Recommended Posts
This is the first line of your reference on the definition of design. Seems like your own link disagrees with you.
No generally-accepted definition of “design” exists[1], and the term has different connotations in different fields (see design disciplines below).
I think in the end it is a matter of personnal choice. What a person is comfortable with.
Sparky
No generally-accepted definition of “design” exists[1], and the term has different connotations in different fields (see design disciplines below).
I think in the end it is a matter of personnal choice. What a person is comfortable with.
Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals
QuoteHow in the world is it going to detect sensor drift?
Exactly the same way that voting logic works, but it's a simpler problem. It does require being able to make the same measurement in multiple ways and comparing the results for agreement. Two sources of measurement allow detection of a problem, but no way to decide which may be correct. Three or more sources of information can provide enough information to not only detect a problem, but also function correctly in spite of a malfunctioning information source. This is where voting logic comes into play.
QuoteAre you assuming there would be more than one? Again, that is a design that has not/is not available, so it is not relevant when discussing alternatives to the cypres.
To detect sensor drift, you would need more than one way to determine altitude. Multiple barometric pressure sensors would be one way to do that. I don't know the component list to build any of the existing AADs on the market. It wouldn't surprise me if they only had one barometric pressure sensor. It also wouldn't surprise me if any of them had more than one.
QuoteI've already commented about how we don't know the extent to which a vigil would be tested if it was to be sent back voluntarily. Does it compare to the very rigorous testing done for a cypres? If it is a rather simplistic set of criteria without environmental extremes, then it will not uncover faults that should be found, that need to be found. Without knowing that their testing regimen, to say that a person can send it in voluntarily still does not accomplish what the 4 and 8 year cypres check does.
FUD.
QuoteThis is the first line of your reference on the definition of design. Seems like your own link disagrees with you.
I guess you couldn't read past the first sentence, such as perhaps to the second sentence. "Design" has a very specific meaning in technical parlance.
QuoteI think in the end it is a matter of personnal choice. What a person is comfortable with.
Agreed.
sundevil777 93
QuoteQuoteHow in the world is it going to detect sensor drift?
Exactly the same way that voting logic works, but it's a simpler problem. It does require being able to make the same measurement in multiple ways and comparing the results for agreement. Two sources of measurement allow detection of a problem, but no way to decide which may be correct. Three or more sources of information can provide enough information to not only detect a problem, but also function correctly in spite of a malfunctioning information source. This is where voting logic comes into play.QuoteAre you assuming there would be more than one? Again, that is a design that has not/is not available, so it is not relevant when discussing alternatives to the cypres.
To detect sensor drift, you would need more than one way to determine altitude. Multiple barometric pressure sensors would be one way to do that. I don't know the component list to build any of the existing AADs on the market. It wouldn't surprise me if they only had one barometric pressure sensor. It also wouldn't surprise me if any of them had more than one.QuoteI've already commented about how we don't know the extent to which a vigil would be tested if it was to be sent back voluntarily. Does it compare to the very rigorous testing done for a cypres? If it is a rather simplistic set of criteria without environmental extremes, then it will not uncover faults that should be found, that need to be found. Without knowing that their testing regimen, to say that a person can send it in voluntarily still does not accomplish what the 4 and 8 year cypres check does.
FUD.
The vigil doesn't have multiple sensors, does it? So then, how does that pertain to this discussion? You seem to have been arguing in favor of the vigil based on a design it does not utilize.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
QuoteThe vigil doesn't have multiple sensors, does it?
As I already said, I don't know the component list of *any* current or previous AAD, so it therefore logically follows that I don't know that answer to that question. Since I've already said that before, why do you keep asking this question?
QuoteSo then, how does that pertain to this discussion?
You came into the conversation later, so maybe you missed the point while the conversation was getting sidetracked into the hows and whys of designing highly available and reliable technology. This line of discussion started when Dave stated that he found it hard to believe that a device could be made that could be relied on to work without regularly scheduled testing and maintenance. My initial comment was that there a several ways that this can be accomplished, but I also commented that whether the A.A.D. has done enough to warrant their maintenance claims remains to be seen. To date, as far as I'm aware, there's no evidence to suggest that Airtec's maintenance schedule is "better" or that A.A.D.'s is "worse". This whole line of argument is little more than FUD.
QuoteYou seem to have been arguing in favor of the vigil based on a design it does not utilize.
No. I'm arguing against FUD. You want me to say that I think CYPRES 2 is better than the Vigil 2? I do think CYPRES 2 is better than the Vigil 2. I've already said twice in this thread here and here that I prefer the CYPRES 2 to the Vigil. I've also commented on numerous occasions such as here and here about design deficiencies in the Vigil and Vigil 2. I think Airtec has a better design philosophy and as a result has produced a better design and a better product. If I was in the market for a new AAD, it would probably be a CYPRES 2, but I can't abide FUD. The only people it helps are the manufacturers. It almost invariably disadvantages the consumer at large, which is us.
NovaTTT 1
I think you need to get your head out of the clouds - and I'm not talking about sky-jumping.
Earth to Brett . . . Earth to Brett 
"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73
QuoteI think you need to get your head out of the clouds - and I'm not talking about sky-jumping.
Earth to Brett . . . Earth to Brett
You mean he does not impress you with his babble?
Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals
sundevil777 93
QuoteQuoteThe vigil doesn't have multiple sensors, does it?
As I already said, I don't know the component list of *any* current or previous AAD, so it therefore logically follows that I don't know that answer to that question. Since I've already said that before, why do you keep asking this question?QuoteSo then, how does that pertain to this discussion?
You came into the conversation later, so maybe you missed the point while the conversation was getting sidetracked into the hows and whys of designing highly available and reliable technology. This line of discussion started when Dave stated that he found it hard to believe that a device could be made that could be relied on to work without regularly scheduled testing and maintenance. My initial comment was that there a several ways that this can be accomplished, but I also commented that whether the A.A.D. has done enough to warrant their maintenance claims remains to be seen. To date, as far as I'm aware, there's no evidence to suggest that Airtec's maintenance schedule is "better" or that A.A.D.'s is "worse". This whole line of argument is little more than FUD.QuoteYou seem to have been arguing in favor of the vigil based on a design it does not utilize.
No. I'm arguing against FUD. You want me to say that I think CYPRES 2 is better than the Vigil 2? I do think CYPRES 2 is better than the Vigil 2. I've already said twice in this thread here and here that I prefer the CYPRES 2 to the Vigil. I've also commented on numerous occasions such as here and here about design deficiencies in the Vigil and Vigil 2. I think Airtec has a better design philosophy and as a result has produced a better design and a better product. If I was in the market for a new AAD, it would probably be a CYPRES 2, but I can't abide FUD. The only people it helps are the manufacturers. It almost invariably disadvantages the consumer at large, which is us.
My mistake, I thought you were asserting that the vigil self test is able to do things that it cannot.
I do think that the evidence in favor of the 4/8 year checks does exist. Every time it takes more than the usual 2 weeks to do the check - when it has to get sent back to Germany/when a customer has to wait an unusually long time to get it back, that is when something bad was discovered that was not (probably could never) be found by a self test. Airtec, if they wanted, could show us the extent of the adjustments made to typical units. I think it would be very interesting, but will probably never happen.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
NovaTTT 1
QuoteYou mean he does not impress you with his babble?
SSDD BTDT
"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73
You're obviously confused. Why do I need to keep telling myself anything? The design defines the product, so speaking about them as somehow distinct doesn't make a lot of sense. If the design is flawed, then so is the product. I'm thinking that you don't understand the meaning of the word design.
A device is a physical assembly of components to perform some function. I can pick up a device and put it in my container. The design is the information in schematics and other technical literature showing how to build a device. The design is not concrete. You don't put the design in your container. You put a device in it.
A device can be faulty by having, for example, a bad solder joint which intermittently fails or a faulty pressure sensor which returns inaccurate information. A faulty device can be fixed and/or replaced with another of the same make/model and the problems go away. If the fault is in the design, then it's much worse. If doesn't matter if you replace the device. It's working as designed so any replacement built to the same design will also exhibit the same undesirable behaviour.
Design flaws are worse, not better.
As above, this doesn't make sense. It seems obvious that you don't understand the word design.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites