Mid

2018 Rolex Sydney Hobart Yacht Race: The Race Committee has lodged a protest against Wild Oats XI

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, shanghaisailor said:

3.29.13 (a & b)

Here is Shangs contribution re: W.S. spec regs. I see you have got your broom out and deleted your post re  telling Frant to look up power loss / ariel position.

3 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

I have a Phd in rude. But as you just sent me money via PayPal, then as your servant  I must oblige, Section 3.29.13 and with even with a linky

https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/WorldSailingOffshoreSpecialRegulations20182019180104-[23449].pdf

A rule I think 3 years old?

Above is a post you forgot to clean.. 

You somehow seem to think rule 3.29.13 (a&b) is important to your argument... By the way, there is no R 3.29.xx in Australian Spec. Regs..

Another classic Jack quote:

"Are you on some sort of get dumber by the minute plan?

5 minutes ago you didn't know 3.29.13 existed, then you get enlightened and you still keep banging on about what?? Clearly you still haven't read the the SI's despite being urged to do so. Do you need a reference for them, the RRS also to tie them all together ?

Fuck..I'm now calling you Cliff.. also in the hope you drive over one."

If you  read the section below you will not find any mention of power loss, only output, you were quoting the reg that Shang has mistakenly quoted.

Why dont you tell us who you are Jack and where you live,  the town will do, just so I know which way to place my prayer mat,   sea rug, Great circle route obviously, so that I can proselytize in your direction, and worship the guy who confuses Flinders and Tasman Islands... but is the self assesed guru of all things yachting. 

 

This from Australian sailing Spec regs.

3.25 MARINE RADIO
Satcom C equipment forms part of the Global Maritime
Distress and Safety System and is carried aboard all
commercial shipping as well as by shore based rescue
coordination centres. This technology is well
established and is an option available to yachts
participating internationally under the World Sailing
Special Regulations. Owners and race organisers may
consider phasing in this equipment as a prelude to its
potential introduction into future versions of these
Special Regulations.
3.25.1 The following waterproof or marine standard
communication equipment shall be provided:
1 2 3 4 5
(a) (i) Permanently installed HF transceiver.
(ii) All new HF transceivers shall be DSC capable.
1 2
SECTION 3 – PART 2 FIXED EQUIPMENT
41
(i) It is recommended that all HF transceivers be
DSC capable.
(ii) Where shore based VHF facilities exist for the
entire length of the course, the organising
authority may permit an installed VHF transceiver
only and this shall be included in the notice of
race.
2
(b) (i) Permanently installed VHF transceiver 1 2 3 4
(ii) A permanently installed, DSC capable VHF
transceiver is recommended
5
(iii) All new permanently installed VHF transceivers
shall be DSC capable.
(iv) It is recommended that all permanently installed
VHF transceivers be DSC capable.
1 2 3 4
(c) A satellite phone is recommended. The satellite phone
should have coverage of the race area, and be
connected to the main power or have a spare battery.
1 2
3.25.2 A waterproof handheld VHF transceiver. 1 2 3
Specifications and Testing
3.25.3 Permanently installed HF transceivers shall be: 1 2
(a) Able to transmit and receive on the standard distress
frequencies of 4125, 6215, 8291 kHz.
(b) Tested in accordance with the notice of race.
3.25.4 Permanently installed VHF transceivers shall: 1 2 3 4 5
(a) Have a maximum rated output power of not less than
25W.
(b) Have a mast head antenna. 1 2 3
(c) Have transmission and reception with a base station at
least 8 nautical miles distant.
1 2 3
(d) Be tested in accordance with the notice of race. 1 2 3 4 5
3.25.5 The following emergency antenna shall be provided:
(a) An emergency antenna for each required radio. 1 2 3
(b) An emergency antenna where the regular antenna
depends upon the mast.
4
SECTION 3 – PART 2 FIXED EQUIPMENT
42
3.25.6 Handheld VHF transceivers shall: 1 2 3 4 5
(a) Have a maximum rated output power of not less than 5W.
(b) Be tested in accordance with the notice of race.
3.25.7 At least two means of receiving weather bulletins shall
be provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, frant said:

Jack are you pissed or a blithering idiot? ..The S2H is run under the SI’s..

You have to be the dumbest troll God ever invented 

As I'm looking for the battery to the Electric Button quickly read this. You have until I find that battery.

38 minutes ago, frant said:

Probably  using 3.29.13 as a guide but you simply can’t protest using that rule number in Australia. It is not a rule of the S2H.

I will give you $100 million dollars where I have said a protest by anyone should or can be made directly referencing that rule either in WS or any equivalent regs.

I will give another $100 Million if you can name the rule or its interpretation that lets WOXI off the hook from defending a competitor protest for WOXI not having their AIS TX signal being recieved by that competitor or by the RC as protester if the RC had evidence on hand of that independent of and not reliant upon any competitor.

Now get going and earn your $200.million while I look for a $2 battery .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, HILLY said:

Here is Shangs contribution re: W.S. spec regs. I see you have got your broom out and deleted your post re  telling Frant to look up power loss / ariel position.

Not interested in shangs post. How do you delete a post?

49 minutes ago, HILLY said:

Above is a post you forgot to clean.. 

You somehow seem to think rule 3.29.13 (a&b) is important to your argument... By the way, there is no R 3.29.xx in Australian Spec. Regs..

And quoted in the context of what Hilly? The context is many replies. Who is doing the cleaning here or are you just lazy?

49 minutes ago, HILLY said:

Why dont you tell us who you are Jack and where you live,  the town will do, just so I know which way to place my prayer mat,   sea rug, 

My mistake I thought you had a serious argument going. Seems no such thing. Just a rant like everyone but certainly now no need for that subject to apology I gave you. Your intent is now very clear.

What ever it is it must be really hurting you. Shame about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, frant said:

i have owned, read and understood the contents of the Blue Book and its updates since 1968. Both as a competitor at world and Olympic level. Also been seconded to protest committees...I have read and understand the Australian Special Regulations and Audit forms as a qualified Cat 1 auditor. 

As your other dickhead mate said, it’s goodnight from me. See you when you are sober.

Ahh the play dumb then reveal and scarper off without answering the $200 million question troll. It took a while to flush you out, even had to revert to the Electric Buzzer trick 

You and Hilly should get together and compare notes.

That aside excellent to see this subject has people getting passionate. The opposite is no good for anybody or anything. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, frant said:

Dickhead

A predictable "au revoir' from someone, even sporting it seems 50 odd years of RRS experience, but who can't answer a simple question to substantiate their meandering argument. That was;

53 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

I will give another $100 Million if you can name the rule or its interpretation that lets WOXI off the hook from defending a competitor protest for WOXI not having their AIS TX signal being recieved by that competitor or by the RC as protester if the RC had evidence on hand of that independent of and not reliant upon any competitor.

Don't worry you are not alone, there others who avoid that question like the plague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frant said:

Jack are you pissed or a blithering idiot? If pissed then you might be able to read and come to a reasoned response when you are sober. The S2H is run under the SI’s, the RRS and the Australian Special Regs. It is sort of imperative that one understands what these are ie how the race is run and regulated. Unless that is done you can’t postulate on what the IJ could rule. SS had obviously not read the Australian Regs or he would not have quoted the Reg number that he did. Clearly and as I have stated all along the IJ may  have been forced to come to a conclusion as to what a “ satisfactory” Tx was/ is.  Probably  using 3.29.13 as a guide but you simply can’t protest using that rule number in Australia. It is not a rule of the S2H.

