut Tree Airport in Vacaville), and generally agrees with data from a nearby MESOWEST station located ~10 miles NorthEast of the lake.
Google Earth View of crash location (North up)
Goggle Earth view of crash location (North up).
The purpose of the flight was an introductory flight for a new employee who was the passenger. The aircraft had not made a water landing before this point in the flight. Obviously, a demo flight would include a water landing. Given the wind direction (30 degrees) and speed (less than 5 knots), the water at the end of the cove had to be as smooth as glass.
My speculation is that the pilot intended to land at the end of cove, misjudged his sink rate over the last piece of shoreline he needed to cross for the landing to the North, revved the engine to gain altitude, but it was too late. The plane hit the shoreline.
The gentle taper of the elevation profile at the end of the cove does not suggest that a rapid climb to get out of the canyon was needed. The observables are consistent with a botched landing attempt.
My guess is that people at ICON can confirm that this location was used for water landings on previous flights to this area.
more May 13, 2017
So a colleague suggested fog formation as a possible contributing factor.
From the NTSB report using the weather at the Nut Tree Airport (origin of subject flight), the air temperature was logged as 18C, and the dew point as 11C. Much too great a difference for fog to form. However, the Nut Tree location is not representative of the conditions at the crash site. (2.5C is actually equivalent to 4.5F.)
Location of Nut Tree below relative to Berryessa (North up).
The Nut Tree is at an elevation of 100' and very close to the San Francisco Bay/Delta. A MESOWEST weather station in Brooks (BKSC1) is slightly closer to the lake, at an elevation of 354' (lake is 500'), and is more representative of conditions at Berryessa.
Location of BKSC1 relative to Berryessa (North up)
A graph of air temperature and wet bulb temperature (dew point) taken from the BKSCI data log is shown below. The time of the accident was approximately 9AM on May 8, 2017. The temperature difference logged below is much more conducive of fog formation than the conditions logged at the Nut Tree Airport. Fog almost certainly formed in the early morning hours, the questions are how long it persisted, if it was present at 9AM, and was it pushed into the area along the West side of Little Portuguese Canyon by the wind?
It is possible that a fog layer formed as illustrated below. The light wind from 30 degrees would compress the fog against the steep bank of the lake. The pilot seeing a clear landing zone descended through what he perceived as a thin fog layer, and believed he was over water at the time since the shoreline was not visible through the fog layer. When he finally got low enough to realize that he had not quite cleared the small shoreline extension into the lake he attempted to ascend, but it was too late. A very reasonable scenario, IMO.
(North up)
Wind speed and gust data from BKSC1 (below) also shows a slightly different picture than the Nut Tree data in the NTSB preliminary report. It was very calm on the morning of the May 8. Even the wind gust speed was below 5 mph which would favor fog formation near the surface of the lake.
Unrelated to the above is a map of Berryessa presumably showing areas where amphibious aircraft can operate (green?). This map would contradict the notion that the pilot was attempting to land in Little Portuguese Canyon. It is not entirely clear what is meant by "seaplane operations". If it means flying, then the pilot was in violation of "permitted only on the main body of water" when he turned up little Portuguese Canyon.
and more May 15, 2017
Close examination of the crash site pictures shows no evidence of scaring in the bank or of a debris "trail" both of which one would expect if there was a significant component of horizontal velocity at the point of impact. This observation would suggest a structural failure or a stall.
However, the picture below suggests that a crash site investigator was examining something South of the crash site (to the left of the crash site in picture below). Possibly a tree impact which would have dramatically slowed horizontal velocity and spun the plane into the bank. Lots of questions remain.
edit May 17, 2017
This is big. From the link below.
"ICON initially suspended all flight operations of the A5 fleet immediately after the accident. Flight operations have now resumed following the NTSB preliminary report."
big
This tells me that a mechanical or structural problem has been largely ruled out by the preliminary investigation, and the data on the flight data recorder. Details of which are not in the public domain as yet.
more May 18, 2017
The picture below has appeared on the Web in a couple of blogs.
