Giant Russian Typhoon Class subs
Discussion
dukeboy749r said:
If what you said was true, there'd be ships, planes, subs, failing left right and even off centre.
Not so at all: you have a very flimsy grasp on cause and effect.I wouldn't dispute that there has been a net improvement in the quality of structural design, but that is because the software is so very clever and powerful that it gives good results even in the hands of mediocre engineers.
None the less, there has been a very marked decline in the basic grasp of structures among the recent generation of engineers, even to me: I've even met 'qualified' engineers who couldn't tell me the direction of forces in the individual members of spaceframes, without resorting to computer analysis.
As to failing left, right and centre, it's usually the centre (mast and keel) that seems to be the problem, these days. You'd have thought we'd have got the hang of sailing boats by now, what with several thousand years of experience to draw on, and all this fancy software?
Edited by Equus on Wednesday 21st June 23:09
Nanook said:
... perhaps that's a result of the calibre of people I've worked with...
Possibly so. I'm not generalising so broadly as to suggest that all recently qualified engineers have a poor grasp of structures (and for those that do, we can blame the universities and the training rather than the people - the young people I've worked with are just as bright and keen as they've always been). But in the old days (when I were a lad and all this were green fields, etc.), they'd have never graduated, much less gained Chartered status, with such flimsy understanding as some I meet these days... and computer tools provide a crutch that superficially overcomes this lack of basic knowledge, in some instances.
Equus said:
Possibly so. I'm not generalising so broadly as to suggest that all recently qualified engineers have a poor grasp of structures (and for those that do, we can blame the universities and the training rather than the people - the young people I've worked with are just as bright and keen as they've always been).
But in the old days (when I were a lad and all this were green fields, etc.), they'd have never graduated, much less gained Chartered status, with such flimsy understanding as some I meet these days... and computer tools provide a crutch that superficially overcomes this lack of basic knowledge, in some instances.
Exactly the same in my field. No recent graduates I've employed have had technical knowledge anywhere near what I would consider adequate – we've ended up doing a sort of basic training syllabus to develop these skills. (ie what 'the university' should have taught them.) Also, I've had a couple of graduates who've challenged me to the effect that they because they have a degree they are therefore fully competent and not to be questioned.But in the old days (when I were a lad and all this were green fields, etc.), they'd have never graduated, much less gained Chartered status, with such flimsy understanding as some I meet these days... and computer tools provide a crutch that superficially overcomes this lack of basic knowledge, in some instances.
Equus said:
dukeboy749r said:
If what you said was true, there'd be ships, planes, subs, failing left right and even off centre.
Not so at all: you have a very flimsy grasp on cause and effect.I wouldn't dispute that there has been a net improvement in the quality of structural design, but that is because the software is so very clever and powerful that it gives good results even in the hands of mediocre engineers.
None the less, there has been a very marked decline in the basic grasp of structures among the recent generation of engineers, even to me: I've even met 'qualified' engineers who couldn't tell me the direction of forces in the individual members of spaceframes, without resorting to computer analysis.
As to failing left, right and centre, it's usually the centre (mast and keel) that seems to be the problem, these days. You'd have thought we'd have got the hang of sailing boats by now, what with several thousand years of experience to draw on, and all this fancy software?
Edited by Equus on Wednesday 21st June 23:09
Nothing more
dukeboy749r said:
Equus said:
dukeboy749r said:
If what you said was true, there'd be ships, planes, subs, failing left right and even off centre.
Not so at all: you have a very flimsy grasp on cause and effect.I wouldn't dispute that there has been a net improvement in the quality of structural design, but that is because the software is so very clever and powerful that it gives good results even in the hands of mediocre engineers.
None the less, there has been a very marked decline in the basic grasp of structures among the recent generation of engineers, even to me: I've even met 'qualified' engineers who couldn't tell me the direction of forces in the individual members of spaceframes, without resorting to computer analysis.
As to failing left, right and centre, it's usually the centre (mast and keel) that seems to be the problem, these days. You'd have thought we'd have got the hang of sailing boats by now, what with several thousand years of experience to draw on, and all this fancy software?
Edited by Equus on Wednesday 21st June 23:09
Nothing more
I was surprised to see the electronics still fired up and operating. Looks like heaters too. Saw all the cabling going in so presume those pups are still drawing a fair bit of energy.
Wonder how they decommissioned the reactors?
Max_Torque said:
Fascinating! The amount of work in those subs, wow, and all before CAD become commonplace, meaning vast, complex 3d structures could be accurately drawn etc. I suspect a lot of those subs was made up as the build went along.
I remember being amazed in a Titanic documentary when they explained how all the steel work was drawn at 1:1 scale. Some big ol' sheets of paper there.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff