Consultants say interference in vehicle electronics is possible
in [Toyota]
|
From: chuckcar on 24 Mar 2010 17:28 "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly(a)my-deja.com> wrote in news:f0320685-3ee1-4758-bd05-ec82d7ea7d4c(a)v20g2000prc.googlegroups.com: > > > C. E. White wrote: >> >> One word of caution - these experts are woking for the Center for >> Auto Safety, a trial lawyer funded group run by Clarence Ditlow and >> Jane Claybrook. They still want Audi to recal 1985 Audi 5000's. > > Ironically, Audi ran magazine ads in the 1980s that discussed adapting > Audis to America. In one ad they said the corrosion protection had to > be improved to handle the salt we poured on the roads in the winter, > and in another ad they said RF interference was a lot worse here than > in Europe. CB radio and other spectrum unregulation no doubt. -- (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
From: chuckcar on 24 Mar 2010 17:28 "hls" <hls(a)nospam.nix> wrote in news:lOidnXyWTv70ozfWnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com: > > "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. > > Cell phones have a voltage spike just as the call is being connected. There was a Mythbusters episode that showed that. BTW if there's anyone wondering, I am the same poster as fred. I created several nicks to avoid a stalking troll. It didn't work in the long term. Thanatoid probably knows what I'm talking about as he's dealt with the twit as well. -- (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
From: Tegger on 24 Mar 2010 19:44 "Obveeus" <Obveeus(a)aol.com> wrote in 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 think glitches caused by the presence of free-and-easy tort are the most likely of all. -- Tegger
From: Jack Myers on 24 Mar 2010 21:21 In rec.autos.tech Don Stauffer <stauffer(a)usfamily.net> wrote: > 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. > ... design of real-time software is quite difficult. ... Just love how the factory engineers and federal regulators can examine a system for a couple of hours and then call it clean. I've spent literally weeks on the integration test bench running full bore with top-notch test equipment to tease out rare failure modes, both software and firmware. The bugs relating to race conditions, cross- domain timing errors, and sensitivity to normal component tolerances are especially entertaining--NOT! -- Jack Myers / Westminster, California, USA Postfix...a computer term meaning "sendmail is too hard for me"
From: dr_jeff on 24 Mar 2010 21:58
Jack Myers wrote: > In rec.autos.tech Don Stauffer <stauffer(a)usfamily.net> wrote: > > >> 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. >> ... design of real-time software is quite difficult. ... > > Just love how the factory engineers and federal regulators can examine > a system for a couple of hours and then call it clean. I've spent > literally weeks on the integration test bench running full bore with > top-notch test equipment to tease out rare failure modes, both > software and firmware. The bugs relating to race conditions, cross- > domain timing errors, and sensitivity to normal component tolerances > are especially entertaining--NOT! I would think that, together, the NSTSA and Toyota engineers have plenty of knowledge and experience with this sort of testing and of Toyota's system. They may know what they are doing when it comes to looking for problems. In addition, the software errors that exist in the system (yes, I am nearly certain there are some) would be able to examined elsewhere (because the software in the system is a copy). The type and amount of testing might be perfectly fine to get the information they need. Jeff |