User talk:Davandron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] AIS

Hi there, I see you have done a some work on AIS, please see my comment on the talk page. I would love to help out, but cant take the lead on it. I can provide references for class B and receive only AIS devices. Russeasby 01:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Removal of link to AISLive

Hi Davandron

I inserted a link to AISLive which has been removed. There are 2 sides to AISLive, a paid for site and a free site which has 105,000 members. I receive feedback on this public service and we maintain the free site for the benefit of shipping enthusiasts all over the world. The link is intended for the free site as an example of a global use of AIS. I would respectfully ask that you leave the link intact as this is a genuine free service that we provide at our own cost.

Thanks

Ron ~~~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Racrean (talk • contribs) 11:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of link to ShipPlotter

Why did you remove my link to ShipPlotter on the AIS page?

This software is free (unless you want the Internet sharing component), and not a Commercial Site as you seemed to think.

[If there is a more correct way to contact you, please advise].

Thanks, David —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gm8arv (talk • contribs) 08:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello David,
Yep, talk pages such as this, or the article talk page are great ways to discuss the changes. Please make sure to add ~~~~ at the end of your talk-page post so that the entry is signed (not needed on main-page / article edits).
To answer your question, when I went to the site in question here is what it said:
“ ShipPlotter can be freely downloaded and used for 21 days. After that time it must be registered. Registration can be done swiftly and securely on-line and costs only Euro €25 for personal use and €215 for professional or corporate use. (VAT is added to these charges for customers within the EU). ”
I'm not sure why you feel this software is free / non-commercial if users must pay to use it. Please note, I'm not saying the software isn't useful, or passing judgment on whether it is a good price, just that someone is profiting from its sale and therefore it seems inappropriate to link from the wikipedia. Can you help me understand your thoughts on the matter? - Davandron | Talk 17:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I was mistaken in thinking it was free, oops! Having said that, I still think it deserves a link, but obviously not if the policy strictly excludes that. The use of this software has really taken off in the last year. Looks like I found out how to insert a signature as well. Thanks for your patience. Gm8arv 17:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem; we all were new users once and we have all had faux-pas. Regarding a link, I'm personally very interested in the software but if one software program is listed then others will argue they too deserve to be listed, and this is exactly what we are urged to avoid in what wikipedia is not. However, wikipedia is about more than one or two editors, so I'd suggest you start a topic on the AIS discussion page and see what other people think about listing software. I'll probably respond there, and it will probably be an opposing post, but it will generate discussion and we will reach a consensus as a group. Thanks for your contributions and I look forward to see more from you. - Davandron | Talk 18:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spammer and GPS

Thanks for finding a good link to the info so we didn't need to tolerate the spammer.

I see you're a real GPS expert. I used to be one of those, 30 years ago, when I worked with J. J. Spilker and Stanford Telecommunications Inc. before the satellites were up. I built their GPS test transmitters, and part of the GPS test receivers, products they sold a few of to help develop and test satellites and receivers. Dicklyon 05:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't know that I'm much of an expert; I just really enjoy understanding how the GPS system works. It definitely would have been fun to do the kind of work you were doing, and working with the nuts and bolts of a proposed system. - Davandron | Talk 13:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Junk rig- small picture

Hi Davandron,

Just curious, on several occasions I've had a picture edited to a smaller size, most recently by you in the modern junk rig article. In the intro section, a smaller pic just makes white space because of the TOC box. What is the reason behind wanting a smaller pic there? mbbradford 08:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. I did it for two reasons, 1) it made the page look very unbalanced, with most of the screen being taken up by the image, and 2) to maintain consistency with other articles.
That said there may actually be a guideline already as to the size. I know there was a raging debate about how the thumbsize should not be specified because it overrides local user preferences.
BTW, remember that many people may use the Wiki from a 800x600 screen. So when you make the image 600 pixels wide, plus text, plus the wikiside bar... something has to give since theres just not enough space. - Davandron | Talk 15:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] celestial navigation section

