Talk:Telemetry

Sales Pitch

Is that bit at the bottom from VendTec really appropriate in this article? Telemetry has thousands of applications, and vending machines are not the first that come to mind. At worst this is a commercial pitch and at best it's misplaced and inappropriate. It should come out. Rhombus 18:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Bertus 11:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm getting tired of freaking spammers. They should read Wikipedia:Spam. - JustinWick 01:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. Someone needs to remove all the commercial links. Not appropriate. Railpass 14:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also found is Schlumberger's sales pitch.

You may also consider the Swimming Pool section complete company name and product an advertisement - a new product in a niche market should hardly be placed above the Medical section. The entire section is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian185 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really the entire applications section is inappropriate, or at least very low-quality writing. It reads like a disjointed list of various people's personal interests and experiences with telemetry, and it probably is. I think that's why the whole thing sounds like a sales pitch. A brief section that simply mentions that telemetry has notable uses in industrial, commercial, research, and sporting applications would be more appropriate. Some specifics could be elaborated on, like rockets and space exploration for driving the development of wireless telemetry technology, or possibly oil and gas for using hydraulic pulses, but the exhaustive specifics (RC cars, yachts, retail, falconry, swimming pools) and the mentions of brand names contribute very little to the article and detracts from the overall quality. Should really be rewritten. 67.44.192.31 (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Removing the Swimming pool section Oumot (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History

When was telemetry developed and by who. This is an obvious missing section GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started a history section with some information on early work. Maybe me or someone else can add information on more current space telemetry system, which is pretty easy to dig up. DonPMitchell (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motor Racing

Telemetry was used in 1962 on the #614 Corvette driven by Bob Bondurant in United States SCCA racing at Santa Barbara, CA. Part of the Santa Barbara Airport was used for the race course. Also at the airport was parked a C131 aircraft belonging to the USAF and operated by General Electic Company. It was a test aircraft equipped with several receivers, recorders and other data gear. I was the Test Conductor. I decided to collect data that would shed light on a disagreement between Bob Joehnck, builder of #614. and Max Balchowsky, builder of Ol' Yeller, on whether a long or short duration camshaft was more appropriate for road racing. Bob Marcy designed a small transmitter that was modulated by an inductive pickup on spark plug wire #1. The technicians in the aircraft received the modulated signal and used it to drive a Brush recorder. Later Bob Colenso counted the pulses per second on the recorder paper to reconstruct the engine RPM as a function of time. The pattern was easily correlated with track geometry. By happenstance the modulation was more intense at full throttle than at other times so we could see how much time was spent at which RPM at full throttle. We sent a report, gratis, to Zora Arkus Duntov at Chevrolet. Several months later we learned that Jim Hall, builder of the Chaparral race cars and close friend of Zora, had instrumented his private testing race track in Midland, TX. 1967 may have been the first commercial telemetry product but was not the first use of telemetry in a race car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jring281 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technology

The article is also missing any technological information. Basically there should be a discussion of modulation schemes and sensor technology. DonPMitchell (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

I removed the "context" issue from the list of editorial comments at the top of the page. The introduction seems fine to me. Quite succinct. Second, the introduction included a comment about telemetry referring to a "solid shot" in "board hockey". Even if this is true somewhere, it does not seem to be common usage, so I also removed that as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prosaicpat (talk • contribs) 15:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Goose the Green Sea Turtle.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Goose the Green Sea Turtle.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 26 July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what about frequency of telemetry ??

what about frequency of telemetry ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.122.120 (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaf sensor deletion

"wirelessly transmitted information" sounds like telemetry to me. Am I wrong? Johnragla (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're not wrong (although to be pedantic, wirelessly transmitted information is not necessarily telemetry, and telemetry is not necessarily wirelessly transmitted), but telemetry can make use of any sensor whatsoever. Are we going to add everything in list of sensors as a see also? Just because an article mentions a topic, doesn't mean it should be added as a see also. The article has nothing to add to the subject of telemetry so really doesn't belong. SpinningSpark 20:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but why is List of sensors not in See also? Johnragla (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much the same argument. That list tells the reader nothing about telemetry. Sensors are used for many things besides telemetry. Sensor is listed in the body of the article and list of sensors is a see also there. SpinningSpark 22:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dry goods...

...by which "packages" seems to be meant. It seems a bit of a stretch to me to include RFID checking of parcels etc as telemetry. This is not a measurement of any kind. It is a report from an operator that a certain package was at a certain station at a certain time. Despite having three references, not one of them describes this as telemetry. If this is telemetry, then just about any information sent over the internet is also telemetry. SpinningSpark 11:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested addition to "Applications"

Under applications, would it be good to add "Internet" ? Today I read an article in which Microsoft had reverted a problematic patch. They were monitoring response for users around the Internet and posted "... our initial telemetry shows that services are in recovery." I'm no expert in it, but telemetry on the Internet is becoming quite an area of activity for many providers. MarkGoldfain (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence has got to changed

At this current moment the first sentence of this article makes no sense to someone trying to figure out what telemetry fundamentally is. There has got to be a better way for someone to understand the general idea of what telemetry is than what I just read. I don't understand it enough to do it myself but I'm asking someone that does know to fix this so more people can understand.

Current first sentence:

"Telemetry is the in situ collection of measurements or other data at remote points and their automatic transmission to receiving equipment (telecommunication) for monitoring."

>>>Really wish I could quote this directly to get all the links and everything but I tried — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miarmyguy (talk • contribs) 05:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Wikipedia fundamentally suffers from having too many experts or people who want to play expert. Even as someone who understands all those words, it's not something I want to read when I need a quick reference. The problem is completeness vs. readability. I would update but I'd prefer an expert ensures I don't knock something out. Any experts wanna help?71.191.50.243 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]