OK so I quoted from a GLOBAL standard instead of an AUSTRALIAN variant. I hold my hand up on that one.

I bow to your vast experience "co-opted onto protest committees" wow, that probably puts you alongside probably half the club sailors in the world over the years. 

Here's a number for you. It is the only really relevant number in this discussion. 

Sailing Instructions 11.4

If you are so knowledgeable about the  rules you will recognise the importance of the word "SHALL" in the instruction.

Anyway that's the personal 'pop' out of the way and no malice intended, I would still down a pint with you if we met -discussion is healthy. 

The thing I find hard to believe about this whole affair is that the Race Committee clearly (according to them) had not watched any news REPORTS by news REPORTERS of what Blackjack stated. I find it strange (not unbelievable but strange) that an RC showed no interest in what the media were REPORTING from the dock (about the race they were the RC of) in Hobart and  didn't watch, listen to or read any of the media REPORTS about claims over AIS being on, off, faulty, mandatory (or not) etc. I doubt if many of the REPORTERS filing their REPORTS had any conflict of interest regarding what they were REPORTING.

For the record, I have no conflict of interest over the whole issue, I just find it strange that a party to the whole event has provided almost as many variants to the actual events as the Crown Prince of Saudi.

Saddest part of the whole thing for me is the REAL winner of the event, Alive who picked up the Tatersall Cup has almost been forgotten in the morass of writings about a on/off/faulty piece of electronics let alone the amazing performance of the all female team on Wild Oats Ten who beat 86 teams of (mainly) Aussie blokes to the second spot of the IRC Overall podium. That's the real race.

SS

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, frant said:

But as I have tried to explain to Jack that is a lot different to an IJ coming up with a guilty verdict whatever the penalty.There must be some quantifiable standard expressed in the rules by which a Tx is measured. Ie is it 10 miles, 5 miles 1 mile, 50 metres? 

You have explained nothing of the sort.  I have made no comment in any post about what a IJ's determination may or should have  been. You make shit up. That aside the current test of compliance is simple. The piece of equipment is either on or off. 

No better example of your gobblygook is this 

You are presented with a AIS history for WOXI in the context of indicating the RC had sufficient evidence available to lodge a valid protest under RSS over AIS TX and one not relying on a competitor that WOXI's AIS TX was off. No mention of a hearing, the IJ or prospects on any IJ determination.

Your bizzare reply.

5 hours ago, frant said:

Think very carefully now Jack. Should an IJ make a decision on supposition or not. Unless you can show me an amendment to Australian Special Regs then those are what the IJ must use. WOXI have provided an alibi for their low or null transmission. Like it or not that is the way that it is.

What have the Special Regs got to do with determining the validity or not of a RC protest?? Where do I mention IJ? Where did WOXI present this "alibi"? Who accepted and interrogated this "alibi" and then made a determination? Answer is simple, none of the above occured because no such protest ever occured. The IJ were presented with nothing. 

Serious question. Do you honestly believe this Perry Mason alibi dribble? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, frant said:

You really must be drunk. Now in your childish response I can see that you think it’s all about ME. Now fuckoff and come to terms with the fact that no one is going to play your little I bet you a million dollars game.

You are simply a lying creep who makes shit up on the go by way of attribution and then you squirm when you get caught out. Some tolerate that, I don't. Choice is yours if you want to persist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frant said:

You really must be drunk.

 

1 hour ago, frant said:

Dickhead

I'm not wunk, I'm wealy wealy wunk, wike borderin on pararipitic pissdelfofef wunk ..wike mabis evin cromotose wunk, The wickhead thingy U cally me Im still pwosessing. Howthe weather wefore I path out in a see of womit end piddley me pents ..can U pwesse ranswer me questiony. I jest cipied heree as thaty wes hours ago wen I wassy only part pissy. Hopey U dinny mind thet.

4 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

I will give another $100 Million if you can name the rule or its interpretation that lets WOXI off the hook from defending a competitor protest for WOXI not having their AIS TX signal being recieved by that competitor or by the RC as protester if the RC had evidence on hand of that independent of and not reliant upon any competitor.

By thee wayzer fwenty ..didle I every well U thaat I actualllly envented theee question marky ting. It gotty me weery werry wich. Like wuber wich. Wike the Woogle cwowd give 1 centy everry time them use my ?. Heve U iny ideas how meny ? markys is in a IRL..like U weplying to me posts I makey me moneey. The Woatleys wood kill for me casshy flow just talkin about thim..or meybe thim kill me firsty? Ha ha. Cwazy isitty. Mebye thets wheise I meek suchy cwazy efferings twoo wickyheads twoo wanswer me westions? Oopsie I did a westion mark end iim 1 centres wicher. ha ha I goty step that.

Wooking worward to ye wanser fwenty. No mores wiggleyy weaslliy wordys ok

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snaggletooth, U speake Abo kangaroo do u ? 

Please translate into gobbledygook !

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Snaggletooth, U speake Abo kangaroo do u ? 

Please translate into gobbledygook !

 

LOL I don't think he's posted in this thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

I just looked at thread title. Are you suggesting another component?

Only thing being flogged is WOXI saying their Splitter got fried by microwaves and about to supply evidence of that and no AIS TX any minute now by way of Richo's one week promise.

I for one .would like to know if hiding your Splitter in a chicken then zapping it is not a good idea.

WOIX has been flogged to death, but there is plenty of life in the OT AIS discussion and the traditional SA mud or other slinging and other activities.

 

giphy.gif

 

tenor.gif?itemid=5649226

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've learned a lot about AIS from this thread and have pontificated mightily about it's technical aspects above concerning this incident, and we all know I'm always right.

But, having  looked over the latest statements from those directly involved & media reports, I wish to retract some of my earlier blather.  WOXI's spokesmen first claimed "a News 7 helicopter transmitted and forced a reset of our onboard electronics which disabled our AIS TX capabilities", but I think they actually meant the onboard live camera transmission(s) (to a helicopter relay or direct to a terrestrial downlink) damaged or reset their electronics systems.


Now that I can actually buy.  I don't know the particulars of long range wireless media camera systems, but think it's more plausible the onboard camera caused the problem, given that only a few line honors boats carried one (and the camera person once outside the harbor), so the "black helicopter should have fried all boats" theory falls by the wayside.

I'm leaning toward giving WOXI the benefit of the doubt now.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a bloody relief to all concerned I'm sure.
Doesn't change the fact they were in breach though which is the main issue.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, paps49 said:

It's good night from me and it's good night from him.

Laugh In....you had to be there.

 

That was The Two Ronnies. Laugh In was " Goodnight Dick ".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has the reasoning come out yet? 

I know an ex tv network engineer experienced in live transmission/broadcasting keen to hear the detail

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, axolotl said:

WOXI's spokesmen first claimed "a News 7 helicopter transmitted and forced a reset of our onboard electronics which disabled our AIS TX capabilities", but I think they actually meant the onboard live camera transmission(s) (to a helicopter relay or direct to a terrestrial downlink) damaged or reset their electronics systems.

