Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
To what extent are there competing schools of thought within the field of Fire Prevention? (Education, Engineering, Enforcement)
To what extent do experts in the field of Fire Prevention disagree about the answers they give to important questions?
What other fields deal with Fire Prevention and activites (from a different standpoint, perhaps)?
To what extent are there conflicting views about Fire Preventi in light of these different standpoints? To what extent, if at all, is the field of Fire Prevention properly called a science?
To what extent can questions asked in the field of Fire Prevention be answered definitively? To what extent are questions in this field matters of (arguable) judgment?
To what extent is there public pressure on professionals in the field of Fire Prevention to compromise their professional practice in light of public prejudice or vested interest?
What does the history of Fire Prevention tell you about the status of knowledge in the field? How old is the field? How common is controversy over fundamental terms, theories, and orientation?
All engineers use maths a lot of the time. Engineers spend a lot of time writing things that don't require maths - often it is in order to persuade someone else, or a group of others, about something. The people who are the target audience are often not highly numerate or highly mathematical people. When engineers do use maths it is often fairly basic algebra or geometry. Occasionally it is trigonometry. Sometimes it is even basic calculus. Engineers are expected to be competent in high-level maths because many of the more complex ideas they need to be conversant in, use high-level maths as part of their explanation. Engineers are rarely criticized for a lack of skill in maths, but engineers are regularly criticized for a lack of skills in written English. Dolphin(t)12:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But surely someone has to do the detailed design calculations. Are you saying that other than detailed design engineers, most engineers don't use maths? Clover345 (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "someone has to do the detailed design calculations." But your question is not "Do all the detailed design calculations have to be done by a civil engineer?" Your question is "Do all civil engineers use maths in their everyday work?" Of course, many civil engineers do things other than detailed design calculations. Dolphin(t)22:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, Engineers need to know the higher level maths, but it isn't like they do all of those calculations by hand on paper with a slide rule. They need to know the maths so they understand what they are doing, but most calculations today are done by machines, like calculators and computers. It doesn't absolve engineers from knowing exactly what they are asking the computers to do and why they are asking them to do it, but engineers are not required to do things which technology could do for them. --Jayron3212:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do. It's also very important that they get it right. Whether it's calculating the camber of a curved road or how thick a dam wall must be, there is always maths involved. Like Jayron32 said - you need not know every formula out of your head but you do need to understand where to plug the variables in. 196.214.78.114 (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of using high-level maths is preparing examples using pencil, paper, and general purpose computer software (calculator, spreadsheet, Mathcad, Mathematica, or the like to verify that newly-written or unfamiliar computer software is working correctly, and that the engineer understands what the software is doing. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned by Dolphin, communication skills are also important, Failure due to miscommunication can happen (especially if there are design changes) as happened in Hyatt Regency walkway collapse. One should understand the mathematics well enough to be able to explain it plainly (and the related physics, as Feynman did). — To refocus on the specific question: while some civil engineers might not need to use maths "everyday" in the sense of actually doing calculations, they are likely to "use math" in the sense of reading and understanding it. ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as an uncivil engineer in every meaning of that phrase, I use maths every day. Mostly it is hidden inside clever scripts that I run in matlab, but then I get to write those scripts as well. Examples of maths I use very frequently : Fourier analysis, analysis of well formed experiments (Taguchi), analysis of poorly formed experiments (usual ones), 3 dimensional geometry, analysis of complex spring mass damper systems, and matrices up the wazoo. Mechanical engineers are generally less reliant on tables and codes than civil engineers, and hence more reliant on day to day maths, partly because we can afford to make prototypes and break them, and partly because the codes and tables do not cover the wide range of products we design. Having said that I haven't solved a partial differential in decades, and only once since leaving uni have I had to solve a double integral by hand. Of course with Mathcad and the like available on every desktop actually solving a calculus problem by hand is more of a rite of passage than a useful exercise. Greglocock (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about civil engineers working in construction or for an infrastructure owner? Are they less likely to use maths than civil engineers working in design? Clover345 (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you look at the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940) article, it says that someone did the math -- "the most important theoretical advance in the bridge engineering field of the decade" -- and that's what convinced them to skimp on the structural elements in a way that made the collapse possible. Wnt (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the catch is that a mathematical model is never truly an accurate representation of a physical object. Certain phenomena ... such as vortices of wind ... might be omitted. The ways in which the model is deficient... come out in experiment. Wnt (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Detecting debris from flight MH 370 from satellite pictures
I find it rather strange that the plane hasn't been found yet, it seems to me that it shouldn't be very difficult to find the debris of the plane using detailed satellite pictures from before and after the (presumed) crash by processing that using the enormous computing power that is available today. Or am I missing something here? Would there always be a lot of data from the pictures that would fit the general characteristics of the debris that one is seeking that wouldn't have anything to do with the crash? Count Iblis (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DigitalGlobe has made images available and are asking for a crowd or Human flesh search engine to help them analyse these and look for possible points of interest. I can't say for sure that they aren't primarily a PR stunt and the crowd sourcing doesn't help much, although the various reports such as [1] do include quotes where it's implied it is difficult for their algorithms to differentiate wreckage from other stuff when using their data (i.e. including whatever limitations imposed by their satellite imaging capabilities).