Speculation has been made that what appear to be wires in the the 10 o'clock and 1 o'clock positions are a power line that the aircraft ran into and were the cause of the crash.
My own opinion is that these are simply lines used by first responders to secure the wreckage to the shore. Detailed examination of satellite imagery shows no evidence of power lines in this area. BTW, the newest version of Google Earth compatible with the Chrome browser is fabulous.
update May 20, 2017
Well, the Berryessa incident is following a familiar pattern relative to both journalism and the NTSB. Google shows nothing in the last 24 hours, and the ICON corporate website has been turned off. Check back once a month? Icon taking their website down is a big negative for me. I was prepared to regard them in a positive light until then. They are being sleazy now.
edit June 5, 2017
Interesting picture below taken from a location on the opposite shore of the canyon from the crash site. View is to the West. Flight path was from left to right in the photo. Arrow marks the approximate crash site.
more July 17, 2017
No more info from the NTSB (not surprising at this date) or from the manufacturer. The following two screen shots are from the Jeff Wise blog "Aviation Section". Jeff is mainly dedicated to the search for MH370, but did introduce an Icon blog section after the Berryessa incident. The posters below fall into the "take it for what it is worth category", but they sound like they know what they are talking about.
more August 9, 2017
NTSB report news.
Conclusion - pilot error.
NTSB report - final report.
NTSB Report
more September 8, 2017
Lake Berryessa News
Hood Whining
Screen shot from Hood's comments in The Australian, May 8, 2017.
That is so inappropriate - "undermines the good work of many dedicated professionals". Good work and dedication are no substitute for competence. These professionals did not find the aircraft because they were looking in the wrong place. Malaysia's and the ATSB's refusal to release data requested over and over again by well qualified independent analysts is the issue Higgins is addressing, and rightfully so.
The new area suggested recently by the ATSB came from the same group who defined the initial search area. Valid questions have been raised relative to the determination of the new area. The reality is that the ATSB has much more and better data now than it did when the a decision was made to start the original search. What has changed? The obvious answer is that people making funding decisions have lost confidence in the ability of the "dedicated professionals".
That is so inappropriate - "undermines the good work of many dedicated professionals". Good work and dedication are no substitute for competence. These professionals did not find the aircraft because they were looking in the wrong place. Malaysia's and the ATSB's refusal to release data requested over and over again by well qualified independent analysts is the issue Higgins is addressing, and rightfully so.
The new area suggested recently by the ATSB came from the same group who defined the initial search area. Valid questions have been raised relative to the determination of the new area. The reality is that the ATSB has much more and better data now than it did when the a decision was made to start the original search. What has changed? The obvious answer is that people making funding decisions have lost confidence in the ability of the "dedicated professionals".
For Freddie
Recently Freddie made a summary post on the JW blog referencing the Geomar drift study (which used reverse analytics), an ocean disturbance report by a Russian author (Mikhail P.), and a Christmas Island path generated early on by me. Here we have three completely unrelated works done at different times by different people all working independently which give precisely the same MH370 terminal location. I am not evangelizing the Christmas Island path, but I find the coincidences quite remarkable. This post is made to support Freddie.
Geomar Drift Analysis (August 2015)
Russian Ocean Disturbance Geometry (Mikhail P. - June 2014)
Dennis Xmas Island Path (first proposed in ??? 2014)
Geomar Drift Analysis (August 2015)
Russian Ocean Disturbance Geometry (Mikhail P. - June 2014)
Dennis Xmas Island Path (first proposed in ??? 2014)
Monday, May 1, 2017
The Party
I mean the political party. Most of my friends (not friends and neighbors where I live, but friends acquired in a previous life in the Bay Area Shithole, BAS) are liberal and democratic. They are largely anti-vaxxers, anti-gun, anti-profiling, and anti-anything else they don't think is politically correct. Me, I am not anti-anything with the exception of taxes which, in California, are truly the highest in the nation and growing.