...so the "black helicopter should have fried all boats" theory falls by thewayside.

Not sure how you acertained that but if so doesn't that in fact make it less, not more likely?

Firstly the camera pack has less power than the helicopter relay back to Channel HQ? If a camera uplink is that powerful to fry onboard electronics how are a helicopters electronics imune from that? How in fact have so many broadcasts been done without a onboard electronics incident of this nature?

Secondly you would assume the microwave  access to the splitter would be via the mast mounted antenna then VHF coaxial cable as the VHF cable and splitter are encapsulated in carbon. Therefore isn't that mast top antenna access point more susceptible to the operator in the helicopter getting his higher powered relay device direction cocked up, not the camera operator with his low powered device?

Thirdly you appear to be using no other boats effected so can't be helicopter approach? It happened 2 hours before the start and they were at Bradley's Head with no other boats around. Don't know why they were live transmitting 1 1/2 hours before the telecast started, but that is beside the point.

I don't know the exact power involved for each device and I don't know how one channel and half of the other channel in a splitter survive a roasting leaving only AIS TX impaired, but the helicopter relay being the culprit sounds quite plausible to me.

PS. Actually the irony of all this is everyone complains about only the big boats on the TV coverage. The problem is with these two boats two onboard cameraman broadcast approach they utilise two helicopters which takes resources away from covering anyone else. Get rid of the onboard cameraman and people might see other boats exist. Or alternatively Channel 7 charters more choppers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

If a camera uplink is that powerful to fry onboard electronics how are a helicopters electronics imune from that?

The answer to this is the enormous amount of care taken. The lengths that are taken with aircraft electronics to ensure they are appropriately shielded and otherwise constructed and installed to avoid interference effects is mind numbing. You can be sure that every bit of flight electronics has been tested, as installed, by the manufacturer, to be resistant to a wide range of EM, and appropriately certified, signed off, reviewed, and so on. Part of why the joke goes that an aircraft is not ready to fly until the mass of paperwork exceeds the mass of the aircraft.

In comparison, your average (or even high quality) boat installation looks like something done by a moron with a stone. Unless you test the installation you will never know what it is immune to or vulnerable to. A few centimeters of cable here or there can make worlds of difference. It isn't just neatness that matters.

The only vessels I see that have similar levels of care taken as aircraft are naval vessels. They of course expect someone to try to hit them with various EM measures in addition to operating with all manner of local high power EM sources.

That said, actual physical damage is a different thing to disabling, interfering, or glitching electronics. As I wrote earlier, "fry" as in "destroy" is a different thing, and a much less likely outcome. The only realistic interpretation I can see is that "glitch" is the mechanism. If indeed there was such a failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, frant said:

I guess you are being tongue in cheek when you say “ bow to your vast experience” yes just because we’re old doesn’t mean we’re wise. And agree that just about every club Sailor that has been around has been cooped onto a PC. What it does mean however is that you have real world experience at the difficulty to actually determine what happened between differing eye witness accounts and then applying those “facts found” to the rules as they read, not just deciding who you think the nice guy is and judging in his favour. Boy you show your age even more than MR and myself highlighting SHALL. That used to be in the blue book definitions as in “ shall is mandatory”. I think I made the comment on this thread a while ago that MR ‘s comment that AIS was not mandatory indicated that he was referring to RRS rather than COLREGs or there current abbreviation.

yes shall means just that, if doing an audit I would not pass a boat that Tx wasn’t visible on my MarineTraffic app. Just simply say no that doesn’t satisfy the intent of the rule.But as I have tried to explain to Jack that is a lot different to an IJ coming up with a guilty verdict whatever the penalty.There must be some quantifiable standard expressed in the rules by which a Tx is measured. Ie is it 10 miles, 5 miles 1 mile, 50 metres? The man on the Clapham omnibus probably doesn’t have a clue on these technical matters so we can’t go there, as in saying if it doesn’t appear on MarineTraffic it’s not on!

For the rest I agree fully, but that is not what happened and we are again only speculating as to the whys and wherefores. 

Ha ha - you get worse. The "Blue Book" as you call it is the "Australian Sailing Racing Rules of Sailing". In the current version (I own a copy) it clearly states that "Other words and terms are used in the ordinarily understood in nautical or general use".

The Sailing Instructions (SIs) are part of the rules of the event and have nothing to do with IRPCAS (what you call the ColRegs). The IRPCAS requirements for AIS DO NOT apply to a sailing yacht of the weight of Wild Oats XI.

That sentence in the introduction of the "Blue Book" applies across all elements of the rules of our sport unless,like ALL aspects of the RRS, is specifically countermanded by a part of the NoR or SIs -you may have seen in some things like "This replaces Rule such and such.

The 2018 RSHYR NoR and SIs have no such entry that even suggests the normal usage understanding of words is incorrect. Cutting a long story short SHALL means SHALL but of course,as an experienced rules 'person' you would know that anyway.

You mention in an earlier post that being old doesn't mean being wise. It is important (perhaps also wise) to understand that true wisdom doesn't come from what you know. IN fact true wisdom comes from knowing what you don't know. (Think about it).

Your comment about an IJ coming up with a guilty verdict is irrelevant in this case as there was no guilt (or innocence) decided in the  protest room as the protest was deemed invalid. Not the judges fault but the way in which the protest was prepared.

Nobody has won.

Wild Oats has not been proven guilty(f they were).

They have not had the opportunity to prove their innocence (if they were)

The reputation of the race and our sport has been besmirched.

The Overall Victory of Alive has been largely buried which is not in the least bit fair. Hers was a rare Hobart based boat's victory.

The achievements of the ladies on Wild Oats X, newsworthy in itself has barely had a mention.

On a much brighter note for our sport, the 2019 Fastnet Race entry has opened and closed.

It took a mere 4 minutes and 37 seconds to fill the 340 places available in the Royal Ocean Racing Club's biennial event.

Just sayin'

SS 

Edit: PS there are another 100 boats on the wait list by the way.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Not sure how you acertained that but if so doesn't that in fact make it less, not more likely?

Firstly the camera pack has less power than the helicopter relay back to Channel HQ? If a camera uplink is that powerful to fry onboard electronics how are a helicopters electronics imune from that? How in fact have so many broadcasts been done without a onboard electronics incident of this nature?

Secondly you would assume the microwave  access to the splitter would be via the mast mounted antenna then VHF coaxial cable as the VHF cable and splitter are encapsulated in carbon. Therefore isn't that mast top antenna access point more susceptible to the operator in the helicopter getting his higher powered relay device direction cocked up, not the camera operator with his low powered device?

Thirdly you appear to be using no other boats effected so can't be helicopter approach? It happened 2 hours before the start and they were at Bradley's Head with no other boats around. Don't know why they were live transmitting 1 1/2 hours before the telecast started, but that is beside the point.

I don't know the exact power involved for each device and I don't know how one channel and half of the other channel in a splitter survive a roasting leaving only AIS TX impaired, but the helicopter relay being the culprit sounds quite plausible to me.

PS. Actually the irony of all this is everyone complains about only the big boats on the TV coverage. The problem is with these two boats two onboard cameraman broadcast approach they utilise two helicopters which takes resources away from covering anyone else. Get rid of the onboard cameraman and people might see other boats exist. Or alternatively Channel 7 charters more choppers.

I'm sure the AIS feed historical data on the interwebs can tell us when and where the transmitter switched off.  It would be easy enough to triangulate that data with helicopter flight logs and other sources (e-mails, text messages etc) that could pinpoint when and about where the alleged frying transmission took place.  WOXI could do this themselves to prove their claim and shut all this nasty innuendo down, as SS points out it's drawing attention away from those who deserve more publicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Francis Vaughan said:

The answer to this is the enormous amount of care taken. The lengths that are taken with aircraft electronics to ensure they are appropriately shielded and otherwise constructed and installed to avoid interference effects is mind numbing...

Frances I realise that, it was a power reference if it is the camerman's link as he suggests (I think the higher powered helo relay as reported sounds more plausible) That is the same camera pack you see in the street? If that pack is.powerfull enough to disable a splitters electronics, why aren't the electronics in every car in that street cactus more particular the TV relay van itself? To bring a splitter down or more precisely selectively do so where only TX is effected requires surely requires a big ,hit of EM interference surely? Of the comparative sources I would have thought the helo relay the culprit more likely as reported, not the camera pack..  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, shanghaisailor said:

.....Nobody has won.

Wild Oats has not been proven guilty(f they were).

They have not had the opportunity to prove their innocence (if they were)

The reputation of the race and our sport has been besmirched.

The Overall Victory of Alive has been largely buried which is not in the least bit fair. Hers was a rare Hobart based boat's victory.

The achievements of the ladies on Wild Oats X, newsworthy in itself has barely had a mention.

On a much brighter note for our sport, the 2019 Fastnet Race entry has opened and closed.

It took a mere 4 minutes and 37 seconds to fill the 340 places available in the Royal Ocean Racing Club's biennial event.....

^^^^^ This...... And by the sound of it, I am glad I did four Fastnets straight when I did......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DickDastardly said:

I'm sure the AIS feed historical data on the interwebs can tell us when and where the transmitter switched off. 

Last transmission Wednesday 11.11am Bradleys Head and Richo stated this was the location of their TV link induced  electronics reboot.

414540691_WOXI_AIS_20181226_1111AEDT.jpg.a25ea6e4765f23160df98f2aa5882224.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EddyAllTime said:

Doesn't change the fact that WOXI won.

Fake News eddie :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, frant said:

My reference to the IJ coming to a verdict was on the hypothetical case of how they would be required to make a decision. Clearly IF a protest was heard that decision would have to be made, obviously the whole discussion on this thread is irrelevant beyond from where the protest deemed invalid.

  HALLELUJAH

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Rest in Peace Leonard

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

That's AIS transmission evidence. Evidence that the boat was elsewhere? Isn't it getting line honours in Hobart while AIS had it in Sydney Harbour pretty good evidence something is amiss. Certainly good enough for RC to lodge a protest that won't be deemed invalid don't you think?

Yes, but that didn't happen. As for why, only the RC can comment. Without a properly convened official investigation and resulting determination, all the rest is conjecture (approaching 2,200 posts of it). There are probably only two or three people on WOXI who know the truth. As to whether or not they've spoken it, we may never know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

Frances I realise that, it was a power reference if it is the camerman's link as he suggests (I think the higher powered helo relay as reported sounds more plausible) That is the same camera pack you see in the street? If that pack is.powerfull enough to disable a splitters electronics, why aren't the electronics in every car in that street cactus more particular the TV relay van itself? To bring a splitter down or more precisely selectively do so where only TX is effected requires surely requires a big ,hit of EM interference surely? Of the comparative sources I would have thought the helo relay the culprit more likely as reported, not the camera pack..  

Yeah, my post was more for the peanut gallery that  keep harping on the if that one, why not all argument.

EM, especially microwave is a slippery beast. Microwaves just do not obey intuitive rules about what they do.  Which is why you have to test the exact installation to know. You could have WOXI and BJ side by side, with the same radio equipment installed, and one could be sensitive to microwave problems and the other not. Something as simple as a different sized hole in a carbon panel to run the coax could, in principle, make all the difference. 

Car manufactures take about as much trouble as aircraft manufacturers now. If you look at a modern car's core electronics installation, extraordinary care is taken with the design. This doesn't have to add much to the unit cost. Just a lot of testing of the prototypes and very strict design and specification of parts. A metal car body is a good start, but a lot of detail work has to go into making it work properly across the full spectrum of likey EM. Even little slots - like shut lines on the bonnet (hood for the US readers) - can leak RF as if the body wasn't there at some frequencies, yet the body could be impervious at others. 

More power is worse, but you don't need much at all to get to logic level voltages  (anything from say 1.8 to 5v) inside equipment. Won't kill anything, but can result in temporary incorrect operation, including glitching things. Weird transmission line effects along bits of wire inside unit can get you quite high voltages with minimal power present.

Agree. IMHO the helo is much more likely the culprit. If there is one at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RobG said:

Yes, but that didn't happen. As for why, only the RC can comment. Without a properly convened official investigation and resulting determination, all the rest is conjecture

Exactly as I left it with. "Certainly good enough for RC to lodge a protest that won't be deemed invalid don't you think?" That's it. Where do I go beyond that?

Half the problem here is people make no effort to comprehend or sometimes even read what they are replying to and take something to the next step or make something new up. Frant has been the main offender and it is what creates misunderstanding and conflict.

For the record I have made no posts nor do I have any interest on the hypothetical facts and a hypothetical IJ determination. My only interest and I think that of many here ceases at the point the RC could protest and with what to enable it to lodge a valid protest without competitor assistance. There is more than enough information at hand to do that in the public arena let alone what a RC can obtain.

After that you need a crystal ball for why the RC didn't employ that evidence and a crystal ball for the evidence not presented by WOXI and a crystal ball for any potential IJ determination or all based on conjecture as you say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Francis Vaughan said:

....Agree. IMHO the helo is much more likely the culprit. If there is one at all.

Thanks Francis I know the square root of fuckall about microwaves except the reheat chicken variety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frant said:

SS not sure how you can “ own” a current copy of the “  the 2017-2020 copy of the Blue Book in the normal usage of the term “ own a copy”. It’s only available as a free IBook!  However for the use of the word shall I have agreed that shall means shall in the normal usage of that term which spelt out is “shall is mandatory”. I was merely pointing out that previously it was a blue book defined term and is possibly why MR was referencing the RRS rather than the COLREGS ( his way of talking about IRPAS).

i take it that you also reflect on or think about your own wisdom! My reference to the IJ coming to a verdict was on the hypothetical case of how they would be required to make a decision. Clearly IF a protest was heard that decision would have to be made, obviously the whole discussion on this thread is irrelevant beyond from where the protest deemed invalid.

As you say Nobody has won is on the same line as my The IJ has handed WOXI a poisoned challice. Maybe the wrong metaphor but a similar meaning.

Where do we go from here? 

Ha ha ha, I laughed so much I nearly fell off my chair.

Like I mentioned in an earlier post wisdom is more often about knowing what you don't know.

Ownership in no way implies a purchase, not in law, not in common usage.

You are right however that the "Blue Book", if downloaded is free. I have indeed 'downloaded' a copy of the "Blue Book". That copy is on my computer and my iPad. I own that copy in the "normal usage of the term "own a copy". The fact that someone has not paid for an article in no ways denies ownership - plonker!