I appreciate your comment on the edit regarding celestial navigation I made in the general navigation section. I have a LOT to learn about the structure and editing process. I now know about the celestial section and agree that the information I entered that's not already covered should go there. Unfortunately, I am at sea right now on the short end of a very slow internet connection. As soon as I get home (first week of Feb) I will take a careful look at the whole structure and where, it at all, I might have a contribution to make. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captclbecker (talk • contribs) 06:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] V-22

Saw you revert on V-22 Osprey article. I believe the notion of belly and chin turrets came from a comment in an article from a recent Military Officer article, which appears to be he is trying to say, but it doesn't quite come across. That reference is actually in the preceding sentence. I read the same quote, but elected not to include it in the Wiki V-22 article because Military Officer magazine is hardly an authoritative aviation magazine on this detail and it hasn't been reported anywhere else I could find. I do know several people in the program office and have sent emails askign for status. Cheers, HJ 15:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Satellite Navigation Systems

They're not the same thing, but the article is entirely redundant to the GNSS one. All the content has been moved to the other, so why not just redirect people instead of making them click? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I agree

Raymarine Marine Electronics should be a redirect at best. Raymarine is the name of the company. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 18:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amateur Radio Licensing in the US article

It looks generally good. The Novice, Tech, and Amateur Extra classes were added in the early 1950s, and Advanced was grandfathered at that time (with no new licenses issued). Before that, there were Class A, B, and C licenses; A corresponded to Advanced, B corresponded to General, and C corresponded to Conditional.

The best source for this stuff is probably QST from 1950-1953 or so. I don't have copies myself; my recollection of the licensing from that era is from reading that magazine in my days at college avoiding real work. It's not that hard to find. -- Jay Maynard 11:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maritime trades invite

Pan pan. Pan pan. Pan pan. Attention all vessels. This is WikiProject Maritime Trades. Please be advised that the project has been created to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to shipping and the diverse maritime trades. Assistence is requested. This is Maritime Trades standing by on Channel 16.

Hi Davandron, I thought this might be of interest since you've done so much work on maritime radio subjects. I think that sort of equipment falls square in the middle of the project's purview. Cheers. Haus42 21:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC) (oh, p.s. we should probably touch base on Passage planning...)

Thanks for the info. I've pulled my merge suggestion regarding passage planning; good work in filling out that article. I haven't read it yet, but its got the quantity for stand alone ;^) - Davandron | Talk 00:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note to self

harvest info on glonass from here http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/cgsic/iisc/default.htm

[edit] Firefox userboxes

Please restore; you should have discussed before moving. The move page warned you of that in bright red letters. - Davandron | Talk 04:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

None were encyclopædic, so I userfied them, per WP:GUS, as I mentioned in my edit summaries. There's nothing controversial about the templates—they just don't belong in the main Template: namespace, since they're not part of the encyclopædia itself. Blast 06.04.07 0414 (UTC)
Is any userbox encyclopedic? I've only seen that used project cited for controversial stuff. Or are you moving all userboxes to your personal space? - Davandron | Talk 04:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly why the move to userspaces was decided upon: because userpages aren't encyclopædic, and they're the only part of Wikipedia that isn't. Secondly, no, I'm not moving all the userboxes to my userspace, just the ones I spot that are in the main template namespace. User:Aeon1006, User:Disavian, User:Menasim, and especially User:UBX have been doing this for some time now. :) Blast 06.04.07 0426 (UTC)

[edit] SBAS

Hi, Davandron,

I suggested some changes to the SBAS entry including adding a short "overview of principle" at the beginning. You seem to have reverted to mostly the original which I suggest to a non-expert uses rather obscure language. I tried to send a reply to you but I am not sure that it was transmitted. Did you receive it? If not, how can I re-send it?

Ian Strachan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Strachan (talk • contribs) 06:20, 13 April 2007

Hello Ian,
I posted a note on your talk page, before I performed the edits/reverts, listing some of the reasons for the revert. I've received your reply here, if thats what you mean, but I didn't see a reply on your talk page. If you need assistance with finding it, let me know.
Also, remember to type ~~~~ (four tildas) after sending a note on a talk page, it signs it with a date. - Davandron | Talk 14:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for pointing out the Amateur radio licensing in the United States article last week. On seeing it I noticed that the morse code requirement was dropped and that the test pool was changing in July. Anyway, the note was just in time for me to prepare for the exam. I passed the General after studying this week, but not Extra, which I didn't study for. Thanks again. --Dual Freq 20:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Glad I could be of help. 73! (since I dont have a rig yet, I dont get to say that much) - Davandron | Talk 12:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catalina

Nice job on cleaning up Catalina Yachts. Are you a Catalina owner? --Kevin Murray 01:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Nope, don't own any boats right now, however my sailing club's boats are C22s so I'm sailing catalinas at the moment ;-) - Davandron | Talk 12:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Great. Where are you sailing? My C380 is on SF Bay. --Kevin Murray 16:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The Grapevine Sailing Club, located in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. Not quite the same as blue water, but you take what you can get. - Davandron | Talk 16:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sailing Infoboxes

Yeah, I am the originator of the infoboxes. They are a hack copy from something else. Any help you can give would be appreciated. Minnesota1 17:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GPS articles

Hi Davandron, I'm fine with most of the changes. There are only two reversions I disagree with:

  • Use of "coarse" in which sends non-precise time information. I agree that non-precise isn't the best word choice, but coarse is too easily confused with navigational course, especially in close proximity to a navigational instrument. How about approximate? I realize that the specs probably call it "coarse", but this sentence is written for laymen.
  • Use of "random" in [SA] that introduces intentional, time-variable errors. Again, time-variable isn't the best word choice, but random suggests the error jumps around which isn't true either. How about slow moving random?

I think it is great we agree like 99.99%. I see you made several changes which furthered my enhancements. Thanks. —EncMstr 14:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback.
Coarse: hmm, to me its the right word, because coarse here means large chunk / low-resolution; the almanac contains the days, hours, minutes, seconds part of the timing signal. The high-resolution part of the signal is in the epoch (the starting over) of the prn sequence. Its not an accuracy / precision thing, so thats why it wasn't the right word. Does that make sense? Perhaps it just needs to be spelled out like I just did; I can see what you are saying that people probably don't know thats what coarse means. (although i hope they don't confuse it with course! *smile* )
Errors: I think your idea is best; "slowly changing random error of up to 100 meters" or perhaps "slowly changing unpredictable error of up to..."
I really appreciate your thoughtful response. It serves as a great example. - Davandron | Talk 02:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helium vs hydrogen buoyancy

Hi. I've had to revert your edit on Airship because the article is still accessible online on wab.archive.org and it says "Why Does Helium Have 92% of the Lifting Power of Hydrogen if It Has Twice the Density?". You're free to correct the Airship page (I wont stop you if you insist because I'm no expert in physics) but please check the article first. — Xavier, 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh thank you.... but the link in the article needs to be verifiable (the old link is not available to everyone). I've switched out for the archive link you found but someone needs to find a permanate link. Thanks for the helping me with the info ;^) - Davandron | Talk 13:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, a web page needs to be accessible but the actual article content does not. Instead of the link to webarchive that many may consider as ethically incorrect (since you have to pay in order to read the original article), I've put a full ref to the article in Journal of Chemical Education. Regards. — Xavier, 21:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
For anything else, perhaps, but here everyone is going to say "why is it only 8%?" and then not be able to find out. I think I'll knock together an article section.
Fine ! Indeed, this is the best thing to do. You might want to inspire yourself from Lighter than air where the explanation is much simpler albeit less precise than in this JoCE article. — Xavier, 01:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't see you had already changed the Airship page. Pretty good for something supposed to have been hasty written. :-) — Xavier, 01:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] GPS

Hi Davandron, today I placed in the discussion part of GPS an additional part "Number of satellites needed for positioning", you made a reaction to that under the reaction from Mossig. I do agree with you that you don't have to know your position for relative time. Knowing the time to within 6 seconds (how do you know ?) doesn't help, because all of the earth and a lot around us falls within the 6 seconds. I do not know at whom your remark was aimed at, because after your remark Mossig still claims that with an a unaccurate clock he still can determine a position. While my claim is that in a lot of situations the clock is useless for calculating the position. With 3 satelites and a clock which is a bit off you could be anywhere between the earth and the moon. And all calculations would exactly fit for all positions on the arc. At the moment I am leaving my addition in the discussion part, but am thinking of to move the part to the main article. Why ? Because I think the model explains why four satellites better than the sphere model and also I think that this is correct or at least more correct. (With the sphere model you need only 2 satellite to determine a position on the earth. Three intersecting spheres determine only two points. (one unstable). So the sphere model does not explain why 3 satelites are needed for 2D and four satelites are needed for 3D calculations.) With four satelites there is only one point, no overlapping situations or an area which determines the point, but just the single point. With a calculating iterations model the sphere model can be used, and with each iteration the time corrected to a better value. But the position where we are actually does not match the sphere model until we have the correct time.Crazy Software Productions 17:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for removing your content. I got an edit conflict, after adding some extra comment and editing the original entry for writing mistakes I made. (Satelites --> Satellites). So I kept that part and pasted it back, and thereby removing your remark. Sorry for that. I had seen your remark but it had not registered that, the comment was in the middel off my 'saved' edits. I'll take a step back and try to formulate what I am looking to change in the article.

If you look at the latest addition (from Guymacon), then this is an illustration off a wrong explanation. If there are two points the second point is mirrorred from the first point considering the virtual flat surface where the three satellites are within as the mirror. This point can easely be discarded as a wrong point, because it is very far away from the earth and moving fast. But three satellites is not enough. Four are needed.Crazy Software Productions 23:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Its ok, we all make mistakes. Regarding needing four; you need four surfaces to yeild a fix. If you have 3 satellite signals plus you know you're near the surface of the Earth, then you have enough information. - Davandron | Talk 04:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


First thanks for introducing the concept of surfaces. This can be used for a better explanation.
3 independend surfaces are needed to yield a fix. (For second point see further on) The shapes of the three surfaces can vary, so three (independend) planes will give you a fix. Three spheres will give you a fix. Or three Hyperboloides will give you a fix. But three squares or other shapes would give you a fix as well. The surfaces can be combined as well. For example two hyperboloides and a sphere (earthsurface) wil give you a fix.
-- One satellite on it's own AND a corrected clock will give you a surface. (Sphere).
-- One satellite on it's own AND NO corrected clock (a GPS just switched on for example) will not give you one surface. This is the point I am trying to make.
--Two satellites will give you one surface. Not a sphere but a hyperboloid. Time Difference of Arrival (TDOA) is the same on all points of the hyperboloid.
Three surfaces are needed to get the fix, so three independend surfaces will be needed, to get three independen surfaces we need 3 independend satellite pairs. To get three independend satelite pairs you need four satelites.
The intersection of two hyperboloids will yield a closed arc. (I would guess an elips but do not know this). An extra hyperboloid intersecting the arc will yield two point.
Two points.
I think that even with four satellites, there are actually 2 solutions (x/y/z/time) which is consistent with the information of the four satellites. (This then is also true for the four spheres around the satelites, there is a second point with a different time which yields a correct solution). But the second point is far removed from where we actually are (far above the earth surface) and is moving at an incredable speed, so it's easy to discard this point.
I have no prove for the existence of this second point with four satelites. Also I am still not sure if there actually is a second point. Remark, this second point has not only a different location but also a different time, for which te solution holds. For this second point probably any of the 4 parameters of the point can be used to discard this point. The x, y, z and the time as well can be very far removed from the other point.
But I do not want to introduce this second point into the discussion. Because in all the models this is a very unstable point. Far removed from the earth and moving fast. (For the 2D model it is on the earth surface, but is still moving fast). So to eliminate this second point we do not need an extra satellite. (Although a second positioning is needed to discard the second point). I do not consider the second point an issue.
In short.
(I ignore that there are solutions with two points, I still call this a fix.)
Step 1 : Three surfaces are needed to get a fix.
Step 2 : One single satellite does NOT provide a surface.
Step 3 : Two satellites provide a hyperboloid surface, where each point on the surface has the same TDOA.
Step 4 : Three satellites provide only 2 independend hyperboloids. (there are only 2 independend TDOA parameters).
Step 5 : The intersection of the 2 independend hyperboloids yields an closed arc.
Step 6 : An intersection of the earth or an independend hyperboloid *) with the arc yields a fix (one or two points).
Step 7 : After getting a fix, the clock of the GPS can be adjusted to the correct time.
*)Adding a satellite gives one extra independend TDOA parameter and therefore gives only one extra independend hyporboloid. If the difference.
At the moment I am trying to intergrate the concept "surface" with my original writings. Thanks for showing me the way. Your comment would be appreciated by me.
Crazy Software Productions 14:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:BA609 airplane mode.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:BA609 airplane mode.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: GPS signals revert

You're damn right it's helpful. I guess I just didn't fully understand how coarse a GPS almanac really is. --  Denelson83  06:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yellow Pages Endeavour

I just created a stub page for the YPE; I see you mentioned the YPE on your wingsail "to-do" list, so I thought I'd let you know. scot 16:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! - Davandron | Talk 03:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twilight

Hi - I just noticed your edit and had to laugh.. I was literally on the point of removing most of those images completely, as there are only two there which actually illustrate l'heure bleue. The majority are gratuitous sunset pics (apologies if any are yours, maybe I should have checked first..) which seem to crop up wherever the word "light" does :o) I thought I'd drop you a line before removing them, sound you out first, etc. --mikaultalk 18:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

None of them are mine; I just stumbled onto that page and saw there were way too many. Please feel free to edit as you see fit and thanks for the note. - Davandron | Talk 19:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trusts

Yes, good work. I think that's a definite improvement. AndyJones (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GPS question

Hey Davandron,

"or any other person knowledgable about GPS"

Could someone tell me whether GPS receivers have the ability to "push" information back out bound? Or would it require a major upgrade to the markets current devices?

Thanks,

Thurstle Mullen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.210.4 (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The GPS system itself does not support anything like this; it's the exact same concept as an FM radio in your car (unidirectional broadcast communications). Now the GPS satellites themselves could carry other military communications gear, but I've never heard of this being installed, and the military has numerous dedicated communications satellites that it would probably use first. - Davandron | Talk 14:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glonass launch template

Thanks very much for your comments on this subject! A lengthier response is at Talk:GLONASS/Launch#Glonass launch template. (sdsds - talk) 03:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: this page has been moved to Template talk:Launching/GLONASS, and the redirect at the old location is up for speedy deletion. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glonass reverts

(continued from other user's talk page) Hi Davandron, Thank you for sending me the Wikipedia overview and introduction: much appreciated. I have referred to the article source for my update in current status and will today learn how to reference them. Lyle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyle F Brotherton (talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added info to GPS signals

Hi Davandron,

I revised my contribution on Modernized GPS signals. I changed the language about "pilot carrier" and used "data-less acquisition aid" instead. You're right that the term "pilot carrier" is not common to all modernized civilian signals. L5 uses a "pilot carrier" as well as L1C, but not L2C. It's really the same concept on all signals (pilot carrier vs data-less acquisition aid), just the wording is different.

Also, I think it's useful to mention Forward Error Correction early. By summarizing the modernized improvements in a single place, we're orienting the reader to better comprehend the information that follows.

Let me know what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pourbaix (talk • contribs) 20:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)