When Trump won the presidential election the whining I heard from my BAS friends was loud and clear. Similar to the whining in the largely democratic media and almost totally democratic educational domain. When Obama won twice there was no whining. Conservatives don't whine. They except the results of a lawful process, and carry on with their lives.
The Crowdpac survey pretty much tells the story.
We all know how much entertainers, academics, online services (Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter,...) and journalists actually contribute to society. These groups are much more liberal than the people who actually do something (farmers, miners, construction workers, and energy producers) are conservative (6-7L versus 3-4C)
So it goes. I will not comment further on the tax issue. It just upsets me to even think about it. Instead let's consider gun control. The table below lists the mass shooting events that have taken place in California in the last three+ decades. A mass shooting being defined as four or more people killed or injured.
If the locations of these mass shootings are plotted on map the result is the following:
A map depicting the political (democrat/republican) leanings of Californians is shown below. This map has not changed much over the three decades in which the shootings are logged. Needless to say the ease of getting a carry permit is much greater in the red counties, and is virtually impossible in the blue counties. Draw your own conclusions, but I feel a lot safer North of the Golden Gate where the percentage of gun ownership is much higher.
There is a lot in common between the maps above and the map below. Again, draw your own conclusions. Mass shootings only seem to occur where it is next to impossible to get a permit to carry a firearm. Makes the gun control advocates look sort of stupid (which they are).
Rollingstone Magazine luckily scored an interview with Obama the day after the general election. Among one of the more interesting comments Obama made was:
"If you look at the data from the election, if it were just young people who were voting, Hillary would have gotten 500 electoral votes. So we have helped, I think, shape a generation to think about being inclusive, being fair, caring about the environment. And they will have growing influence year by year, which means that America will continue to get better."
What a slap in the face to older Americans. Like we don't know jack shit, are not fair, and don't care about the environment. Of course if you look at who actually votes you get a different picture. BTW, there are as many eligible millennial voters as boomers.
Young people simply do not care enough to even show up. They don't care about our country, about their communities, or the companies they work for. What they care about is themselves. Not sure where Obama is getting the warm and optimistic feeling about young people. The data simply does not support his perceptions.
Data on advanced degrees in the US is even more disappointing. Without foreign students the number of PhD's earned in a scientific discipline would go down by more the 50%.
degree statistics
So, I am old, and really don't really care that much anymore. I will filter my friends, and they will certainly filter me. It is one thing to see shit is happening, it is another to listen to why the shit is good from a bunch of poorly informed and biased BAS dwellers.
Edit 2 May 2017
A related issue is the recent voting on California proposition 56 - a proposal to raise the tax on cigarettes by $2 / pack. Clearly a discriminatory tax. Of course, the proposition passed by a large margin. Once again dominated by votes South of the Golden Gate where most of the whackos live.
When Trump won the presidential election the whining I heard from my BAS friends was loud and clear. Similar to the whining in the largely democratic media and almost totally democratic educational domain. When Obama won twice there was no whining. Conservatives don't whine. They except the results of a lawful process, and carry on with their lives.
The Crowdpac survey pretty much tells the story.
We all know how much entertainers, academics, online services (Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter,...) and journalists actually contribute to society. These groups are much more liberal than the people who actually do something (farmers, miners, construction workers, and energy producers) are conservative (6-7L versus 3-4C)
So it goes. I will not comment further on the tax issue. It just upsets me to even think about it. Instead let's consider gun control. The table below lists the mass shooting events that have taken place in California in the last three+ decades. A mass shooting being defined as four or more people killed or injured.
