Interesting, I think it's different for structural engineering because you're doing calculations in accordance with a code of practice and the spreadsheet needs to be adapted to tweak the inputs and outputs of a standard formula and apply it slightly differently for different bridges / structural arrangements. I've written loads of spreadsheets that have been used and adapted by other people in my company, I honestly don't think they are that difficult to understand (or people wouldn't have been able to build on them and adapt them).
I can see that lab software is quite different, especially if you have very well defined procedures and you are repeating exactly the same test again and again with the same inputs and outputs.
In structural engineering (bridge design etc), we use quite complicated spreadsheets for calculations; a database wouldn't be the right tool for that job. We use excel because everyone knows how to use it and it's easy to print to PDF and see the inputs and outputs and any graphical summaries you have added. Using a spreadsheet makes it easy to check and easy to adapt/change when you want to do a slightly different calculation next time.
I've tried building spreadsheets of similar complexity in libreoffice and it's true they are very slow in comparison and more prone to crashing.
Libreoffice works well for some tasks and I enjoy using it at home but honestly if I tried to use it at work it would cut my productivity significantly. I'm probably using it more intensively than most people though.
These guys have an incredible range and mix up different styles in a way that is quite unique. I'm not normally someone who pays that much attention to drums but their drummer really is amazing. The singer can do both clean and 'dirty' vocals.
First time in ages I've been excited about a new band!
Yeah I don't disagree with what you're saying, we don't put fresh grads on jobs without adequate supervision on the design side either. On both sides of the "fence" you need the experience to produce a good product; the two jobs are different and should be complimentary.
The schemes I have worked on that have been the most successful have had the designer and contractor working together closely from an early stage to produce something that works well, drawing on the past experience of both to anticipate potential issues and design them out.
Personally it took me about 6 years before I felt I was good at design. Experience really does count.
Those fenders would have done basically nothing for a ship of this size. You'd be looking at a 20m diameter cofferdam full of concrete to be able to take a hit like that without failing, I did some basic calcs and the ship was about 100,000DWT so the impact force would be in the order of 315MN, absolutely huge.
Yeah, you'd struggle to design a foundation that could take a hit like that, it would be something like a 20m diameter cofferdam full of concrete. The ship that hit it was about 100,000DWT so the impact load will be something like 300MN.
The bridge did have some small dolphins / navigation guides in front of the piers but they were likely designed for a very small impact load from a small vessel losing control.
I think unfortunately most people shy away from technical things including reading technical documentation. The answer to that problem is to have someone in the team on site who does read it and supervises all the people who can't or won't (i.e. an actual engineer). I can see how the profit motive drives companies to cut these people out but it should be seen as essential part of the process for safety reasons.
In civil / structural engineering, quite a lot of UK legislation and codes of practice has been developed following government reports into engineering failures, such as:
Loddon Bridge disaster --> Bragg report --> BS5975 code of practice for temporary works design
I'm not an aerospace engineer but I'd like to think that something similar will happen in this case, although to be honest I'd be surprised if the legislation doesn't exist already.
Yeah that's exactly how I feel about it as well. Concrete spec is the classic one, you write a spec saying what you want and ALWAYS get a TQ back saying "hey can we use this completely different type of concrete from the supplier?". Complete waste of time.
I don't know about that, we have the same problem in civil engineering. At some point you just have to say that if someone can't read a drawing and do what it says they are not doing their job properly. If that means you need an engineer on site to read and interpret the drawing for people who can't or won't read then so be it.
It's really an agreement to work towards disarmament, not to just unilaterally disarm regardless of what everyone else is doing.
Article VI: Each party "undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control".
I can't see how for example Russia could be disarmed under strict and effective international control in the current climate.
We're not increasing the number of our warheads in service, just replacing old ones with a new design.