FFS your comment has got to be one of the thinnest arguments and weakest responses I can remember seeing on this or any other forum.

Not having a go about the ColRegs reference (Not COLREGS by the way, it is not an acronym) just that the requirement for AIS has, in this instance, absolutely nothing to do with IRPCAS, it is governed by the SIs of the event which quite sensibly follow the World Sailing Offshore Special Regulations on this matter.

I do agree with you however that had the protest been deemed valid it would have been quite a challenging decision to make but there were quite a few avenues of evidence that could have been followed but the WOXI skipper did little to strengthen their case by changing his story and if the disappearing WOXI 'blip' could been seen by people on this forum I am sure others closer to the action would also have seen that disappearance.

Please note however that this would in no way imply that WOXI deliberately turned their AIS off, just that it wasn't transmitting as required by the RSHYC 2018 SIs. In their defence they(WOXI) would only need one witness boat to state they saw WOXI on their AIS and they would be exonerated.

What I would repeat from an earlier post is that had WOXI felt/known/learned that their AIS was not transmitting after they signed their declaration and then went back to request an amendment to that declaration then the headlines would likely read "Honest boat gives up line honours prize due to equipment malfunction" - if indeed it wasn't transmitting - and WOXI would then be remembered down into folklore and legend as a wonderful example of how sport (not just sailing) should be played instead of being involved in a contentious situation for the second year running

All theory though except that, having once worked with Russell Green I know that as Jury Chairman his team would have worked hard to reach their correct decision.

BTW I also have worked multiple times with the chairman from last year (strange he wasn't invited back this year after 8 years of service) and that incident gave us yet another pile of forum pages of discussion, In fact, come to think of it the same crowd went out of their way to defend WOXI as have done this time and last year's incident was crystal clear.

Your comment that "The IJ has handed WOXI a poisoned chalice" is completely erroneous. If the RC had formulated their protest in such a way that it was valid then the PC/IJ would have had an opportunity to hear the case. In actual fact the IJ/PC acted 100% within and in compliance with the RRS with regard to validity of a protest - they had no option but to disallow - read your rule book.

In reality it was the RC who slipped the poison into the cup if anyone. 

Anyway, that is my last word on the subject, I have a match race event to prepare for this weekend (umpire) so no more time but thanks for the laugh.

SS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, shanghaisailor said:

strange he wasn't invited back this year after 8 years of service

Did they really pointedly not even approach him for another stint, and he had given no indication that he might be unavailable? 

If that is true my already somewhat diminished regard for the OA vanishes. There can be no sensible excuse for such behaviour. And lots of bad reasons. Some very bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Snaggletooth, U speake Abo kangaroo do u ? 

Please translate into gobbledygook !

 

 

9 hours ago, hoppy said:

LOL I don't think he's posted in this thread

I sobered up and couldn't understand it. So I sent to Snags to decipher. He said sure  providing I could do the same for him. Looks like we both have to now start having beer for breakfast.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, hoppy said:

WOIX has been flogged to death, but there is plenty of life in the OT AIS discussion and the traditional SA mud or other slinging and other activities.

I couldn't agree more Hoppy where it goes beyond the point that the RC didn't seek or employ evidence that would support a valid Protest. That evidence was in the public domain but for what ever reason the RC chose not to employ it.

WOXI gazing beyond that is a crystal ball for evidence not presented by WOXI and a crystal ball for any potential IJ determination for what could have been a valid RC Protest. For instance suggestions there is no rule that quantifies if an AIS is On or Off?  Pretty bloody pointless.

That said Richo has to take some responsibility for the subject still being kicked around by publicly ripping into the RC and promising evidence that would negated the need for a Protest and or have exonerated them if such a Protest was heard by the IJ. Such WOXI evidence or any report of it has yet to surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, EddyAllTime said:

Hi Faggot, 

Doesn't change the fact that WOXI won. Move on.

Thanks for the 20 down votes Jiss boy. At this rate it will be 18 days at least before you can drop your maggots on anyone else.

 

Edit, it's quite refreshing also because I can now speak freely for 24 hrs.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so the weeks come and gone ,

 

must of misunderstood MR .....................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mid said:

so the weeks come and gone ,

 

must of misunderstood MR .....................

Cut him some slack. It is not as though he has to post it here. Hopefully a considered statement will be forthcoming as he promised as any undue delay is not a good look. I for one are mainly interested in just the technical side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@hoppy You are absolutely right about this.


No doubt they have won and good luck to them. This thread was always going to be about two things essentially.

Were they in breach of the rules?

If so, what should be done to make sure it isn't repeated.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Cut him some slack. It is not as though he has to post it here. Hopefully a considered statement will be forthcoming as he promised as any undue delay is not a good look. I for one are mainly interested in just the technical side.

Jack if you believe there's going to be any statement .................

 

I've a nice bridge for sale  , only one previous owner .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mid said:

Jack if you believe there's going to be any statement

Mate arguably that is worse for all the players involved, than WOXI concocting one that bullshit. For instance that FP tear jerker by that Blue Robinson fool was no accident, there are some concerned parties out there in damage control. More people read shit like from here than many appreciate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't disagree , still I have zero expectations of a statement .

I'd be staying far away from it and waiting for the fire to die down , as it's doing  .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mid said:

don't disagree , still I have zero expectations of a statement

Nothing or "hear no evil, see no evil" would be consistent with off-the-cuff decisions being made. There is no evidence of that here. Nearly 12 hours for a RC protest to be announced dragging this into the next day. Another 2 days for a statement by the alleged offending party to be released. This thing is being carefully orchestrated. Also don't be surprised if what you are not expecting appears but is something you don't expect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jack_sparrow said:

This thing is being carefully orchestrated.

indeed , orchestrated to quietly fade away .

It's all good Jack , on this I'll be very happy to be proved wrong

just not holding my breath .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

don't be surprised if what you are not expecting appears but is something you don't expect.

:ph34r::lol:

Agree on the orchestration. Minimally someone will be acting as Richo's handler. This is their last shot at getting it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to help them along I sent the Clark and Dawe sketch to Mumbles.

 

Edit.  Just for you Eddie.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Francis Vaughan said:

Car manufactures take about as much trouble as aircraft manufacturers now. If you look at a modern car's core electronics installation, extraordinary care is taken with the design. This doesn't have to add much to the unit cost. Just a lot of testing of the prototypes and very strict design and specification of parts.

Francis you must live in the 1st world. My VW 6 volt electrics were put together before the jet passenger plane was invented and when a helicopter looked like a little round greenhouse. 

I'm now concerned about driving past anyone's house who owns a microwave :-)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello grumpy , I'm flattered by your attention :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, frant said:

Plonker back at you. You were referring to common usage of a term. If you own a copy of a book the common usage understanding is that you are in physical possession of a hard copy volume, not that you have a download version on your iPad.Maybe you own a hard copy of the previous version. It’s the same as the common usage of the term “on” in electrical devices. If the power button is glowing then it is on. Possibly not working correctly but still on. The rules need to be clear as to the definition of a word in a technical context. You clearly aren’t.