If the locations of these mass shootings are plotted on map the result is the following:
A map depicting the political (democrat/republican) leanings of Californians is shown below. This map has not changed much over the three decades in which the shootings are logged. Needless to say the ease of getting a carry permit is much greater in the red counties, and is virtually impossible in the blue counties. Draw your own conclusions, but I feel a lot safer North of the Golden Gate where the percentage of gun ownership is much higher.
There is a lot in common between the maps above and the map below. Again, draw your own conclusions. Mass shootings only seem to occur where it is next to impossible to get a permit to carry a firearm. Makes the gun control advocates look sort of stupid (which they are).
Rollingstone Magazine luckily scored an interview with Obama the day after the general election. Among one of the more interesting comments Obama made was:
"If you look at the data from the election, if it were just young people who were voting, Hillary would have gotten 500 electoral votes. So we have helped, I think, shape a generation to think about being inclusive, being fair, caring about the environment. And they will have growing influence year by year, which means that America will continue to get better."
What a slap in the face to older Americans. Like we don't know jack shit, are not fair, and don't care about the environment. Of course if you look at who actually votes you get a different picture. BTW, there are as many eligible millennial voters as boomers.
Data on advanced degrees in the US is even more disappointing. Without foreign students the number of PhD's earned in a scientific discipline would go down by more the 50%.
degree statistics
So, I am old, and really don't really care that much anymore. I will filter my friends, and they will certainly filter me. It is one thing to see shit is happening, it is another to listen to why the shit is good from a bunch of poorly informed and biased BAS dwellers.
Edit 2 May 2017
A related issue is the recent voting on California proposition 56 - a proposal to raise the tax on cigarettes by $2 / pack. Clearly a discriminatory tax. Of course, the proposition passed by a large margin. Once again dominated by votes South of the Golden Gate where most of the whackos live.
Saturday, April 22, 2017
Continuing Education
So today I spent all day at an EMS conference to acquire 7 hours of continuing education credit for my EMT license. I am acting as an EMT on a volunteer basis, so there is no remuneration involved at all. To maintain national EMT certification requires 48 hours of CE, Continuing Education, every two years.
So why does a PhD in math or physics or any other of the major scientific disciplines not have an imposed CE requirement? Ami (my significant other) has a PhD in EE with no CE requirements, but her license to practice law in California with her JD requires 25 hours every two years (soon to be raised to 35 hours).
I raise this question in good faith based on the nonsense I see virtually every day on the MH370 blogs.
BTW, I am not complaining. I learned a lot of very useful and highly appropriate stuff today.
So why does a PhD in math or physics or any other of the major scientific disciplines not have an imposed CE requirement? Ami (my significant other) has a PhD in EE with no CE requirements, but her license to practice law in California with her JD requires 25 hours every two years (soon to be raised to 35 hours).
I raise this question in good faith based on the nonsense I see virtually every day on the MH370 blogs.
BTW, I am not complaining. I learned a lot of very useful and highly appropriate stuff today.
Friday, April 21, 2017
GPS Shock Mount
GPS receiver mounted on a motorcycle handlebar. A Garmin shock mount is shown. The purpose of the shock mount is to mitigate severe vibration when riding off road. Without the shock mount the GPS receiver has a difficult time tracking satellites and determining user Doppler.
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Under Constrained
What do the search for MH370, the 'big bang", AGW, and contemporary evolutionary theory have in common? They all represent an analytical and scientific trend that has become common over the last 50 years or so. I would characterize this trend as an over reliance on under constrained "solutions".
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with an under constrained system. What is wrong is to teach it as dogma in schools, and spend public money following a course of action based on such ideas.
It is very likely that the "big bang" theory is wrong. New data gathered by the Planck satellite has shaken the foundations of the "big bang". Actually the "big bang" has been hobbled by problems for over 50 years - the amount of time spent looking for and not finding any dark matter or dark energy needed for the theory to explain the observables. That has not stopped our educators from presenting the "big bang" as a proven scientific fact.
