|
You find such wonderful things in old issues of Popular Mechanics. This one is from October 1953: What could possibly go wrong?
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
i wonder if the blade would generate enough downwards force to swamp the boat
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
The saw is gonna get stuck and torque the skiff and then the whole thing is going to flip over
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
I would say no force up or down as long as it stays level. What it would try to do is rotate the barge which can cause it to lean changing the vector causing it to lean more and more. if the motor is powerful enough and fast enough. This would tip the thing over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:i wonder if the blade would generate enough downwards force to swamp the boat A circular blade would generate no force, it would need to be propeller shaped to do that. I don't think it would rotate the barge either. The barge is already made of a lot of wood and and least 14 metal barrels, plus a tractor on top. The saw would barely be able to shift that barge with that much weight. Any slight movement could probably be counteracted just by the the guy with the poll.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
lotta people ITT who've never used a circular saw before
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
Also a big ol' jerk man person. I.E. you. Take that, saw knower.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:lotta people ITT who've never used a circular saw before Yeah I mean it's not going to create lift or anything like a propeller (or mower blade for similar concept) but if it hits a dense knot or piece of debris you're getting dunked. I want to go fishing with it though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Yeah I mean it's not going to create lift or anything like a propeller (or mower blade for similar concept) but if it hits a dense knot or piece of debris you're getting dunked. Possible, but depending on the mass of the tractor barge and the strength of the joint, it could just torque the saw's shaft clean off because it can't move the barge fast enough. It's gone from a saw problem to an engineering and physics problem, and one that can't be answered without a working model or thorough knowledge of the materials involved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
SOP when checking for duds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJKcdlj-Uiw
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
Mistle posted:Possible, but depending on the mass of the tractor barge and the strength of the joint, it could just torque the saw's shaft clean off because it can't move the barge fast enough. I assume there are some pieces missing from that diagram because without bracing the gearbox against something the tractor is just going to spin the saw up and around and cut off the exhaust pipe if not the driver's head.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:You find such wonderful things in old issues of Popular Mechanics. This one is from October 1953: Aren't stumps below the water inherently much more dangerous than stumps that reach above the water so that you can, you know, see them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
No, water level never changes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Hopefully this isn't too dumb of a question but does anyone else in here work in the EHS field?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
RatHat posted:Aside from the pain are there any actual problems doing that? Infection from the burn maybe? It will heal very inconsistently. Some parts will heal fully, others will blister and distort. Most laser burns tend to heal very well with minimal scarring with good wound care. Either it could look like a disaster in a year, or be completely gone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
I work for a machine tool manufacturer, and heard an interesting story a couple days ago. We apperently had a hell of a time getting one of our big customers to buy our modern machines with the new controls. When asked why they wanted the crappy old control, they said that they liked having the ladder logic exposed in case they wanted to change the software. When asked why the hell they'd ever want to do this, the example they came back with was: "Well, what if one of the door safety switches breaks? We need to be able to delete that check from the ladder so we can get back to production." Our new machines have no way to override it in software, the ladder can't be edited on the machine. But you can still defeat the door safety by undoing two bolts. One of our trainers showed customers how to do it. Safety!
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Karia posted:I work for a machine tool manufacturer, and heard an interesting story a couple days ago. We apperently had a hell of a time getting one of our big customers to buy our modern machines with the new controls. When asked why they wanted the crappy old control, they said that they liked having the ladder logic exposed in case they wanted to change the software. When asked why the hell they'd ever want to do this, the example they came back with was: Process engineers who touch PLC programs should be executed. You can set any safety interlock to be bypassed with two clicks, and it will stay bypassed until you remember to reset it later. This is not a power you want people who think in $/min to possess. Splode fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Aug 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
If it's not in hardware, it's not a safety interlock. And I'm a software girl.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
wonderful post/avatar synergy
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 09:39
|
|
|
Karia posted:I work for a machine tool manufacturer, and heard an interesting story a couple days ago. We apperently had a hell of a time getting one of our big customers to buy our modern machines with the new controls. When asked why they wanted the crappy old control, they said that they liked having the ladder logic exposed in case they wanted to change the software. When asked why the hell they'd ever want to do this, the example they came back with was: Is your company called AECL by any chance? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 09:39
|
|
|
Speaking of PLCs and ladder logic, "Let's try this" is one of the most frightening statements to hear another engineer say when they have a ladder logic window up and the system is all live. Also I need to find the manual for the old Modicon and SLC logic. There are certain commands that they warn are dangerous like things that override output coils without changing their logical state. So you could force a coil to say open a valve but to the rest of the PLC logic no command is being sent to that coil. Sort of a left hand not knowing what the right is doing. Three-Phase fucked around with this message at 11:18 on Aug 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 11:15
|
|
|
Is ladder logic still heavily used or have engineers moved on to "real" languages?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
Karia posted:I work for a machine tool manufacturer, and heard an interesting story a couple days ago. We apperently had a hell of a time getting one of our big customers to buy our modern machines with the new controls. When asked why they wanted the crappy old control, they said that they liked having the ladder logic exposed in case they wanted to change the software. When asked why the hell they'd ever want to do this, the example they came back with was: Do you work in Oxnard? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
MCU really stretching for new Avengers
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Pander posted:.....I had a near miss when I was on a solo training flight..... Why the hell is it called a near miss, this has never made sense to me!? Nearly missing something is HITTING it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Necrolich posted:Why the hell is it called a near miss, this has never made sense to me!? Nearly missing something is HITTING it. Miss, but nearly was not. A near miss is the same type of phrase as "danger close"
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Necrolich posted:Why the hell is it called a near miss, this has never made sense to me!? Nearly missing something is HITTING it. Alright, George. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDKdvTecYAM
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Necrolich posted:Why the hell is it called a near miss, this has never made sense to me!? Nearly missing something is HITTING it. Because near and nearly are not the same word. It was a miss that was near. Close.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
Post poste posted:A near miss is the same type of phrase as "danger close" One no one has ever said or heard used ?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:One no one has ever said or heard used ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_discipline?wprov=sfti1
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Is ladder logic still heavily used or have engineers moved on to "real" languages? Ladder logic is probably the most common way to program PLCs. They also have function block and structured text ("real programming") forms that you may be able to use interchangeably. Sometimes functions are only available in one manner, more or less forcing a routine into one form over another. e: My frame of reference is Allen-Bradley. I can't say exactly how it stacks up against Siemens, Omron, Schneider, et al. Explosionface fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Aug 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Keiya posted:If it's not in hardware, it's not a safety interlock. That case has stuck with me. Patients receiving radiation treatments were seriously injured and/or killed because hardware interlocks were replaced with software, and that software had a race condition which was just waiting to be triggered by a fast-acting operator. I'm happy that the closest to life-critical systems I have to manage is ensuring VoIP phones can reach the correct 911 center.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Is ladder logic still heavily used or have engineers moved on to "real" languages? Ladder logic and programming languages are supported mostly as a legacy thing. And also for custom function blocks. Safety integrated systems, which are the safety and interlock s you're allowed to have in software, are usually ladder logic I think, because it's been the most widely used thus has the most reliability data for FMEAs, and also simpler to FMEA than function blocks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Ah, so specific technical jargon rather than a commonly used phrase in normal life like "near miss"
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQFKBE879TI No injuries, plane landed safely. http://fireaviation.com/2017/08/29/cl-415-clips-a-mast-while-scooping-water-in-france/
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:Ah, so specific technical jargon rather than a commonly used phrase in normal life like "near miss" This is a weird way of saying "I was wrong." but I'll take it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Necrolich posted:Why the hell is it called a near miss, this has never made sense to me!? Nearly missing something is HITTING it. are you a native english speaker
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
Why do we park in a driveway, but drive on a parkway!?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 17:58
|
|
