Boeing 787 "Dreamliner" Stress Test

[rdean]

Actually airplane wings are more engineering than science, i.e. the practical application of scientific principles.

Evolution and climate modeling don't have much to do with material engineering.

Actually, creating carbon fibers and the process behind using them is ALL science.

There are many usages for carbon fibers. As far as planes go, in some cases, it's easier to construct the body of the aircraft as one large piece and then use lasers to carve out the windows and doors.

Scientists are looking at carbon fibers, which are actually small tubes, to carry electricity. At the nano scale level, the properties change. They are even lining up carbon tubes to make nano scale transistors. They are also looking to use them in solar panels. If solar panels and superconductors could be married, they would create an incredible efficient panel. It's all science.

It takes scientists from Universities, engineers from Business and the support of government to be competitive world wide. It's only Republicans who don't understand the most obvious. They have been blinded by their ideology so profoundly, they refuse to understand how things work best. It's not that they can't learn, they refuse to learn. Two different things entirely.

The "scientific method" is nearly the same whether it's carbon nano tubes, evolution, climate change. The end results are what's amazing. It's what makes "study, data and research" so important. Republicans have a "gut feeling".

Oh we understand the obvious. We understand science too. The one thing that separates Conservatives from loony libs like you is that we also understand reality. When technology is ready and economically feasible, we will embrace it, invest in it, manufacture it and use it.
Nano tubes and super efficient solar panels are not a reasonable alternative yet. Once research proves the viability, I'll invest. Not until. Right now, my business runs just fine on oil.

Obviously, you don't even know where this technology comes from. Are all right wingers so poorly informed? I suspect "yes".

 

[martybegan]

There just aren't that many union workers in the US for the right wing to worry about. Only about 10% of the entire US workforce. Besides blacks, gays, Hispanics, Muslims, atheists and feminists, Republicans are going to have to find someone else to hate.

Prosperity through lower wages.

What's hilarious is the amount of science that went into these planes. The SAME science that gives us evolution and climate change. Ooh, that's gotta hurt.

This proves that "Triple Helix" of "Universities, Business and Government" that works all over the world, but Republicans think is a lie.

Actually airplane wings are more engineering than science, i.e. the practical application of scientific principles.

Evolution and climate modeling don't have much to do with material engineering.

Actually, creating carbon fibers and the process behind using them is ALL science.

There are many usages for carbon fibers. As far as planes go, in some cases, it's easier to construct the body of the aircraft as one large piece and then use lasers to carve out the windows and doors.

Scientists are looking at carbon fibers, which are actually small tubes, to carry electricity. At the nano scale level, the properties change. They are even lining up carbon tubes to make nano scale transistors. They are also looking to use them in solar panels. If solar panels and superconductors could be married, they would create an incredible efficient panel. It's all science.

It takes scientists from Universities, engineers from Business and the support of government to be competitive world wide. It's only Republicans who don't understand the most obvious. They have been blinded by their ideology so profoundly, they refuse to understand how things work best. It's not that they can't learn, they refuse to learn. Two different things entirely.

The "scientific method" is nearly the same whether it's carbon nano tubes, evolution, climate change. The end results are what's amazing. It's what makes "study, data and research" so important. Republicans have a "gut feeling".

Republicans such as myself have no issue with actual science, its when science is used to fuel a political agenda that we have problems.

Doing materials research on carbon fibers is easy to quantify. You mix a blend, you test it, and it either breaks in some stupid way that makes it useless, or it holds and you have a new base material that is then given to engineers to figure out what the hell to do with it.

With climate change you have a bunch of computer models, working on a system no one really understands, and then you have politicans expecting us to change the way our society works based on a bunch of maybes and could be's.

people are not being asked to change thier lifesyle over a couple of nano tubes.

 

[martybegan]

There just aren't that many union workers in the US for the right wing to worry about. Only about 10% of the entire US workforce. Besides blacks, gays, Hispanics, Muslims, atheists and feminists, Republicans are going to have to find someone else to hate.

Prosperity through lower wages.

What's hilarious is the amount of science that went into these planes. The SAME science that gives us evolution and climate change. Ooh, that's gotta hurt.

This proves that "Triple Helix" of "Universities, Business and Government" that works all over the world, but Republicans think is a lie.

Actually airplane wings are more engineering than science, i.e. the practical application of scientific principles.

Evolution and climate modeling don't have much to do with material engineering.

Engineering is the way to figure out how to use scientific advancement sonny. You CAN'T separate the two, they both use each other. Also note that most engineers would heavily disagree with you.

Go ahead and disprove Evolution. While your at it disprove Electromagnetism and Gravity.

And relativity.

Try not to open your mouth about things you don't or refuse to understand.

I applaud the engineering and scientific effort that went into the making of this.

Considering I AM an engineer, i would have to disagree with you.

Yes they cannot be seperated, but it is the job of the scientist to prove something, be it a process or a material, or even a theory. It is up to the engineer to see if it can actually work in the real world, at a real cost.

My issue is not with this, its when people compare this type of science and engineering to AGW. One is pratical use of a proven material, with testing and hard data to back it up. The other is model based guesswork that some people want us to change our society based on a bunch of maybes and could bes.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Thats cool is was able to take that stress test.
2. But did the wings remain rigid enough to perform correctly afterwards?
3. Or were they limp noodles?



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Flopper]

There just aren't that many union workers in the US for the right wing to worry about. Only about 10% of the entire US workforce. Besides blacks, gays, Hispanics, Muslims, atheists and feminists, Republicans are going to have to find someone else to hate.

Prosperity through lower wages.

What's hilarious is the amount of science that went into these planes. The SAME science that gives us evolution and climate change. Ooh, that's gotta hurt.

This proves that "Triple Helix" of "Universities, Business and Government" that works all over the world, but Republicans think is a lie.

Actually airplane wings are more engineering than science, i.e. the practical application of scientific principles.

Evolution and climate modeling don't have much to do with material engineering.

Engineering is the way to figure out how to use scientific advancement sonny. You CAN'T separate the two, they both use each other. Also note that most engineers would heavily disagree with you.

Go ahead and disprove Evolution. While your at it disprove Electromagnetism and Gravity.

And relativity.

Try not to open your mouth about things you don't or refuse to understand.

I applaud the engineering and scientific effort that went into the making of this.

It's great to see Americans manufacturing something.

 

[Old Rocks]

There is no thread so cool, so amazing, that rderp can't come in and shit all over.

Good job, asshat.

It's OK to critisize unions, but when someone comes in praising science, they are throwing shit all over. Good job fuckwit.

My personal experience with union people is they are lazy, not-creative, incapable of exceeding an 8 work day (unless paid of course), whiny, Quality is Job #2, take too many fucking breaks.

What's to like?

Dumb fuck, what's to like about an ass suck that would work overtime for no pay? Worked both union and non-union jobs, what an individual does on a union job, he will do on a non-union job. Just more shit from a right wingnut nincompoop.

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually airplane wings are more engineering than science, i.e. the practical application of scientific principles.

Evolution and climate modeling don't have much to do with material engineering.

Engineering is the way to figure out how to use scientific advancement sonny. You CAN'T separate the two, they both use each other. Also note that most engineers would heavily disagree with you.

Go ahead and disprove Evolution. While your at it disprove Electromagnetism and Gravity.

And relativity.

Try not to open your mouth about things you don't or refuse to understand.

I applaud the engineering and scientific effort that went into the making of this.

Considering I AM an engineer, i would have to disagree with you.

Yes they cannot be seperated, but it is the job of the scientist to prove something, be it a process or a material, or even a theory. It is up to the engineer to see if it can actually work in the real world, at a real cost.

My issue is not with this, its when people compare this type of science and engineering to AGW. One is pratical use of a proven material, with testing and hard data to back it up. The other is model based guesswork that some people want us to change our society based on a bunch of maybes and could bes.

Really? That is why I have seen so many engineers to be rather stupid when it comes to reality. Observations of systems so large we cannot replicate them in the laboratory is how science deals with such systems. When we observe changes in animals that live in a differant environment than similiar animals, we create a hypothesis concerning natural selection. When the observations of 150 years back this hypothesis, it gets promoted along the way to the Theory of Evolution.

When we observe a warming climate at the same period that we are recieiving less energy from the sun, but adding more GHGs, we hypothesize that the IR absorption of the GHGs are warming the atmosphere and oceans. 50 years of more and more observations of decreasing ice, increasing heat, at the same time the sun TSI hits a record low for the time period recorded, AGW is promoted to the status of a Theory, since no one has falsified it, or come up with an alternative hypothesis that fits the observations.

We did not form Tectonic Theory by creating rift zones and subduction zones and testing them. We observed the real thing in action, and drew the appropriate conclusions.

 

[Photonic]

Actually airplane wings are more engineering than science, i.e. the practical application of scientific principles.

Evolution and climate modeling don't have much to do with material engineering.

Engineering is the way to figure out how to use scientific advancement sonny. You CAN'T separate the two, they both use each other. Also note that most engineers would heavily disagree with you.

Go ahead and disprove Evolution. While your at it disprove Electromagnetism and Gravity.

And relativity.

Try not to open your mouth about things you don't or refuse to understand.

I applaud the engineering and scientific effort that went into the making of this.

Considering I AM an engineer, i would have to disagree with you.

Yes they cannot be seperated, but it is the job of the scientist to prove something, be it a process or a material, or even a theory. It is up to the engineer to see if it can actually work in the real world, at a real cost.

My issue is not with this, its when people compare this type of science and engineering to AGW. One is pratical use of a proven material, with testing and hard data to back it up. The other is model based guesswork that some people want us to change our society based on a bunch of maybes and could bes.

Well I'm an astrophysicist by profession, and I work closely with JPL on quite a few things. I doubt they would consider science separate from engineering on anything. They require each other.

However, I apologize for the misunderstanding, I did not mean that evolution and climate change have any discernible impact on material engineering(Currently). But hard science does. Which is why I said any engineer wouldn't disagree.

Climate change is not disputable, it's how much involvement in it that is.

 

[martybegan]

Engineering is the way to figure out how to use scientific advancement sonny. You CAN'T separate the two, they both use each other. Also note that most engineers would heavily disagree with you.

Go ahead and disprove Evolution. While your at it disprove Electromagnetism and Gravity.

And relativity.

Try not to open your mouth about things you don't or refuse to understand.

I applaud the engineering and scientific effort that went into the making of this.

Considering I AM an engineer, i would have to disagree with you.

Yes they cannot be seperated, but it is the job of the scientist to prove something, be it a process or a material, or even a theory. It is up to the engineer to see if it can actually work in the real world, at a real cost.

My issue is not with this, its when people compare this type of science and engineering to AGW. One is pratical use of a proven material, with testing and hard data to back it up. The other is model based guesswork that some people want us to change our society based on a bunch of maybes and could bes.

Really? That is why I have seen so many engineers to be rather stupid when it comes to reality. Observations of systems so large we cannot replicate them in the laboratory is how science deals with such systems. When we observe changes in animals that live in a differant environment than similiar animals, we create a hypothesis concerning natural selection. When the observations of 150 years back this hypothesis, it gets promoted along the way to the Theory of Evolution.

When we observe a warming climate at the same period that we are recieiving less energy from the sun, but adding more GHGs, we hypothesize that the IR absorption of the GHGs are warming the atmosphere and oceans. 50 years of more and more observations of decreasing ice, increasing heat, at the same time the sun TSI hits a record low for the time period recorded, AGW is promoted to the status of a Theory, since no one has falsified it, or come up with an alternative hypothesis that fits the observations.

We did not form Tectonic Theory by creating rift zones and subduction zones and testing them. We observed the real thing in action, and drew the appropriate conclusions.

Ypu are not asking people to massively change thier lifestyle due to rift zones, or the theory of evolution.

AGW supporters are asking people to suffer from more expensive energy, increased government interference, and a lowering of a quality of life based upon computer models and hard data spanning 150 years (and inferred data going back 50-100k years) trying to emulate a 3 billion year old climate system. Thats like trying to model an enitre human lifespan based on a sneeze.

Engineers deal in hard realities, buildings that fall down, motors that fail, processes that upset. AGW deals with coulds, wills, and maybes.

 

[martybegan]

Engineering is the way to figure out how to use scientific advancement sonny. You CAN'T separate the two, they both use each other. Also note that most engineers would heavily disagree with you.

Go ahead and disprove Evolution. While your at it disprove Electromagnetism and Gravity.

And relativity.

Try not to open your mouth about things you don't or refuse to understand.

I applaud the engineering and scientific effort that went into the making of this.

Considering I AM an engineer, i would have to disagree with you.

Yes they cannot be seperated, but it is the job of the scientist to prove something, be it a process or a material, or even a theory. It is up to the engineer to see if it can actually work in the real world, at a real cost.

My issue is not with this, its when people compare this type of science and engineering to AGW. One is pratical use of a proven material, with testing and hard data to back it up. The other is model based guesswork that some people want us to change our society based on a bunch of maybes and could bes.

Well I'm an astrophysicist by profession, and I work closely with JPL on quite a few things. I doubt they would consider science separate from engineering on anything. They require each other.

However, I apologize for the misunderstanding, I did not mean that evolution and climate change have any discernible impact on material engineering(Currently). But hard science does. Which is why I said any engineer wouldn't disagree.

Climate change is not disputable, it's how much involvement in it that is.

The second I hear non disputable from a scientist, I start worrying. Yes the climate does change, but is the change something we can impact, and if we do, does it require us to use resources to fix it?

Any derived theory is disputable, why does AGW merit such untouchable status?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

So rdope's "republicans are anti-science" bullshit pushes another interesting thread off the rails and on to another topic.