So it goes with AGW. Is the world's climate changing? A lot of observables suggest that it is. What is not known is the underlying causality. Is it related to human activity or is it the result of other physical processes? No one knows with any degree of certainty. Spending money to reduce the impact of humans on the earth is probably a good thing to do. Teaching AGW in our schools as a provably correct theory is total nonsense. The reality is we do not know if human activity is causing global warming.
Evolution happens. We can see it occurring in our world. Can it explain the diversity of plants and animals on our planet today? No. There are serious problems related to the observed rate of genetic mutation and the age of the earth. It is not a small disconnect. It is an order of magnitude disconnect. This problem gets no mention as evolution is spoon fed to our children as the correct explanation for every plant and animal on our planet.
The search for MH370 highlights over a short time period the 50 year trend mentioned in the first paragraph above. The SSWG and many analysts outside the SSWG busied themselves sticking pins in a map based on speculation. There was nothing intrinsically wrong with that process except the manner in which it was presented and preserved. Like the "big bang", AGW, and evolution you had to be part of the club of believers or you were invited to leave the discussion. Is this the new trend in scientific enquiry? Apparently so. Steinhardt and Loeb conclude their paper highlighting the problems with the "big bang" with an interesting discussion in this regard. Their paper is a very worthwhile read.
Pop Goes the Universe
Speaking about theories in general...
The work of the SSWG, IG, DSTG, and other outside analysts falls exactly into the problem area above. It excludes nothing and has zero power. An oracle would be appreciated.
Taleb makes an interesting observation relative to people "categorization" - people that know how (surgeons, Uber drivers, machinists...) and people who know what (economists, cosmologists, climatologists,...) I am done paying any attention to people in the know what category.
edit: 4/17/2017
So the ATSB put the lid on information disclosure today. I suppose I would do the same thing if I was in their shoes.
atsb-threatens-staff-with-jail-if-mh370-details-leaked
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with an under constrained system. What is wrong is to teach it as dogma in schools, and spend public money following a course of action based on such ideas.
It is very likely that the "big bang" theory is wrong. New data gathered by the Planck satellite has shaken the foundations of the "big bang". Actually the "big bang" has been hobbled by problems for over 50 years - the amount of time spent looking for and not finding any dark matter or dark energy needed for the theory to explain the observables. That has not stopped our educators from presenting the "big bang" as a proven scientific fact.
So it goes with AGW. Is the world's climate changing? A lot of observables suggest that it is. What is not known is the underlying causality. Is it related to human activity or is it the result of other physical processes? No one knows with any degree of certainty. Spending money to reduce the impact of humans on the earth is probably a good thing to do. Teaching AGW in our schools as a provably correct theory is total nonsense. The reality is we do not know if human activity is causing global warming.
Evolution happens. We can see it occurring in our world. Can it explain the diversity of plants and animals on our planet today? No. There are serious problems related to the observed rate of genetic mutation and the age of the earth. It is not a small disconnect. It is an order of magnitude disconnect. This problem gets no mention as evolution is spoon fed to our children as the correct explanation for every plant and animal on our planet.
The search for MH370 highlights over a short time period the 50 year trend mentioned in the first paragraph above. The SSWG and many analysts outside the SSWG busied themselves sticking pins in a map based on speculation. There was nothing intrinsically wrong with that process except the manner in which it was presented and preserved. Like the "big bang", AGW, and evolution you had to be part of the club of believers or you were invited to leave the discussion. Is this the new trend in scientific enquiry? Apparently so. Steinhardt and Loeb conclude their paper highlighting the problems with the "big bang" with an interesting discussion in this regard. Their paper is a very worthwhile read.
Pop Goes the Universe
Speaking about theories in general...
The theory becomes more highly tuned and arcane to fit new observations until it reaches a state where its explanatory power diminishes to the point that it is no longer pursued. The explanatory
power of a theory is measured by the set of possibilities it excludes. More immunization means less exclusion and less power. A theory like the multimess (big bang) does not exclude anything and,
hence, has zero power. Declaring an empty theory as the unquestioned standard view requires some sort of assurance outside of science. Short of a professed oracle, the only alternative
is to invoke authorities. History teaches us that this is the wrong
road to take.
The work of the SSWG, IG, DSTG, and other outside analysts falls exactly into the problem area above. It excludes nothing and has zero power. An oracle would be appreciated.
Taleb makes an interesting observation relative to people "categorization" - people that know how (surgeons, Uber drivers, machinists...) and people who know what (economists, cosmologists, climatologists,...) I am done paying any attention to people in the know what category.
edit: 4/17/2017
So the ATSB put the lid on information disclosure today. I suppose I would do the same thing if I was in their shoes.
atsb-threatens-staff-with-jail-if-mh370-details-leaked
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
XR650R - A Legend
The world is finally waking up to what I discovered several years ago. The finest single cylinder adventure bike is no longer made. That would be the Honda XR650R. Getting one plated in California is a non-trivial exercise.
XR650R
I went through the pain, and have two of them. Both very well sorted out. Pic below.
The bike on the left is a Johnny Campbell pre-runner. Campbell and team won the Baja 1000 several times with this type of bike. It has the Honda factory installed power up kit, and the forks are reworked for the Honda Baja team. What this means is that the bike is basically not rideable for a normal person. It is scary fast, and beats you to death at normal rider speeds and style. The bike on the right has the standard XR650R engine, and reworked suspension for B/C riders. It is a very pleasant scooter.
Both bikes have 6.3 gallon Acerbis tanks which give a range of 250-300 miles depending on terrain and throttle usage.
Eat your heart out people.
XR650R
I went through the pain, and have two of them. Both very well sorted out. Pic below.
The bike on the left is a Johnny Campbell pre-runner. Campbell and team won the Baja 1000 several times with this type of bike. It has the Honda factory installed power up kit, and the forks are reworked for the Honda Baja team. What this means is that the bike is basically not rideable for a normal person. It is scary fast, and beats you to death at normal rider speeds and style. The bike on the right has the standard XR650R engine, and reworked suspension for B/C riders. It is a very pleasant scooter.
Both bikes have 6.3 gallon Acerbis tanks which give a range of 250-300 miles depending on terrain and throttle usage.
Eat your heart out people.
Saturday, April 1, 2017
High Dynamic Range Photography
As usual, I am late to the game. Only became aware of this capability recently. It is actually already implemented in newer phone cameras.
The basic idea is that the dynamic range of the human eye exceeds the dynamic range of photographs produced by digital cameras. By taking a sequence of photographs at different camera exposures (EV settings) and combining them with appropriate software one can produce pictures with greatly increased dynamic range. There are many examples to be found on the WEB.
I recently downloaded several software products available for this purpose. The Photomatix software produced the best results for me. A couple of examples below.
Garage picture of XR650R motorcycle which I am currently working on:
Single frame picture taken at 0EV with Nikon D200 DSLR.
Photomatix image produced by five frames (-1.4 - 0.7 0 +0.7 +1.4) EV - Nikon D200.
Picture taken from ranch deck toward the Mendocino National Forest:
Single frame 0EV - Nikon D200.
Photomatix image produced by five frames (-1.4 - 0.7 0 +0.7 +1.4) EV - Nikon D200.
In both cases the difference is very dramatic. Still have a lot to learn.
Edit: 4/3/2017
So, another comparison. This time favoring the single frame mode IMO. The single frame seems to more closely match the image seen by my eyes. Kitchen faucet which I just replaced. Photo below HDR at the same EV spread as above. Tonal spreading of the planter box wood above the faucet is very accurate relative to human perception, but brown (sprayed to kill) vegetation below faucet is too "orange".
0EV single frame below. Wood is not as good, but sprayed vegetation is quite accurate relative to human perception.
edit 4/5/2017
So I wanted see how a little motion (the smoke in this case) impacted the image which is accumulated over five frames. Not much at all.
HDR picture of Ami burning some trimmings:
Same scene single frame 0EV. Nikon D200 in both cases. Smoke is better represented in single frame image IMO.
edit 4/6/2017
Cold and rainy today so I took a wood stove picture in the "surreal" mode. Again, five frames with Nikon D200. Exposure time on each frame with room ambient lighting was 0.7 seconds at ISO 200, so a rock solid tripod setup was essential.
Single frame below at 1.33EV
edit 4/9/17
Stonyford General Store. Stonyford is where my ranch is located. Population is around 200 people. Ranch is nestled against the Snow Mountain Wilderness area. You cannot see another structure from the ranch. Second pair of photos in the post were taken from the deck of the ranch house.
"Ansel Adams" version of Stonyford General Store
There are obviously a lot of knobs to spin on both the camera and the software when combining multiple frames. I am very pleased with the Photomatix product, and bought the license. Picture below was taken with a Nikon D100 which is limited to three frames. The frames were at (-0.7 0.0 +0.7) Processing used was in the "painterly2" mode of Photomatix. The Zen House (Point Arena, CA) experience is like stepping into a Norman Rockwell painting. The owner, Dave, is the best motorcycle mechanic I have yet to encounter.
The basic idea is that the dynamic range of the human eye exceeds the dynamic range of photographs produced by digital cameras. By taking a sequence of photographs at different camera exposures (EV settings) and combining them with appropriate software one can produce pictures with greatly increased dynamic range. There are many examples to be found on the WEB.
I recently downloaded several software products available for this purpose. The Photomatix software produced the best results for me. A couple of examples below.
Garage picture of XR650R motorcycle which I am currently working on:
Single frame picture taken at 0EV with Nikon D200 DSLR.
Photomatix image produced by five frames (-1.4 - 0.7 0 +0.7 +1.4) EV - Nikon D200.
Picture taken from ranch deck toward the Mendocino National Forest:
Single frame 0EV - Nikon D200.
In both cases the difference is very dramatic. Still have a lot to learn.
Edit: 4/3/2017
So, another comparison. This time favoring the single frame mode IMO. The single frame seems to more closely match the image seen by my eyes. Kitchen faucet which I just replaced. Photo below HDR at the same EV spread as above. Tonal spreading of the planter box wood above the faucet is very accurate relative to human perception, but brown (sprayed to kill) vegetation below faucet is too "orange".
0EV single frame below. Wood is not as good, but sprayed vegetation is quite accurate relative to human perception.
edit 4/5/2017
So I wanted see how a little motion (the smoke in this case) impacted the image which is accumulated over five frames. Not much at all.
HDR picture of Ami burning some trimmings:
Same scene single frame 0EV. Nikon D200 in both cases. Smoke is better represented in single frame image IMO.
edit 4/6/2017
Cold and rainy today so I took a wood stove picture in the "surreal" mode. Again, five frames with Nikon D200. Exposure time on each frame with room ambient lighting was 0.7 seconds at ISO 200, so a rock solid tripod setup was essential.
Single frame below at 1.33EV
edit 4/9/17
Stonyford General Store. Stonyford is where my ranch is located. Population is around 200 people. Ranch is nestled against the Snow Mountain Wilderness area. You cannot see another structure from the ranch. Second pair of photos in the post were taken from the deck of the ranch house.
"Ansel Adams" version of Stonyford General Store
There are obviously a lot of knobs to spin on both the camera and the software when combining multiple frames. I am very pleased with the Photomatix product, and bought the license. Picture below was taken with a Nikon D100 which is limited to three frames. The frames were at (-0.7 0.0 +0.7) Processing used was in the "painterly2" mode of Photomatix. The Zen House (Point Arena, CA) experience is like stepping into a Norman Rockwell painting. The owner, Dave, is the best motorcycle mechanic I have yet to encounter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)