College apparently doesnt make you smart.

It might be worth responding to you on this, since you show some civility, and I thank you for that.

I wasn't offended, ha ha ha. (I don't get offended. If a verbal attack on me is accurate, I change my ways. If it's not accurate, I put it in the toilet and flush.)

And allow me to say that I never said, nor meant that "that an education isn't worth it". Your defensiveness made that up from nothing.

Try not being a brainwashed liberal. Being brainwashed means trying to stick up for things that down deep you KNOW you probably shouldn't stick up for. That causes defensiveness. There is no other reason to be defensive.

Debating with defensive people is a dead end.

Now let us be done.

 

Are you done casting aspersions.

Go to school and get an education, it will help you in life.

 

mdrobster

In my 47 years of work, I worked with several PHDs. It actually seems the higher up the education ladder people went, the more common sense was educated out of them. When a problem came up with a machine, 80% of the conversation was taken up explaining to the PHD how systems around the one he specialized in worked.

Of course we need college grads, but the point of this thread is the fact that any more some how colleges cram grads with just facts, and over look thinking and common sense.

 

Well, I'm convinced. logical1 you are hired. Design me a cruise ship. (I'll settle for anything that doesn't immediately sink when a someone get onboard)

 

Years ago IBM had THINK signs all setting over their offices. I would suggest that especially colleges start setting a few of them around their buildings.

 

I don't know who you worked with, but I have also worked with PhDs, and they are the smartest people I know.

The next time, you take swings at educated people, like how to build a cruise ship, maybe you should use a little common sense in your argument.

 

How many years have you been in the ship building industry?

 

No degree course makes you brighter - they just tend to demand smart people to manage the course, or do the research. I'd guess that in your experience bright people were being asked to deal with matters that depended more on experience and training than on theoretical understanding. People are needed for all sorts of work, and the sensible thing is to use them for what they are best at.

 

Its no problem to have two entirely separate engine rooms in a ship.
But tell me, people have died in the desert or in the winter when the egine in their car quit.

However, I don't see you designing and building any cars with duplicate and entirely independent engines so you are safe from the dangers. Or always towing a spare car so you can just switch and tow the broken car.

Blaming "college boys" for not implementing what is clearly an economic decision is what is silly.

Why don't you talk to the corporate CEO's who you respect so much who are plainly the ones responsible for failing to implement dual engine rooms on cruise ships. I know a dozen engineers who would implement that for him in a jiffy! And for ONLY 50 or 100 MILLION dollars.

 

smallblue

My arena is mechanics, electronics, and computers. I am not a naval architect, but being educated in the former, common sense indicates the flaw in the design of that ship.

Instead of one huge engine room, two smaller totally separate ones would have prevented that emergency. Putting all of your eggs in one basket so to speak is bad engineering.

 

mdrobster

Are you aware that for years single engine fighters have had a manually deployable turbine that the pilot can deploy in the case of an emergency? Again common sense redundancy that that ship didnt have.

 

Okay, can you articulate your "education and experience".

 

I am amazed at some of the simple arguments of some people. Some one seems to think if you follow my plea for common sense and redundancy on that ship, it would apply to a car. If your car quits in the middle of no where will you crap in the back seat??? See what I mean.

 

A manual turbine, who builds them, and how are they deployed, how much foot pounds of torque do they emit, and how much energy is required, how does pilot deploy them while in a spin.

- - - Updated - - -

Where are they located on the plane and which planes had them.

 

You don't even know what the problem is, and you have already applied a remedy. That is not common sense, that is folly.

 

You have absolutely zero knowledge as to why the ship was built like it was. None, zero, zilch. You have no knowledge logistics of the ship or any large cruise ships in general.

But here you are back seat engineering a cruise ship. Sorry if I don't put to much stock in your solution of 'hey just build two engine rooms', cause apparently the Italian ship building corporation Fincantieri which has been building ship since 1959 and the largest ships builder in Europe just didn't think about such a situation.

Guess you're just the smartest man on the planet.

Oh, and that this situation somehow has something to do with college education. . .

 

mdrobster

No I will not list all the schools I have attended. I will say tho I never got my PHD so if you want to look down on me, you are welcome to do so. At 74 years of age and with a very sucessful career in electronics, I really dont give a damn what other people think. How ever I managed to retain my common sense, and the ability to see the big picture, that is what made me sucessful.

I will say tho. my education in engineering allows me to see the faulty engineering of that ship. You dont have to be a rocket scientist from the Cape to see this.

 

mdrobster

If you really want to know about emergency turbines on aircraft, google "emergency ram air turbines". For our liberal friends it even has pictures!!!!

 

You are not going to fly the aircraft on that. Look at the back of a 737, you will see those auxilary engines.

 

Probably because it costs additional money for redundancy? The business majors from Harvard probabaly squashed the plans of the design engineers from MIT.

 

If you saw the big picture, then you wouldn't be applying a remedy to an unknown issue.

Sorry, but I don't buy your education pitch, especially from someone, that once a month creates a thread demeaning a college education.

- - - Updated - - -

I doubt his credentials too.

 

mdrobster

Yes larger aircraft have what are called APUs. Again you can google that for yourself. Your original point was about single engine fighters, which as I pointed out have emergency ram air turbines.

You should really stay on thread rather than trying to trip me up on some off topic subject.

 

Single engine fighters lack one constraint that cruise ships have.

Fighters and their engineers have UNLIMITED taxpayer funds to add bells and whistles to something like that, and who cares if building ONE fighter costs as much as building ONE ENTIRE CRUISE SHIP! Certainly the military contractor LOVES the extra $50 BILLION in design work, and the extra $100 million per plane cost, and the military officers who are going to retire into HUGE PAY cushy jobs at the contractors who they made rich ALL are quite happy to meet YOUR "specifications", which is how the Righties and Tea Partiers continue to spend the USA into fiscal oblivion with their macho toys..

But a cruise ship has a CEO who demanded that ship be built with MINIMUM money, taking ONLY cost/benefit analysis into EVERY design decision.

And let me point out to you, NO CEO got to the top by giving the SLIGHTEST concern to their customers having to "swim in crap",or suffer ANY other discomfort if the fiscal analysis shows that those customers' discomfort will cost LESS than the design considerations needed to avoid them.

As far as a CEO is concerned, those people could HAVE to be EATING crap and drinking pee, and he still wouldn't lose a minute's sleep if the numbers showed a net profit to NOT prevent it.

Just like Ford and the Pinto. A $3 part would have saved THOUSANDS of people from BURNING ALIVE, but Ford's financial analyses showed that the small amount of lawsuits that might actually be filed and survive Ford's vast resources of legal chicanery was CHEAPER than sticking in that part. And so whole families got to slowly burn alive as parents watched their children roast screaming to a crisp in the 15 or 20 minutes after an accident as the car slowly burned up and the doors were stuck shut, and no one could help.

As Ford counted up their profits and lied, lied, lied as these people died horrible deaths.

 

Why don't we just start buiding cars that have two engines so that If one breaks down they have a second to keep on going !

Why don't we buy two flatscreen televisions so that if one breaks we have a back up on hand!!

Why don't we buy two houses ,so if one burns down we simply move into our other back up house!!

Brilliant !!

 

No, dontcha know that this should have just been put in two seperate rooms: