Boeing 787 "Dreamliner" Stress Test

[martybegan]

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...

We have been edgy about this since the terms "semi-skilled labor" and "the oompa-loompas of science" were used to describe wolowitz on The Big Bang Theory.

 

[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...

We have been edgy about this since the terms "semi-skilled labor" and "the oompa-loompas of science" were used to describe wolowitz on The Big Bang Theory.

I hate that show. All it does is throw more stereotypes up for engineers and scientists.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, a view of engineers from the other end. I don't know how many times I have had to rework a machine designed by engineers that seemed to forget that bearings need lubing occasionally, and one should be able to change them out without dismantalling the whole damned machine.

The dealings I have had with scientists have been much better. They seem much more ready to listen.

 

[martybegan]

OK, a view of engineers from the other end. I don't know how many times I have had to rework a machine designed by engineers that seemed to forget that bearings need lubing occasionally, and one should be able to change them out without dismantalling the whole damned machine.

The dealings I have had with scientists have been much better. They seem much more ready to listen.

Because scientists use equipment that was built by scientists, maintained by scientists, and kept to a high level of operating ability by the same scientists. also the equipment is usually custom made, and often one of a kind and well funded.

Engineers, on the other hand, have to often make equipment that will be poorly maintained, has to be mass produced, and has to fit within a production budget, and used by just about anyone who thinks they can run the stuff.

Finally, with most equipment you have to lube, the instructions come in the manual, that largish book like thing most people mistake for a drink coaster, with all the pretty pictures inside of it.

 

[Photonic]

OK, a view of engineers from the other end. I don't know how many times I have had to rework a machine designed by engineers that seemed to forget that bearings need lubing occasionally, and one should be able to change them out without dismantalling the whole damned machine.

The dealings I have had with scientists have been much better. They seem much more ready to listen.

Because scientists use equipment that was built by scientists, maintained by scientists, and kept to a high level of operating ability by the same scientists. also the equipment is usually custom made, and often one of a kind and well funded.

Engineers, on the other hand, have to often make equipment that will be poorly maintained, has to be mass produced, and has to fit within a production budget, and used by just about anyone who thinks they can run the stuff.

Finally, with most equipment you have to lube, the instructions come in the manual, that largish book like thing most people mistake for a drink coaster, with all the pretty pictures inside of it.

Lol, we ARE pretty anal...

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

The increase in the global temperature is not a could, maybe, or will. It is a fact. A fact that has occurred during a period of lower TSI. The Arctic Sea ice melt is not a hypothesis, it is an observed fact. The same for the regression of most of the worlds alpine glaciers, the melting of gigatons of the Continental ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. The increasing acidity of the world's oceans is an observed fact as well.

An additional observation. People do massively change their life styles because of rift zones. Ask anyone in Japan. Same for the effects of global warming. We may continue our present life styles for a bit longer, but within a few decades, the warming will impact all of our lifestyles.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

You will be happy to know that the Dreamliner uses fuel efficient engines which will reduce their pollution emissions.

In addition to bringing big-jet ranges to mid-size airplanes, the 787 provides airlines with unmatched fuel efficiency, resulting in exceptional environmental performance. The airplane uses 20 percent less fuel than today's similarly sized airplanes.

Boeing: Commercial Airplanes - 787 Dreamliner - Background

 

[martybegan]

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.

The increase in the global temperature is not a could, maybe, or will. It is a fact. A fact that has occurred during a period of lower TSI. The Arctic Sea ice melt is not a hypothesis, it is an observed fact. The same for the regression of most of the worlds alpine glaciers, the melting of gigatons of the Continental ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. The increasing acidity of the world's oceans is an observed fact as well.

An additional observation. People do massively change their life styles because of rift zones. Ask anyone in Japan. Same for the effects of global warming. We may continue our present life styles for a bit longer, but within a few decades, the warming will impact all of our lifestyles.

Then we will adjust to it, like we adjust to other natural phenomenon. I for one do not want to give governments more power just because the weather is going to get warmer, and a few hurricanes more may hit the eastern seaboard.

Changes like this have happened before, long before we figured out burning coal makes energy, and will happen again long after we are gone.

 

[daveman]

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.

The increase in the global temperature is not a could, maybe, or will. It is a fact. A fact that has occurred during a period of lower TSI. The Arctic Sea ice melt is not a hypothesis, it is an observed fact. The same for the regression of most of the worlds alpine glaciers, the melting of gigatons of the Continental ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. The increasing acidity of the world's oceans is an observed fact as well.

An additional observation. People do massively change their life styles because of rift zones. Ask anyone in Japan. Same for the effects of global warming. We may continue our present life styles for a bit longer, but within a few decades, the warming will impact all of our lifestyles.

Then we will adjust to it, like we adjust to other natural phenomenon. I for one do not want to give governments more power just because the weather is going to get warmer, and a few hurricanes more may hit the eastern seaboard.

Changes like this have happened before, long before we figured out burning coal makes energy, and will happen again long after we are gone.

Nonsense. Global socialism will make everywhere have perfect weather all year long.