Difference between revisions of "Milestone-Proposal talk:Chirp Sonar Subbottom Profiler"

(clarification -- Allisonmarsh (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC))
(It is a very technical citation. -- ~~~~: new section)
 
Line 14: Line 14:
 
If some of us –(good Engineers ?) do not even know what we are talking about nor quite understand the words of the citation (“seismograms” may be technically correct but is completely misleading) what do we expect from the rest of the world ?  
 
If some of us –(good Engineers ?) do not even know what we are talking about nor quite understand the words of the citation (“seismograms” may be technically correct but is completely misleading) what do we expect from the rest of the world ?  
 
For this reasons I ask myself, is this really a MAJOR achievement for the benefit of Humanity if many of us have never heard about it?  Fro these reasons I think we must reject this proposal.
 
For this reasons I ask myself, is this really a MAJOR achievement for the benefit of Humanity if many of us have never heard about it?  Fro these reasons I think we must reject this proposal.
 +
 +
== It is a very technical citation. -- [[User:Microman|Microman]] ([[User talk:Microman|talk]]) 15:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC) ==
 +
 +
I believe that the Milestone citation  does not alert the reader to any sense of what why.  The references detail this and after a fashion I could follow some of it.  This needs a re-think in my opinion
 +
RS

Latest revision as of 15:00, 8 December 2016

clarification -- Allisonmarsh (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

What does "scatter bottom multiple" mean?

I agree, the term is not generally known. Per Wikipedia: Powerful low frequency echo-sounders have been developed for providing profiles of the upper layers of the ocean bottom. Can the wording be modified for clarity? - Dave Bart

Re: clarification -- Administrator5 (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Note from Martin: hyphenate high-resolution

Esoteric -- Juancarlos (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The whole matter and its wording are much too esoteric. An important component of the Milestones program is for the public to appreciate technology. If some of us –(good Engineers ?) do not even know what we are talking about nor quite understand the words of the citation (“seismograms” may be technically correct but is completely misleading) what do we expect from the rest of the world ? For this reasons I ask myself, is this really a MAJOR achievement for the benefit of Humanity if many of us have never heard about it? Fro these reasons I think we must reject this proposal.

It is a very technical citation. -- Microman (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the Milestone citation does not alert the reader to any sense of what why. The references detail this and after a fashion I could follow some of it. This needs a re-think in my opinion RS