You are so funny you should do standup. Or are you just thick? You are certainly not of this century. Surprised you've got a computer

So by your "logic" the 100's of digital edition sailing magazines I have purchased & downloaded, my RYA eBooks (nice discount as a member by the way). Bugger me, even my Navionics Charts. You mean I've paid good money and I don't own any of them? God, I've been royally ripped off. 

Just to reassure you though rant, sorry frant, I do have a fair collection of rules books some going all the way back to the days of mast abeam.

Don't bother responding for as soon as I post this I will be putting you on ignore - go bother someone else with your drivel.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck u blokes need to get off the keyboards and go outside to play.

The race is over, nothing u say or do will change that.

It was what it was and it's done. Build a bridge 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the great things about this virtual open 24/7 BYO bar is people leave snippits, often overlooked when ones immediate response is agree, disagree, offer an alternative, post a meme and take the piss blah blah. Here is a good example starting with a post of axo's which in part reads, with my emphasis;

15 hours ago, axolotl said:

Now that I can actually buy.  I don't know the particulars of long range wireless media camera systems, but think it's more plausible the onboard camera caused the problem, given that only a few line honors boats carried one (and the camera person once outside the harbor), so the "black helicopter should have fried all boats" theory falls by the wayside.

I'm leaning toward giving WOXI the benefit of the doubt now

Now with my enquiring hat on I thought that axo's new cameraman theory contry to what reported by MR based on "no other boats being effected it can't be the helo link" looked pretty soft. I then sort of demolished axo's theory using microwave transmitting power differences, masthead AIS antenna mount, carbon encapsulation plus it happened two hours before the race, so no other boats around. So in my mind a far more plausible explanation, and just as MR reported and supporting MR.

 

12 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

I don't know the exact power involved for each device and I don't know how one channel and half of the other channel in a splitter survive a roasting leaving only AIS TX impaired, but the helicopter relay being the culprit sounds quite plausible to me.

Then Francis the Minister for Microwave who is far more experienced than axo and myself  on this subject chimes in to concur the higher powered helicopter relay link is a more probable source than the lower powered camera backpack unit. That then leaves MR's statement as probably being valid, though the Minister is a bit sceptical about microwave being the culprit.

10 hours ago, Francis Vaughan said:

Agree. IMHO the helo is much more likely the culprit. If there is one at all.

So to the amusemt of a few the three of us have been waxing lyrical about the potential microwave source, but have given zero regard to the circumstances that caused MR to state unequivocally a microwave transmission was the source and then it in his own words "fried" their splitter. He put up  the former as occurring off Bradley's Head on the morning of the start, but not knowing of the latter until hitting Hobart and being advised so, courtesy of BJ's bleat to the media.

If you were of an enquiring mind these dots don't join up. For instance go to MR's own statements and in the absence of any other can only rely upon, being the Gladwell interview published on the afternoon of the 31 December. MR states;

As soon as we went around Bradley's Head the Channel 7 TV guys started live streaming from the helicopter. The instant they started streaming, we lost all our instrumentation. We lost our wifi, and a lot of instrumentation went down on the boat."

By way of AIS ceasing transmission that postcode is well documented upthread. So that matches up. By way of time reference this is around 2 hours before the start and 1 1/2 hours before Channel 7 were due to start live streaming. He then said:

"The cameraman told us "sorry guys that is probably from the download".

"It is a very high microwave frequency and it can interfere with other equipment at times," Richards explains.

"Today, I totally believe that is what happened."

"We got everything rebooted and got everything going afterwards. We were receiving AIS, when you are receiving, you also believe that you are transmitting OK as well."

So the sequence of events are instruments go down, cameraman says sorry, "probably" us and instruments are rebooted and all is sweet for two days until the Owner/Skipper/Tactician of Black Jack have a dockside no WOXI TX bleat. MR's emediate response is AIS is not mandatory. The WOXI narrative issued 3 days later via Gladwell is he was tired and confused and didn't mean AIS. 

The correlation is that MR has linked at time of interview is just "probably" according to a cameraman that the microwave link in his own words fried their splitter. However that get out is taken over by promising to provide that evidence, albeit to date not furnished.

"When we got to the dock in Hobart and tried to work out what was going on. We found that the splitter box, that goes to the VHF antenna, used by the AIS system, was fried. It had failed. And I believe that our AIS transmission signal failed right there, point where it was interfaced to the splitter box."

"We believe our VHF splitter had been compromised through the video live-stream download before the start. We were receiving AIS information, but we now believe our signal wasn't strong enough to transmit with much range."

Quick interlude and there will be many to chime in with tech expertise but in my humble experience of decades with marine electronics there is one bug which drives you crazy, if you park the obvious things like power supply integrity, impedance faults in antenna equipment etc. It is a thing called Electromagnetic Interference (EMI), also sometimes called radio-frequency interference (RFI). The electronic equipment are most susceptible to EMI from on board sources like DC and AC power, HF Radio TX etc. In all boats and WOXI in particular every piece of electronics equipment is on the same digital or NMEA 183/2k/CAN network and do is susceptible. That is everything either via anologue or digital interfaces from the masthead wind transducer down is on that network. It ranges from engine data to telling you what your keel can't angle is, GPS position on a DSC enabled VHF, every wind transducer output, AWS, AWD, TWS, or BS, Heading, instrument CPU, load cells for everything holding up the mast, wireless router, etc so every piece of data you can think of is on that NMEA network. The list is endless. The only exclusion is  the PLC controlling engine/battery powered hydraulics etc and various analogue relays. None which went down according to MR.

So in view of the above and in so far as MR's claim of interference from a TV microwave link that is as plausible as it gets. I can't think of a better or plausible one. Rock solid. It then should be end of story save for just 4 short little questions;

1. If a onboard TV camera/pack created this on board EMI issue as exo suggests is the source, why hasn't this ever occured over decades of live broadcasts to my knowledge, where I invite being corrected.

2. If not lower power onboard TV camera/pack, but a higher power Livestream TV/helicopter link as Minister Francis and I are suggesting created this EMI, why hasn't this ever occured on either the broadcast boat or other boats competing over decades of live broadcasts to my knowledge, where I invite being corrected.

3. Of all that electronic equipment on board as listed above plus some which are on the same NMEA network that is exposed to a external (Camera or Helicopter) EMI, which are the most vunerable? The answer is the smart things like Instrument CPU, AIS etc that compute but less so slave or dumb things like displays, analogue transducers etc. Most of the brainy electronic gear on WOXI is actually all contained within not one but two or more layers of carbon starting with the hull that protects them from external EMI sources like a microwave TV link.

4. There is only one piece of electronic equipment on board that I can think of that is not directly linked to the NMEA network and so susceptible to externsl EMI and as reported by MR as going down and needing rebooting. 

It is the VHF/AIS Splitter.

That's right the one piece of electronic equipment (splitter) on WOXI as the least vunerable to a external EMI source like a TV microwave link is the only one that got fried by that source (Camera or Helo take your pick). Furthermore the only aspect of that splitter that got fried in MR's own words was just AIS TX. VHF TX/RX and AIS RX were not effected at all. All the NMEA network gear was good to go after a reboot.

I have sat on my hands for over a week for Richards to stump as he promised. He hasn't hence this post.

What we are left with is a WOXI narrative to suit themselves and it would seem also the RC and RO.

PS. If you are a WOXI fanboy fire away. I'm a fence sitter. If you are sick of WOXI bashing read my posts upthread. My interest in this matter ceased at the RC making a protest. A protest that took nearly 12 hours to formulate by a RC of one of the premier offshore events on the world sailing calender. Despite that 12 hours a RC that lodged a protest destined to be declared invalid by the IJ. A valid protest could have been lodged within hours of the finish without any competitor assistance, the matters I mention above quickly asertained by the RC walking onboard WOXI within hours a protest dealt within the same day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Feilberg said:

Fuck u blokes need to get off the keyboards and go outside to play.

The race is over, nothing u say or do will change that.

It was what it was and it's done. Build a bridge 

Ever thought maybe some here think beyond just a result??

You get what you deserve in this world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Ever thought maybe some here think beyond just a result??

You get what you deserve in this world.

 

48 minutes ago, VOA said:

You can over think things as well you know. It’s done, put a fork in it. 

Well as your under thinking this race, despite WOXI being the one who won't move on with the demand of an apology from the RC still on the table, how about you thinking this if you want to think.

Fasnet 2019 - Yesterday 340 available slots in IRC were all taken within just four minutes and 37 seconds of entries opening. 100 now on reserve list. More on a wait list that show up to a S2H. At best 1x 100' will be there and if not, no one cares.

Article in the Australian Newspaper last weekend. Yep the paper variety punters buy that sailing is lucky to be mentioned in 364 days of the year and sponsors buy full page adverts, incl Rolex. Question raised are 100's and Rolex sponsorship killing off the Sydney to Hobart Race and behind why participation is going down the toilet?

Matt Allen current President of AS an opinion that maybe the CYCA should not have extended the S2H to go beyond 80' to 100's?

Any controversy about the S2H and it's impact on the RRS is restricted to the 100' club. Two years in a row the same boat, same players, same race. When is enough enough?

Australia is the centre of the earth for 100's. Why is that? Can it be Australia/CYCA is the only place who is prepared to put up with their collateral RRS damage and no-one else wants them?

That will keep you thinking for a while son, if not for long at least while gumming on that soft food.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, paps49 said:

That's a bloody relief to all concerned I'm sure.
Doesn't change the fact they were in breach though which is the main issue.

 

14 hours ago, EddyAllTime said:

Hi Faggot, 

Doesn't change the fact that WOXI won. Move on.

First an apology FastEddy. I tried desperately to think how I could include you with my reply to @VOA above to make you also think a tad longer than it takes you to ejaculate. The ingredients for doing that were there afterall. You both get off a quick post comprising less than 10 words. It is often derogatory. It says nothing as if your next thought will be your first. etc etc

Ordinarily I couldn't give a fuck. But I then thought how does a thread get north of 40k views in a week but only 2k posts? It dawned on me that anyone wanting to contribute but feeling a bit shy is put off by being the possible recipient of replies from the likes of you and @VOAThat is not good.

So a quick tip. If you want to contribute positively please do, in fact I will give you money to do so. However if you prefer to spend hours Googling to get the spelling right for Fuck Off, well expect some kickback.

Cheers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, frant said:

The IJ has handed WOXI a poisoned challice. Maybe the wrong metaphor but a similar meaning.

Where do we go from here? 

 

12 hours ago, shanghaisailor said:

Your comment that "The IJ has handed WOXI a poisoned chalice" is completely erroneous. If the RC had formulated their protest in such a way that it was valid then the PC/IJ would have had an opportunity to hear the case. In actual fact the IJ/PC acted 100% within and in compliance with the RRS with regard to validity of a protest - they had no option but to disallow - read your rule book.

In reality it was the RC who slipped the poison into the cup if anyone

So you two are in agreement we have a cup that has been poisoned. Sorry frant but Shang's view it is the RC, not the IJ probably pouring has greater weight 

Isn't the next question then one of who has had to drink from this poisoned cup? One maybe two or more drinkers? The more the merrier but that takes a bit of time to organise.

Then again it did take the RC nearly 12 hours to organise this wine tasting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Ever thought maybe some here think beyond just a result??

You get what you deserve in this world.

Did it effect your result?

Are u on the race committee?

Are you a flag officer at the cyca or even a member?

Must be very important to you as it effects u so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Feilberg said:

Did it effect your result?

Are u on the race committee?

Are you a flag officer at the cyca or even a member?

Must be very important to you as it effects u so much.

Adolf those are trick questions to see if I'm Jewish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jack_sparrow said:

Adolf those are trick questions to see if I'm Jewish.

Typical reply for this place.

They're simple questions but u can't answer.

Resort to name calling and the like.

Answer is it doesn't effect you but you've wasted hours maybe days on it.

Get a life mate

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Feilberg said:

They're simple questions but u can't answer.

Easy to answer but what is your point of questions? 3 no and 1 yes in order. So your grande reveal is what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

[  .  .  .  ]

2. If not lower power onboard TV camera/pack, but a higher power Livestream TV/helicopter link as Minister Francis and I are suggesting created this EMI,

[  .  .  .  ]

I do not know what the transmit power is for an  on board camera and asked the question in an earlier post.  Concerning the helicopter downlink Tx power,   I quote from my earlier post:

For example concerning live video feeds from airborne  helicopters modern practice is "the microwave transmitter chosen was the Nucomm PT-6 digital radio. It is a compact, high-powered unit that provides a full 12W in analog mode, or approximately 8W in digital."

So, I looked up what a typical broadcast grade wireless camera's Tx power is:

"ABonAir’s AB405™ wireless video system enables camera teams to wirelessly transmit video directly from Cameras to media centers or OB vans.  2,500 foot range,  Transmit Power - Adjustable 50-350mW"

Take your pick,  8 watts from a helicopter +-1,000 feet distant, or 1/3 watt from an onboard camera, in the 5GHz microwave band. Both rather weak sauce concerning their splitter "frying" capabilities.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, axolotl said:

Take your pick,  8 watts from a helicopter +-1,000 feet distant, or 1/3 watt from an onboard camera, in the 5GHz microwave band. Both rather weak sauce concerning their splitter "frying" capabilities.

Axo good math. I'm sure the Minister for Microwave @Francis Vaughan who knows more than I do will chime in but your numbers suggest a onboard camera will "fry" absolutely nothing on a boat. However that is not to say it can't produce enough EMF to down or cause an entire boats NMEA network to get the wobbles as reported. Trouble is of course a Splitter is not on that network. It is close to the dumbest thing on board, short of anyone on there who suggests otherwise and completely standalone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Feilberg said:

Fuck u blokes need to get off the keyboards and go outside to play.

The race is over, nothing u say or do will change that.

It was what it was and it's done. Build a bridge 

 

4 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Ever thought maybe some here think beyond just a result??

You get what you deserve in this world.

 

1 hour ago, Feilberg said:

Did it effect your result?

Are u on the race committee?

Are you a flag officer at the cyca or even a member?

Must be very important to you as it effects u so much.

 

1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

Adolf those are trick questions to see if I'm Jewish.

 

1 hour ago, Feilberg said:

Typical reply for this place.

They're simple questions but u can't answer.

Resort to name calling and the like.

Answer is it doesn't effect you but you've wasted hours maybe days on it.

Get a life mate

 

 

55 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Easy to answer but what is your point of questions? 3 no and 1 yes in order. So your grande reveal is what?

Come on Feel. I have answered. I can feel you humping my leg but no reveal? How long does it take you to Google some physcotic disease that I have FFS?

I have to go but have an appointment with my shrink in the morning who bugs me for evidence of my finding self awareness. Can you please make sure that thing you think I have has a really big unpronounceable name. That will shut her up. Thanks mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

 

 

 

 

 

Come on Feel. I have answered. I can feel you humping my leg but no reveal? How long does it take you to Google some physcotic disease that I have FFS?

I have to go but have an appointment with my shrink in the morning who bugs me for evidence of my finding self awareness. Can you please make sure that thing you think I have has a really big unpronounceable name. That will shut her up. Thanks mate.

You're a funny bugger.

 

Have a great day 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

 

 

 

 

 

Come on Feel. I have answered. I can feel you humping my leg but no reveal? How long does it take you to Google some physcotic disease that I have FFS?

I have to go but have an appointment with my shrink in the morning who bugs me for evidence of my finding self awareness. Can you please make sure that thing you think I have has a really big unpronounceable name. That will shut her up. Thanks mate.

I'd run with "Quixotic post-diluvian antipathy"  or something like that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many years ago I used to do some work designing and developing commercial VHF radio communications equipment including transmitters and sensitive receivers. Part of my work included obtaining national type approval certification for newly developed equipment. The testing required by various national government authorities for any such equipment allowed to operate in the relevant country and especially anything which could radiate RF power included stringent testing to ensure any "out of band" radiated power was so low that it would cause insignificant interference, let alone damage, to 3rd party radio equipment. Similarly, when designing receiving equipment one strives to make ones equipment extremely insensitive to any radio frequencies other than those which your equipment is specifically intended to receive, and to include protection against local high power interference. Happily the result was that almost all "type approved" commercial radio equipment which operated on any allowed radio frequencies very seldom had any adverse effects on equipment not designed to work at the same frequencies and both transmitting and receiving hardware was generally totally effectively protected against damage even if high powered signals at or close to the relevant band are present close by.
Also the term "fried" when applied to electronic equipment would be understood by guys working in that field to mean a component or a circuit board has been so badly overheated as to have reached temperatures so high that plastic items have melted or become charred. If that had happened it would be easy to present the "fried" item for inspection. If something has been actually "fried" by an interfering signal - microwave - that signal would have had to have found its way down a VHF ariel system which is not tuned to microwave frequencies and arrive with several watts of power, within the affected component or circuit. Bearing in mind the laws of radiation the emitted power, assuming the source is a number of meters away, would have to be rather a lot higher than several watts.
These sorts of consideration have meant that for me, even without any direct knowledge of the power levels, distances between antennae, and frequencies involved (VHF and microwave) it seems unlikely that a 3rd party data transmission of the type described could directly "fry" a marine AIS-capable antenna system component or its associated transceiver. Possibly an interfering signal at reasonably predictable incoming power level could cause a malfunction in the system causing the system to fail and "fry" itself? I have an open mind at the moment but I will be very interested to read the "proof" which the skipper said he would provide, yesterday (Monday) I think he said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, staysail said:

Many years ago I used to do some work designing and developing commercial VHF radio communications equipment including transmitters and sensitive receivers. Part of my work included obtaining national type approval certification for newly developed equipment. The testing required by various national government authorities for any such equipment allowed to operate in the relevant country and especially anything which could radiate RF power included stringent testing to ensure any "out of band" radiated power was so low that it would cause insignificant interference, let alone damage, to 3rd party radio equipment. Similarly, when designing receiving equipment one strives to make ones equipment extremely insensitive to any radio frequencies other than those which your equipment is specifically intended to receive, and to include protection against local high power interference. Happily the result was that almost all "type approved" commercial radio equipment which operated on any allowed radio frequencies very seldom had any adverse effects on equipment not designed to work at the same frequencies and both transmitting and receiving hardware was generally totally effectively protected against damage even if high powered signals at or close to the relevant band are present close by.
Also the term "fried" when applied to electronic equipment would be understood by guys working in that field to mean a component or a circuit board has been so badly overheated as to have reached temperatures so high that plastic items have melted or become charred. If that had happened it would be easy to present the "fried" item for inspection. If something has been actually "fried" by an interfering signal - microwave - that signal would have had to have found its way down a VHF ariel system which is not tuned to microwave frequencies and arrive with several watts of power, within the affected component or circuit. Bearing in mind the laws of radiation the emitted power, assuming the source is a number of meters away, would have to be rather a lot higher than several watts.
These sorts of consideration have meant that for me, even without any direct knowledge of the power levels, distances between antennae, and frequencies involved (VHF and microwave) it seems unlikely that a 3rd party data transmission of the type described could directly "fry" a marine AIS-capable antenna system component or its associated transceiver. Possibly an interfering signal at reasonably predictable incoming power level could cause a malfunction in the system causing the system to fail and "fry" itself? I have an open mind at the moment but I will be very interested to read the "proof" which the skipper said he would provide, yesterday (Monday) I think he said?

So - if a VHF splitter an be fried by a low power microwave transmitting device, why isn't every splitter fried every time someone transmits on a HF radio? I just looked up the specs on an Icom 802 & it says 150W transmit power.

Methinks it's the 'magic' component of the TV transmit frequency & power level...

Not that I give a damn, this is purely entertainment.

FKT

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mid said:

don't disagree , still I have zero expectations of a statement .

And that would bring the total number of people globally who give a fuck what your expectations are to one. Starting 4-5 threads each day might make you feel important but in reality it just makes you a sad little man. 

Have you considered actually going sailing rather than sitting shirtless behind your keyboard demanding information from people who do? MR and the rest of The WOXI aftgaurd and connections are all highly accomplished and successful people that have risen to the top both in buisness and in sport. You are nothing but an toady little attention seeking failure. Get over yourself. Take a leaf from Randumbs playbook, step away from your computer and get a life. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

MR and the rest of The WOXI aftgaurd and connections are all highly accomplished and successful people that have risen to the top both in buisness and in sport.

 

And still we hear crickets.......instead of the proof they promised while hurling abuse and demanding an apology. Strange no?

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

So - if a VHF splitter an be fried by a low power microwave transmitting device, why isn't every splitter fried every time someone transmits on a HF radio? I just looked up the specs on an Icom 802 & it says 150W transmit power.

Methinks it's the 'magic' component of the TV transmit frequency & power level...

Not that I give a damn, this is purely entertainment.

FKT

.. or for that matter constant use of mobile phones on the boat - which are also low-GHz and up to a couple of W.

(HF is nowhere near the GHz quoted above for video uplink)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, paps49 said:

And still we hear crickets.......instead of the proof they promised while hurling abuse and demanding an apology. Strange no?

Mate the only people on earth that still give a fuck are those posting on this thread. I have had a chat to Sqwark about this and he has moved on so maybe the completely uninvolved should as well. Still it is good training in hand wringing for the likes of Mid when Shorten looses the next election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Mate the only people on earth that still give a fuck are those posting on this thread. I have had a chat to Sqwark about this and he has moved on so maybe the completely uninvolved should as well. Still it is good training in hand wringing for the likes of Mid when Shorten looses the next election. 

Well I guess as long as Sqwark is happy that's all that matters.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites