It ain't rocket science

[crokett]

Or maybe it is. A 2Billion dollar mistake:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1626728.ece

[LCHIEN]

Or maybe it is. A 2Billion dollar mistake:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1626728.ece

The article said 2 Billion pounds sterling.

actually $4Billion... maybe, since $2 ~ 1 pound sterling...

But since it was an UK paper, isn't an English billion = an american trillion? per discussions held here before?

[JR]

Yeah, that's kind of embarassing.

For a light read on the topic of the CERN accelerator and the Atlas project, go here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...433495&sc=emaf

My BIL works on one of the detectors in the "pit". His work would probably benefit from a delay of this type. The detector array is a multi-national project, involving not just science, but complicated physical project management to assemble the huge detector. Predictably, it hasn't come together at exactly the hoped-for schedule. Odonne, the Director, has been manically pursuing completion of assembly, leaving some of the science on the drawing room floor.

I was in the Pit two years ago, when the detector was in about the same stage of completion as seen in the photo in the NPR article. It is an incredible sight. IIRC, the room is 50Mx50Mx100M and is completely filled with electronics.

Even if you don't count the advances in particle physics this experiment will produce, the advances in electronics, computer science, and data communications are impressive. The data will be collected at Terabit/sec rates, to be stored and analyzed by a global web of shared computing resources, interconnected by 10Gbps links. Amazing.

If only those guys at Fermi could do their sums.

JR

[final_t]

Only good thing that came out of this, is that I was able to use this to point out my daughter why math is important, and screwing up your sums can have major effects like this. Got her attention and made her realize this is Important Stuff, but quickly went of the rails into quantum physics and stuff like Alcubierre drives.

[Hellrazor]

Remember when NASA confused inches and cm a few years back? That was an interesting oops too.

[L. D. Jeffries]

How strange! Was just listening to an interview of some "boffins" at the site last Friday on NPR radio. They were getting ready to lower some hughmongis magnet assembly down the hole, and went on with a verbal tour of the 16 mile ring tunnel and other interesting things about the site. Gosh, now I won't feel too bad in the future when I mis-measure something in the shop!

[jackellis]

It's a wonder stuff like this doesn't happen more often, especially now that computers are used to do a lot of the work.

In a previous life I used to do a lot of work with computer simulations of power systems and very often people would believe the results without question simply because it came out on green and white paper. It runs out that many times, the answers were wrong, and for reasons that were only evident if you had an in-depth knowledge of the problem to begin with.

We often see what we want to see, instead of seeing what's really there.

[Slik Geek]

I worked as a systems engineer on a much larger physics project in the near past. Having seen how physicists approach engineering, I'm not surprised with the problem they had. The article's statement is probably accurate: the "scientists building it made basic errors in their mathematical calculations". It was likely scientists, not engineers. (Not to say that engineers don't make mistakes too).

On our project, there was a constant battle between the scientists (physics degrees, often not very experienced) doing the design, and the system engineers (engineering degrees, with 20+ years of experience), attempting to tie the designs together and get them produced.

The physicists thought the engineers were just pessimists, or obstacles to progress, making things more complicated. As engineers, we wanted to explore how things might malfunction, and what was needed to reduce the likelihood of failure and injury. As physicists, they concentrated on functionality, and if one worked on the bench, surely it would work when built multiple times over. A design review by physicists tended to gloss over the verification of important details. Engineers wanted to cross check, and do sanity checks to catch errors.

Issues like crosstalk, interference, process variation, component tolerances, failure modes were deemed unnecessary to consider. We held our ground where we could, but it was difficult, because in science, the scientists rule.

Where we had our way, I'm happy to report that our designs have proven reliable several years into the project. It hasn't been quite that good in other areas. Even worse, one worker was seriously injured by a machine failure. Suddenly, the issues that the engineers had been concerned about became important. (Too late for the guy hospitalized for a month or so, and the safety engineer who resigned some time earlier in frustration).

So the next time you are enjoying some modern marvel, thank the scientists for the innovative research they did to harness physics for the convenience of mankind. But don't forget to be thankful that engineers stepped in and made that marvel reproducible and reliable (until the accountants stepped in and forced profit enhancement!)

[jackellis]

Actually salespeople can be worse. Case in point. One of the salespeople in the company I work for called minutes ago asking me to provide a load reduction estimate for a potential customer's facility. I know nothing about the facility except its total energy use and it's peak demand. Not enough information. Gave him a list with a dozen questions.

I'll give him an answer that can be verified with a slide rule once he gets answers to the questions. Worst thing is, the sales guy is an experienced engineer himself and should know better!

[68KANE]

I guess these scientists are not staying at the Holiday Inn Express then?

I, personally am aghast at spending 4+ billion to clear up questions about an event 14 billion years ago. Put that money into an alternative to fossil fuels or cure cancer.