From: Tegger on 24 Mar 2010 09:17 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 24 Mar 2010 09:58 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 24 Mar 2010 12:31 "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 24 Mar 2010 12:40 "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 24 Mar 2010 15:34
"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. |