Stuart Lamble <
[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2006-07-24, dtmeister <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'd imagine if it were a true digital checksummed data transmission, it
>> would not record bogus data. You'd still get data dropouts due to
>> external high power RF interferance, but I'd prefer 0 data (it could do
>> some interpolation for a while though) than the weird 220bpm and 120km/h
>> spikes I see sometimes.
>
> The other question is whether the RF interference is interfering with
> the data gathering, or the data transmission. If the latter, then yes,
> checksummed data would resolve it. If the former, then you're SOL.
I'd suggest is 99% the latter. Whilst I could imagine a small chance
that EMI might mess with the strap's data collection, the wheel and
cadence sensors use simple magnet/reed switch arrangement. It's
mechanical, and unless you ride in an MRI machine, you should be
okay. Yet I see bogus data equally from strap and speed sensors. Yeah
yeah, with sufficient interference, you could still collect garbage
from those, but I'd suggest it's a not a real world issue.
Anyway, if you can trust your RF transmission absolutely, you can still
do much to throw away stupid data collection. All these problems have
been adequately solved long ago. Think aircraft. It's kind of critical
to trust certain remote measurements. At a cost of course. If 100% error
free HRM data is $4000, I'll stick with what I've got.
(Wonders if's he's covered off all possible nit picks that Stuart might
come back with. Probably not.
) )
--
..dt