Well done, rdope, you sad bastard.

 

[daveman]

There is no thread so cool, so amazing, that rderp can't come in and shit all over.

Good job, asshat.

It's OK to critisize unions, but when someone comes in praising science, they are throwing shit all over. Good job fuckwit.

Remember, folks: Rderp is the guy who said the Apollo program wasn't science.

 

[daveman]

Cool video.

I don't remember the platform, but I have seen a video of that test run to failure.
Its an amazing thing to watch a wing snap.

Thanks

That would be the 777 wing break test. They took the wing to 154% before it finally snapped.

There was so much tension, it actually caused ripples in the fuselage.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0]Boeing 777 Wing Test - YouTube[/ame]

Damn. THAT made a noise!

 

[daveman]

None as bad as the 380.

Prove it.

Oh,that's right -- you can't.

 

[daveman]

That is why I have seen so many engineers to be rather stupid when it comes to reality.

Rderp is an engineer, if I recall correctly.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Check out these crosswind tests.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nKFGQCAg3c&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL2F8FC52DCC8E77E9]B787 Dreamliner extreme crosswind tests - YouTube[/ame]

It's amazing how quiet this bird is.

 

[Photonic]

Considering I AM an engineer, i would have to disagree with you.

Yes they cannot be seperated, but it is the job of the scientist to prove something, be it a process or a material, or even a theory. It is up to the engineer to see if it can actually work in the real world, at a real cost.

My issue is not with this, its when people compare this type of science and engineering to AGW. One is pratical use of a proven material, with testing and hard data to back it up. The other is model based guesswork that some people want us to change our society based on a bunch of maybes and could bes.

Well I'm an astrophysicist by profession, and I work closely with JPL on quite a few things. I doubt they would consider science separate from engineering on anything. They require each other.

However, I apologize for the misunderstanding, I did not mean that evolution and climate change have any discernible impact on material engineering(Currently). But hard science does. Which is why I said any engineer wouldn't disagree.

Climate change is not disputable, it's how much involvement in it that is.

The second I hear non disputable from a scientist, I start worrying. Yes the climate does change, but is the change something we can impact, and if we do, does it require us to use resources to fix it?

Any derived theory is disputable, why does AGW merit such untouchable status?

You are such an engineer. Let me be absolutely clear, because I know how thick headed engineers get.


Climate change occurs. This is indisputable fact.

What IS disputable is what we can do about it, and how much involvement humanity has in it. I will not deign to comment because I don't want to take any side but that of the scientific method. I'm not a climatologist either, my focus is cosmology and quantum mechanics (particle physics).

 

[Mad Scientist]

I wouldn't trust EADS anyway. I was shocked when John McCain, while running for president, tried to outsource part of our Air Force to EADS.

When Republicans pointed out that a Boeing executive was under investigation, they purposely ignored the fact that EADS had 22 executives under investigation.

Worse, when they began to put the 380 together, IT DIDN'T FIT. Airbus lost 2 years of time and 6 billion instantly. Airbus is part of EADS. UPS cancelled billions in contracts. AND, EADS had to pay "late fees". I don't see how a plane, like the 380, which lands sideways in medium winds and sometimes drags it's tail trying to "take off" is safe.

I can't disagree with you there.

 

[martybegan]

Well I'm an astrophysicist by profession, and I work closely with JPL on quite a few things. I doubt they would consider science separate from engineering on anything. They require each other.

However, I apologize for the misunderstanding, I did not mean that evolution and climate change have any discernible impact on material engineering(Currently). But hard science does. Which is why I said any engineer wouldn't disagree.

Climate change is not disputable, it's how much involvement in it that is.

The second I hear non disputable from a scientist, I start worrying. Yes the climate does change, but is the change something we can impact, and if we do, does it require us to use resources to fix it?

Any derived theory is disputable, why does AGW merit such untouchable status?

You are such an engineer. Let me be absolutely clear, because I know how thick headed engineers get.


Climate change occurs. This is indisputable fact.

What IS disputable is what we can do about it, and how much involvement humanity has in it. I will not deign to comment because I don't want to take any side but that of the scientific method. I'm not a climatologist either, my focus is cosmology and quantum mechanics (particle physics).

Yes it occurs, but is man the main driving force? Also can man make changes that will impact it enough to make a difference? And again, those who promote AGW often want to radically change the way our society works.

Also, nice insult towards engineers. A egotistical scientist, those are SO rare.

 

[Photonic]

Also, nice insult towards engineers. A egotistical scientist, those are SO rare.

Whoa whoa, I was just jesting sir, just jesting. I meant no insult by it.

I s'pose we do have a bit of an ego though...