Sand Threshold Speed

My circle of recreational friends is comprised almost entirely of motoheads, avid off road and on road  motorcycle enthusiasts. The campfire conversations are indeed bizarre, covering a broad range of topics, some even related to motorcycles.

Two recurring motorcycle topics are whether there is a threshold speed above which riding a motorcycle in sand achieves greater inherent stability, and whether aftermarket "specialists" can improve the performance of the motorcycle suspension. This short note addresses the sand threshold speed question. The suspension question is ridiculous, nonetheless most of my friends believe that "two Fred's in shed" can improve what the factory engineering specialists have delivered, and are happy to write a check for several hundred dollars for the service. So it goes.

The figure below shows the geometry of a motorcycle wheel on solid ground (left), and in sand (right). The figure assumes that the motorcycle is static, and that the wheel sinks into the sand (right hand drawing) due to the weight of the motorcycle. BTW, the commentary here follows the postulate originally made by Lyndon Poskitt (professional off road competitor). The postulate is based on the reduction, or elimination, of trail (shown in the figure). It is well known that trail, defined as the distance between a point on the ground at the linear extension of the fork tube and the actual contact patch, is needed to stabilize the forward motion of the motorcycle. Lack of trail or negative trail produces an oscillation in the wheel as the motorcycle moves forward.

Note: In the figure above the fork tube offset from the steering head is assumed to be zero.

The wheel on the right, sinking into the sand, virtually eliminates or produces a negative trail value.  The value, h, is the depth of the "sink" and will vary depending on the characteristics of the sand and the weight of the motorcycle. The energy required to raise the motorcycle by the distance h is given by the well known potential energy equation "mgh". Where m is the mass of the motorcycle and rider, and g is the acceleration of gravity.

The energy needed to lift the motorcycle out of the sand can only come from the forward motion of the motorcycle. The energy of a motorcycle moving forward is given by another simple and well known kinetic energy equation "½mv²". Combining the two equations yields:

½v² ≃ gh

When a value of h of 5cm (2 inches of sink) is used in the above equation you get a value of v equivalent to walking speed, about 2 meters/second. This actually feels pretty good relative to my experience of pushing a motorcycle in sand.

Obviously if all the kinetic energy is used to raise the motorcycle there would be no forward motion when riding, and the motorcycle would tip over. So one has to allocate a fraction of the forward motion energy to raising the motorcycle. This is a debatable choice, but if one uses a conservative 10% of the forward motion goes into raising the motorcycle, the value for v (using the 2" sink) becomes about 8 mph. For 4" of sink, the speed value becomes about 12 mph.

The exact relationship between sink and threshold speed is not really important. What is important is that a threshold speed does exist, and the physics supports the existence. It should also be noted that the spinning motorcycle wheels produce additional gyroscopic stabilization which is a linear function of the wheel rotation rate. So "faster" is definitely better.

This conclusion is totally unrelated to the issue of suspension improvement by a clown or two in a messy shop with fork oil all over the floor. Disgusting.

myth busting

Geometric Algebra - MH370 (edited 9/26/17)

Previous posts here (on this subject) lacked clarity and accuracy (coarse approximations). I am in the process of redoing the presentation with a better narrative and greater care. It is slow going primarily because I am carrying a lot of baggage from years of working with conventional linear algebra. Cut and paste below from a slide presented by David Hestenes early in his Oersted Medal Lecture. David is a physicist at Arizona State University who has perhaps done more to advance geometric algebra and calculus than anyone. David is passionate about PER, Physics Education Research, which studies various teaching curricula/methods to determine how to improve the way physics is taught.

The statement above is, indeed, a bold statement to start. A vector product in the form of ab (geometric product) is not familiar to most people. The a⋅b (also called inner product) is the familiar linear algebra dot product, and is a scalar. The a ⋀ b signifies a "wedge" product (also called exterior product) and is a bivector signifying a directed area of |a||b|sin(ϴ) where ϴ is the angle between a and b. The directed nature of the wedge product has to do with the well-known notion of the cross product - the direction/orientation is "orthogonal" to the a/b plane, and follows the familiar right hand rule. At θ = 90°, sin(θ) = 1, and the area is simply |a||b|, a parallelogram. At other angles the trapezoidal area interpretation applies. The location of the directed area is not known in ℝ³ (see comment below).

