From: Tegger on
dbu'' <nospam(a)nobama.com.invalid> wrote in
news:VoCdnaFE4_R_kjfWnZ2dnUVZ_hc6AAAA(a)giganews.com:


>
> I run high power two way radio equipment in my Toyota and have NEVER
> in almost seven years had one glitch of any kind. Nor has any of my
> cell phone equipment ever caused any glitches. EMI can easily be
> suppressed and I believe Toyota has done an extremely good job of
> suppressing it.



I find it difficult to imagine how stray EMI could interfere with the
throttle over a period of time and distance sufficiently long enough to
cause a vehicle to accelerate to a high speed.

I also find it difficult to imagine how EMI could override many systems all
at once, such that the car would be impossible to control or shut down.


--
Tegger

From: Don Stauffer on
I suspect software errors rather than interference. The auto industry
is actually fairly good in designing resistance to interference, but in
my opinion not very good on software design.

I used to work in aerospace industry and had some courses in designing
mission critical software. It is very hard to check out software in a
really large program, and design of real-time software is quite
difficult. I suspect a lot of their software validation is statistical
and that is not the best way.
From: hls on

"C. E. White" <cewhite3remove(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> "Thirty years' empirical evidence overwhelmingly points to (sudden
> acceleration) being caused by electronic system faults undetectable by
> inspection or testing," said Keith Armstrong, a engineering consultant
> from the United Kingdom who appeared with two other engineers at a
> Washington news conference organized here by consumer advocates.
>
> Armstrong, who said he was interviewed last month by U.S. National Highway
> Traffic Safety Administration investigators, said the problem with
> electronic interference is industrywide. "EMI is endemic in electronics,"
> he said. EMI is electrical disturbances in the circuits.
>
> Real-life EMI
>
> Tests by Toyota and other automakers don't cover most real-life EMI, nor
> do they simulate typical faults to verify that backup measures work,
> Armstrong said.
>

Airplanes have seen the same sort of interference from cell phones, but it
doesnt seem to be very repeatable and is normally fleeting with no residual
results.


From: Obveeus on

"hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote:

> Airplanes have seen the same sort of interference from cell phones, but it
> doesnt seem to be very repeatable and is normally fleeting with no
> residual
> results.

I think that internal software or electronic hardware platform errors are
far more likely that glitches due to cell phone signals, sun spots, etc...


From: hls on

"Obveeus" <Obveeus(a)aol.com> wrote in message
news:hodfar$8fb$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote:
>
>> Airplanes have seen the same sort of interference from cell phones, but
>> it
>> doesnt seem to be very repeatable and is normally fleeting with no
>> residual
>> results.
>
> I think that internal software or electronic hardware platform errors are
> far more likely that glitches due to cell phone signals, sun spots, etc...
>

I suspect you may be correct.
At this point it is not certain what has really happened in these claimed
unintended acceleration cases.