China has also adjusted the operations of 10 of their satellites to assist in the search [2], although not surprising they haven't given any info I've seen on the the probability of their satellites finding something.
The US satellite capabilities would almost definitely be more than either of these and they must be using them to assist as well, but again, it's unlikely we would get that much info on the probabilities of their success.
It's worth remembering that even if the satellite imaging and processing power (remembering the ever increasing search area and the resolutions likely needed for success and this would need to be something they are able to spare in the midst of the ongoing Ukrainian crisis) is capable, you would need to have the existing algorithms available or be able to tweak whatever is available for that purpose in time.
This is a problem commonly experienced in photo reconnaissance. Although we now have ubercomputers (etc.) that are helpful, it still requires eyeballs to find stuff out in the middle of nowhere. Regarding the use of satellites, an analogy is trying to find missing car-keys using a microscope. ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There have already been false reports of plane debris, reported by human pilots flying over the sea. If humans can't easily tell the difference between plane debris and ordinary debris, a computer has no chance in hell. Remember that the Earth's surface is enormous compared to the size of an airplane, that garbage drifts into the ocean all the time, that airplanes and boats crisscross the surface constantly, and that most or all of the plane might be underwater (see Air France Flight 447, which took 2 years to find). ---Bowlhover (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding AF447, the searchers had retrieved definitive floating debris after only about 5 days. Yes, it took them 2 years to find where the fuselage had come to rest under more than 10,000 feet of water, but the floating debris was found after only a few days even though it was hundreds of miles from shore. Dragons flight (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the debris was in the water, it should be quite obvious, because much of it would float. It might be harder to find on land, as there's jungle in the area, and the plane could crash in the jungle with no obvious signs from above, as it would all be covered up by the jungle canopy. If nobody happened to be near the crash site, it could go hidden until somebody happens upon it.
The thing that seems odd to me is that they couldn't track it on radar to the crash site. Do they not have radar near where it disappeared ? Did it drop below the radar then fly many miles before crashing ? StuRat (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Radar is little used in modern civilian aviation. It all works with transponders - instead of bouncing signals off the metal bodies of planes, air traffic control listens to active transmitters onboard aircraft. Radar degrades rapidly as function of distance, making it messy and unreliable, while transponders can transmit extra information such as speed, altitude, and identification. The transponder on MH370 stopped transmitting for an as yet unknown reason. A military radar happened to track the flight a bit longer, giving the latest best estimate of flight route. 88.112.50.121 (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Civilian (air traffic control) radar showed the aircraft dissappearing at a certain point. Military radar records showed that the plane turned at that point, descended to a low altitude, and continued flying another 500 km. So a catastrophic event didn't happen when it was lost to civilian radar. The transponder was turned off. Searching has been has been tailored to suit where it actually went (Malacca Straight), not just where it was when contact was lost (Gulf of Thailand). 121.215.154.87 (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Radar and transponders complement each other. There are many obvious uses for radar, like tracking planes with transponders turned off or malfunctioning, enemy/terrorist aircraft, and other hazards to navigation like flocks of birds, storms, volcanic ash clouds, etc. So, using transponders alone is a very bad idea. StuRat (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of assumptions. First, the oddities: the transponder was off (or abruptly failed). Second, the bright orange black box will begin pinging if it's in salt water. Third, military radar differs from commercial radar on the track (military doesn't require transponders). It could be a) it didn't crash and landed somewhere or b) it crashed on land or c) it crashed where no one is looking. Only a few weeks before, a co-pilot took an aircraft to Switzerland for asylum. The cockpits are hardened so if the pilot/co-pilot locked the other out during a potty break, not much can be done. Personally, I'm thinking this was an attempt to take the plane so it could be used for nefarious purposes or suicide by plane (a la EgyptAir) by one of the pilots. I would be wondering if it had enough fuel to reach the eastern coast of Africa. For a catastrophic failure that shut off the transponder to occur without a debris field or the "black box" does not seem plausible. There would be items washing ashore. There are lots of speculative answers from catastrophic mechanical failure (of course the "lawyer experts" push this one on TV as Boeing has the deepest povkets), to a shoot down by China of a plane with improper transponder (a la KAL shootdown in 1980's), to a hijack suicide by pilot/co-pilot, to stolen airliner now on ground in some country, to a bomb on board. No single theory is better at this point as there is no data. The so-called "oil slick" was unrelated. The "door" was an unrelated piece of wood. And no black-box pinging away has been found. It wouldn't surprise me if terrorists had co-opted a pilot/co-pilot to steal a plane or if they just killed themselves with the plane. Nor would it surprise me if it were shot down as part of an air defense zone. Catastrophic failure seems the least likely option. A hole being blown in the hull near the transponder antennas would explain an emergency descent and no transponder but it's hard to reconcile an hours worth of flying with no radio unless all those antennas are in the same place (not likely, I hope). --DHeyward (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My first reaction was that it could have been taken to a clandestine drug airstrip in the Golden Triangle or even a closed or bought-off airport so that the passengers and plane could be ransomed. And... the search seems gradually to be moving closer to Burma, which seems believable enough as a black hole. [3] But then ... where are the demands? I'd think it would take no more than one or two days to separate the hostages into little groups and scatter them in twenty places - unless the crooks are having some troublesome hostage negotiations among themselves. Let's hope that, Chronicles of Riddick style, one of them is left in custody moaning "I should have taken the money..." Wnt (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need a much longer runway to land one of these than some single-engine drug smuggling plane. I wonder what minimum length is needed if you don't mind wrecking the plane, say by running it into a shallow pond at the end of a short runway. Maybe ransom was the goal but the hijackers ended up crashing it in the jungle, and any surviving co-conspirators on the ground thought it safest to just walk away. StuRat (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking something along those lines. Definitely if everything goes perfectly a plane doesn't need nearly the length of runway that is officially required, as has been discovered by several pilots landing on the wrong airstrip or even at the wrong airport in the U.S. recently. (The U.S. has perfected capitalism to the point where airplane pilots make the wages of fast food servers, and are literally eligible for food stamp assistance...) Wnt (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should note at this point that there is some indication that the OP was correct, and satellite scanning IS what actually worked, with floating debris right about where the wreckage was originally supposed to be. It leaves open some questions about why the Chinese took five days to find it in their satellite data, and why the U.S., despite all its appearance of surveillance omniscience, seems to have failed. Wnt (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Grain of salt until they pull something from the water, for me. They also spotted a "door" and an oil slick but both were unrelated. The U.S. may have seen it as well, but given that disclosure of resolution of the detectors is likely to be classified, its use to find wreckage (not survivors) would probably not have been sanctioned. Wouldn't surprise me though if a U.S. warship started finding wreckage in its random search pattern. China may have held off announcing it for that reason as well (hoping he U.S. would disclose something that gave away a capability or not wanting to disclose their own). Or possibly China was conducting a military test of some sort that caused the plane crash. Or its just China being China. As for why a terrorists/drug cartel would want a plane, I can think of a few reasons including ransom, attacks, for study or PR gimmicks. And not to get too conspiracist, I think a simple cockpit window blowout and decompression followed by poor quick-donning mask response and procedure could knock the crew out in seconds. Still doesn' answer debris field but doesn't require a lot strange coincidences. Doesn't even require an explosion and at that altitude conciousness would be too brief to do anything but put on masks and the instruments would be a nightmare to see. --DHeyward (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, China has now retracted the claim. I don't understand how the time of useful consciousness can be so short. Most people can hold their breath for a minute or longer, so how can the time of useful consciousness be a lot shorter than that? Count Iblis (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The concentration of oxygen in arterial blood is directly proportional to the partial pressure of oxygen in the lungs. In air, the partial pressure of the oxygen is about 20% of the total pressure. When we hold our breath, the partial pressure of oxygen in the lungs begins at about 20% of atmospheric pressure and gradually falls to slightly less than that as blood absorbs some of the oxygen. (The thing that prevents us from holding our breath longer than a minute or so isn't lack of oxygen in the lungs, it is the increasing partial pressure of CO2. Our need to exhale, and our breathing rate, are determined by the partial pressure of CO2, not the partial pressure of O2.) At a pressure altitude of 35,000 feet, atmospheric pressure is only 24% of atmospheric pressure at ground level so when breathing air at 35,000 feet the partial pressure of oxygen is also only 24% of its ground level value - it is impossible to simulate that by holding the breath long enough to consume 76% of the oxygen because of the build-up of CO2. Also, have a look at Time of useful consciousness. Dolphin(t)02:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Holding your breath would keep all the partial pressures the same. The problems is that your lungs can't maintain sea level pressure at 35,000 feet. They will burst. scuba diving works in reverse and the lungs are pressurized at depth. the danger of a deep dive is O2 poisoning because even though the partial pressure is still the same, the absoulut amount of O2 is much higher. Holding your breat during ascent will damage your lungs. In an explosive decompression of an airplanes, you will exhale, and the blood quickly loses it's saturated O2 from the pressure change and unconsciousness follows very quickly. The higher you go, the more dissolved O2 in the blood is removed as bubbles and the faster you lose consciousness. Your blood, almost instantly, loses it dissolved O2. You can see this when you open a soda bottle or champagne. Once the pressure is reduced with opening, the dissolved CO2 comes out of solution and fizzes. --DHeyward (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. one of the reasons I like the decompression as a theory is that, at least when I was being taught, whenever changing transponder frequencies was to put it in standby until all the numbers are entered so the hijack/emergency codes weren't accidentally sent out. That's not necessary for digital FMS systems like they use now but old habits die hard. If they put the xpndr in standby while fiddling with FMS, xpndr and O2 with a 500mph wind in the cockpit, it's not unthinkable that they passed out with a mid altitude heading and a xpndr in standby and never made it to putting on O2 masks as they raced for a breathable altitude. they then simply flew until their fuel exhausted. --DHeyward (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth remembering that most of the vessels and planes doing the searching are from various countries' militaries, and anything they find will first have to go through the military security channels of those countries. We won't get full details of what is found, and how it was found. American and Chinese (and other countries') satellites no doubt have greater capabilities than they would want to publicly share. What we might see is an American ship searching in a new "broader" search area just happening to sail right where some genuine debris is. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are in-between scenarios that depend on the surveillance method. Military primary surveillance radar won't care about the plane (though it may pick up IFF encrypted transmissions as well as civilian transponder codes). Secondary surveillance radar sweeps the sky but the aircraft squawks flight data. This airplane most likely had ADS-B, Mode S and pilot/controller datalinks with backups for each (backup hardware, antennas and power supplies.) "Disappearing from radar" then becomes a relative term. 'Which radar?' is probably the proper question. If the airplane switched off Mode C/S, ADS-B and CPDLC but still flew for an hour, something very strange happened. The ELT can be activated manually and deactivating the transponder is a deliberate act. It's not clear to me that civilian primary radar was necessarily available in that region and the "dropping off of radar" was really a lack of transponder interrogations. Other ADS-B equipped planes (or warships) in the area may also have pertinent logs. It's a tricky problem with a primary radar signature and no transponder because everything else has to be ruled out. --DHeyward (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About the radar issue, I want to clarify that AFAIK the current (and it's actually been like this for a while, since before my reply above) public understanding is that the something was tracked on the radar, it's just unclear if it was the flight. I presume this means there wasn't a continous track of this object from the last known position of MH370 but I don't think this has been publicly revealed. (As I think was mentioned above, it's worth remembering that this was fairly far from land and so it may not be that surprising if it wasn't properly tracked when the transponder stopped transmitting. I suspect the equipement the various Malaysian authorities have isn't that sophisticated too.) Of course if it did travel west far off course, radar and other information may be available from other sources who weren't perhaps looking that closely initially.
It's also worth considering that we don't really know what the authorities know and think privately (not just the Malaysians but all those involved). There has been a lot of criticism of the Malaysian authorities handling of the search, but how much of this genuine mishandling and insufficient sharing; and how much of it relates to the nature of the disappearance, the fact the media don't really have much else to do, and differing views on what to share (when sharing it publicly may not have made a difference to the search) is unclear to me.
I know there has been some suggestion that the Vietnamese and Chinese authorities have also complained about not receiving enough information and confusion from what they did receive. In the Chinese case, since there is obvious anger from their citizens it's useful for them to blame someone else rather than just saying 'no one knows, it is confusing, and there's not much anyone can do'. The Vietnamese don't really have that issue. But it's not totally clear to me how much of the recent fuss is because they feel they haven't received enough information. And how much of it is that they've already undertaken an extensive search near their territory and with so many others involved and with large swaths of other areas where it could be, they're not sure if there's much point them continuing at such a high level.
It's the two different radar systems. Once the transponder goes off, the secondary civilian systems are blind. The systems get a blip but no identification. Piecing together that the unidentified military blip is the same object on a separate civilian radar that went dark is not as easy considering it's different countries with different systems. the oddest piece that I would be interested in is the engine data that was apparently data linked to Rolls Royce for 5 hours after the transponders went dead. How or if that is possible would seem pretty important. --DHeyward (talk) 08:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear if you read behind the lines that the Malaysian government does not want to say exactly what the capabilities of their military radar are, for obvious reasons. They are particularly cagey about describing exactly where they do and do not have primary radar coverage. --Srleffler (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the signal the engines transmit isn't normally tracked for location, but can it be ? If it's picked up by satellite, they would know which satellites received it most clearly, and could triangulate using that info, right ? StuRat (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I heard an early report that "cell phones" were still responding as if on for several days, although nobody answered. I'm guessing that they really meant satellite phones as it seems unlikely that any cell phones would be in range of a cell tower. Is this true, and, if so, can the location be triangulated from that info ? If any mobile phone survived after the airplane would have run out of fuel, that seems to indicate that the plane made it down at least partially intact, although I imagine some phones could survive conditions that would kill all the crew and passengers. StuRat (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've read elsewhere (unreliable sources, but they all seem to say much the same thing), it is cellphones being referred to. Apparently, the way the system is set up, it is common to get a false connection signal as the system tries to connect. You can get such a signal even if the phone is switched off - or destroyed. The 'ringing' signal is really more of a 'trying to connect' signal, and indicates little more than that the system recognises that a valid number has been dialled. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. Handheld satellite phones don't work like cell phones - they don't maintain a continuous connection with the satellites. To get a connection, you need the antenna extended and line of sight to the satellite. Mr.Z-man17:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would make them quite useless for incoming calls, as you'd need to have the antenna extended to receive them. Are you sure they can't make some type of connection without the antenna extended, just enough to notify the owner that they need to extend it to receive the call ? StuRat (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, they generally use sort of a "pager" method. The satellites send out a signal telling you someone is calling and hopes that one of them gets through. But that's a one-way signal. The transmitter on the satellite is a lot more powerful than the one on the phone. The handheld ones are only around 0.5 W RF output. Even if the antenna is extended, it still may not get a signal. Most things I've read say that to get a reliable connection, you need to be outdoors, or have an outdoor antenna. Mr.Z-man20:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read a news report about this. The cell phone networks generate a "ring" signal while they search for the phone that is supposed to receive the call, so that the caller doesn't just hear silence and hang up. When you call a cell phone in some distant location, you can hear several rings before the cell phone at the other end actually starts ringing. If the cell phone at the other end is off or not in range of a tower, you will hear several rings and then the call won't go through.
I have many reels of sewing thread I'd like to organise according to its colour. I have trays suited to this purpose enabling four rows and about 15 columns. What question should I ask myself about the colour of the thread to determine where it goes? I'm trying to use MS Paint's colour selector as a guide. I'm not sure whether that will help or hinder me. ----SeansPotato Business18:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Caution:staring at this might cause a '60s flashback Each color in a computer graphics program such as MS Paint is distinguished by 3 values of the primaries Red, Green and Blue added together. It's not obvious how the implied 3-dimensional color space can help you plan a 2-dimensional (rows and columns) layout for coloured threads. Here is a possible arrangement where colors are in rainbow order vertically and decrease in saturation going from left to right. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One problem with sorting real-world colors using RGB, is that this scheme is intended for computer displays, and can be counter-intuitive. For example: What do you get if you mix red and green? If you try [R=255, G=255, B=0] (max red and green, no blue) what you get may surprize you. [Hover cursor here for answer] ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it's a basic HTML attribute title, which can be applied to various elements (like this and this). It's possible to turn off the special formatting (border-bottom:0px;cursor:default;) and even to include the result of Some Lua script in the mouseover, but I haven't figured a way to style the mouseover text (per [4]) without having access to the site CSS (or using a personal CSS for me only). Wnt (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
!["re-inventing the [color] wheel"](/wiki/File:The_Shark_Wheel_design_is_fast_on_hard_surfaces_and_goes_over_varying_terrain.png){kind=link}