Two vectors a and b having a common origin define a plane. If this plane is represented by the x, iy plane then a and b can be characterized by a = |a| e^iα and |b| characterized by b  = |b| e^iβ. Then the product ab can be represented ab* = |a|b| e^i(α-β) = |a||b| cos(α-β) + i|a||b| sin(α-β), and we have the familiar dot product involving the cos(θ) and the "wedge" product involving the sin(θ). θ = α-β, the angle between a and b.

Hestenes makes a comment to the extent that we are held "prisoner" by the notion of a coordinate system, and a misconception of vectors. A good example is the velocity vector of MH370 in a local tangent plane - a plane tangent to the surface of the earth at the location of the aircraft.  When we write V = vxi + vyj + vzk, the vector can be anywhere in ℝ³.  The i,j,k and the vx,vy,vz merely specify a magnitude and a direction - not the location of the vector. We instinctively place the vector at the surface of the earth at the location of the aircraft, but there is nothing in the vector representation which mandates this location, and, in fact, it is downright misleading (but it feels good). A strength of geometric algebra is to break the bonds we have relative to a general misconception of what a coordinate system actually represents.

Just like vectors sum, so does the exterior or wedge product.

Analogous to integrated Doppler which only depends on the end points and time, and not on the specific path. The exterior product does not care about the details of the particular path taken to get from point x to point y, only the distance.

(u + v) ∧ w = u ∧ w + v ∧ w

So, you do not need to concern yourself with a detailed path. You can pick specific points in space and time and construct a perfectly valid geometric algebra analysis.

The meaning of the geometric product in the context of MH370 remains elusive to me. The dot product part obviously represents Doppler, and that is quite clear and easily interpreted from conventional analytics. I have no insight into the physical meaning of the wedge product part.

Not being one to let lack of insight be an impediment, I constructed a blade experiment using the following direct paths. A blade being the directed area of the wedge product. In conventional linear algebra the cross product is a vector which only has meaning in ℝ³. In geometric algebra the wedge product is a scalar area in two dimensions and an oriented scalar area in ℝ³.

path A = IGARI to 19:40 (the same for all paths B and C below)

path B = 19:40 location to 18S, 22S, 26S, 30S, 34S, 38S on the 00:11 arc

path C = IGARI to same 00:11 arc positions as path B

A diagram of the paths (except 18S) is shown in the Google Earth screen capture below for an arbitrarily selected 19:40 position of 0N 93.5E.

I then compared IGARI ∧ 19:40 + 19:40 ∧ (arc positions) to IGARI ∧ (arc positions) where:

A_ = IGARI ∧ 19:40 = path A ∧ 19:40 satellite position vector at 19:40

B_ = 19:40 ∧ (arc positions) = path B ∧ 19:40 satellite position vector at 19:40

C_ = IGARI ∧ (arc positions) = path C ∧ 19:40 satellite position vector at 19:40

I did this calculation for 19:40 positions of 0N 93.5E and 8N 93E. The values plotted below are % difference as a function of terminal latitude on the 00:11 arc.

% diff = (A_ + B_ - C_) / C_

Plot (with trend lines) shown using signed values of % difference.

Plot (with trend lines) shown using absolute values of % difference.

My speculation is that there exists a 19:40 location (probably around 5N-6N) where the trend line will "flatten" and exhibit a pure noise characteristic i.e. the blue trend line will "warp" toward the red trend line as the 19:40 position is moved Northward. I will test this later. The calculations, even with fairly good software support, are tedious. (I need people for this.)

It should be noted that the % variations above are very small, and any of the 00:11 positions can probably be supported by standard Doppler path calculations (with appropriate BFO error tolerances). 

What is interesting to me is that the region of 25S to 30S is "highlighted" in a "null" fashion above. This could be real or it could be an artifact related to systematic errors in Google Earth, systematic errors related to the geometry of the earth ellipsoid effects on the wedge product, or some other systematic error I cannot hypothesize at this time. 

Of course, without a physical interpretation of what the wedge product represents in this calculation, all the above could be completely meaningless. I believe including the 38S data point for the 19:40 location of 8N is not realistic given limitations to aircraft speed, but the wedge product does not know that. 

BTW, I did the above calculations for a "common vector" using the nominal satellite position, the vector to 0N 93.5e, and the vector to 8N 93E. The results other than for the actual satellite position vector at 19:40 were "gobble-d-gook".  There is "something special" about 25S to 30S, but I am totally unable to explain what it might be.

OK. So as mentioned above, I did the calculations for a 19:40 position of 5N. The results are shown below for 0N, 5N, and 8N at 19:40

As I expected, the "warping" flattened at 5N with noise like errors.

Signed values of percentage difference below (most interesting, IMO).

Absolute values of % difference.

Conclusion

My conclusion is that there is no added value to be derived from the wedge product. I believe the warping is due to some interaction with the geometry that I have not able to find. The noise is simply that - small random errors in my values for the various locations. The interpretation of the wedge product, I believe, is a representation of the area swept out by the aircraft path relative to the satellite position vector at 19:40. The sum of the directed area from IGARI to 19:40 plus the directed area from 19:40 to an arc position should be the same (in the absence of measurement errors or geometry errors) as the area from IGARI to the arc position. Basically, I do not believe that geometric algebra adds anything to the determination of a terminal location.

Sorry about that. A lot of time spent for no added information. 

Afterthought

Or it might be that running the calculation again at 6N at 19:40 would bring the orange line down to near zero errors and flatten? Refer to signed value difference. Is that telling us something? I have no idea.

Percentage signed value chart repeated below with select paths labeled with Doppler residual in Hz at 19:40 using average speed and track to 00:11 ring point. The reported Doppler residual was -38.4 Hz. So the average speed from 19:40 to the 00:11 ring latitude is best at ~34S, ~26S, ~22S for 0N, 5N, 8N respectively when this speed is used at 19:40 to calculate BFO.

Example Path

"Quick and dirty" path below. There are many such paths. A single example merely illustrates feasibility, and I put very little time into it.

The Iannello and Godfey McMurdo path cut-pasted below is similar. The ground speed of the Iannello and Godfrey path needs to be higher since they started farther North. I added a single mid-path turn to aide in BFO matching, and a turn (for rising sun considerations) at the end. I would characterize the two paths as very similar. My "Dop error" has the same meaning and scale as the Iannello and Godrey "BFO Error".

more 9/28/17

I still have low confidence in what the blades are telling me if anything, so don't place a great deal of weight on these ramblings.

I re-did the blade area work above using vectors at 19:40 @0N, 5N, and 8N, a common vector at IGARI, and vectors at 18S, 22S 26S, 30S, 34S, and 38S on the 00:11 arc. All vectors were from the center of the earth to the surface of the earth. WGS-84 coordinates were used in all cases. Plot of the results shown below.

Another major difference below is the use of only position vectors in the wedge products. In the previous work above the blades were generated by position vectors and "weighted" velocity vectors. For example the velocity vectors from 19:40 to the arc positions were weighted by 4.5, the velocity vector from IGARI to 19:40 by 2.33, and the velocity vector from IGARI to the arc positions by 7.83.

Once again, one can conclude that 26S at 00:11 (27S @ 00:19) is an "indicated" terminus. In this case a  19:40 location of 8N is preferred. The Iannello and Godrey McMurdo path fits this conclusion extremely well, or a path using the Cocos as an LNAV weigh point subsequently overflown with a magnetic heading. 

Reward, Risk, and Arm Waving

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.

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.

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.

http://tmex1.blogspot.com/2016/09/oscillator-comments-holding-area.html

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.

Base Station - Street View

ALSM's 5.388290 100.282694 location at Grain Loaf.

Street view taken from Google Earth - Chrome. Looking ~North.

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.

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

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".

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)

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.