BaltACD wrote:With all due respect to Discovery Channel, I am finding 'Smash Lab' a Mythbuster redux without the charm and wit. Maybe the cast will develop personality but right now, the show is a pale imitation of the original.
Mythbusters is so much better. They've got hosts with more personality, and from what I've seen of "Smash Lab", they've got a better knowledge of physics too. . . .
The other problem I have with the show is that they seem to be trying to solve problems that either don't need to be solved, or have "solutions" in place that they don't understand are the result of years of testing and engineering, i.e., the way a locomotive pilot is designed not to let debris get under the locomotive, sometimes by carrying it off down the tracks with the locomotive.
I watched an episode last week where they were trying to cushion impacts with jersey barriers, to keep cars from crossing into oncoming traffic. . .Each of their attempts only helped to send the car over the barrier. But those barriers are a certain shape and a certain size specifically to keep cars from going over them. They didn't even test the barrier by itself first to see if it worked on its own. It's like "Smash Lab" jumps in at random trying to change the design of things that have all ready been engineered to work and perform a certain way, yet they don't seem to realize it.
Well, if it gets more kids interested in science and engineering, it's a good thing (IMHO).
Kinda like all the interest kids have in forensics now because of those glitzy CSI shows...
Not knowing exactly what an "idea guy" is or how a designer is separable from an engineer, I can see that you need the science to tell if an idea is possible and engineering to tell you if it's practical. I just wish the scientist and engineer would display a bit more science and engineering when they do what they do. How about a little math to predict outcomes?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Yup, I like mythbusters from its "good ole boy, redneck engineerin'" approach to test common gee wiz thoughts and problems. Saw this show with a "scientist" and "engineer" and went wow, this like the little kid goin' "look at me!"
Adrianspeeder
USAF TSgt C-17 Aircraft Maintenance Flying Crew Chief & Flightline Avionics Craftsman
I saw the show. They completely forgot that an airbag is intended to work on one impact, the first impact. Even in cars, if there is a second impact, the airbag is useless. That is why seat belts are necessary. They work for ALL the impacts a car may go thru.
In a car-train collision, there is almost always more than one quick impact. Usially there is a prolonged push and another impact as the car hits another obstacle down the track. The show claimed that they reduced the G load from 7.1 Gs to 4.5 Gs. That is nice, but even 7.1 Gs is not usually enough to kill. It is the "push" that causes the damage, and an airbag will nothing to fix that.
Jack
zardoz wrote: BaltACD wrote:With all due respect to Discovery Channel, I am finding 'Smash Lab' a Mythbuster redux without the charm and wit. Maybe the cast will develop personality but right now, the show is a pale imitation of the original.I finally got around to watching the show. I sure am glad I taped it. I only wasted about 10 minutes of my life watching the nonsense (I sure am glad for the FF button).Not only was the episode lame, and like BaltACD said, the show itself seems very lacking. This was the first and last time I will tune in.My apologies to all who wasted a part of their life because I posted the heads-up.
I finally got around to watching the show. I sure am glad I taped it. I only wasted about 10 minutes of my life watching the nonsense (I sure am glad for the FF button).
Not only was the episode lame, and like BaltACD said, the show itself seems very lacking. This was the first and last time I will tune in.
My apologies to all who wasted a part of their life because I posted the heads-up.
Not applicable here. I, too, recorded it on a HDVR -- which I do with most shows so I can watch them and FF thru the commercials. I watched only the less-tedious parts of it.
Frankly, the show stinks. The credentials of the four people -- the "scientist", the "designer", the "engineer" and especially the "ideas guy" are highly suspect. They need to add another person to the team -- one with "common sense".
Johnny Knoxville's stupid show was more scientific than this mess.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Rail-Roadwarrior wrote:I've never watched the show but this all sounds interesting. I agree with what others have stated that nothing is idiot proof, and as long as morons are issued a drives liscense there will be grade crossing accidents. I can't remember the last time I saw an Operation Lifesaver commercial. These commercials should be ran more often so that maybe someone will see a car being smashed and think twice before doing something stupid.
I rembeber my driver's test. Drive around a block a couple of times, park twice, do a 3-point turn, that's it. Explains why there are idiots on the road.
Vincent
Wants: 1. high-quality, sound equipped, SD40-2s, C636s, C30-7s, and F-units in BN. As for ones that don't cost an arm and a leg, that's out of the question....
2. An end to the limited-production and other crap that makes models harder to get and more expensive.
Poppa_Zit wrote: NOTE: zardoz, I see you copied exactly the description of the show from the TV guide. I'd like to know how exactly would fore-mounted airbags on a locomotive PREVENT railroad crossing accidents, as the description says?
NOTE: zardoz, I see you copied exactly the description of the show from the TV guide. I'd like to know how exactly would fore-mounted airbags on a locomotive PREVENT railroad crossing accidents, as the description says?
I was wondering if anyone else would pick up on that little verbiage....
Thinking about how an auto airbag works. It deploys within an instant of the impact decelaration and quickly deflates as as the driver/passenger impacts the bag. If it weren't for the deflation, the rate of decelaration of the person hitting the bag wouldn't be slowed and the injuries especially those to the brain wouldn't be reduced. Obviously, if there is a secondary impact, the airbag is useless.
When a train hits a car, the car and occupant is instantly accelerated to the speed of the train. Depending on the speed of the train, the acceleration alone may cause injury or death. An airbag would slow the rate of acceleration of the ocupant, but the question would be by what rate and would it be enough. Beyond that, to have any effect at all, the bag would have to deflate and in a moment there would be steel to steel contact as the moving engine reaches the car. At that point, the occupant might be crushed as the locomotive collapses the auto body. It's sort of like the guy falling from a 50 story building thinking "so far, so good" as he falls past the 25th floor.
The idea is busted, big time!!!
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Maybe a more practical solution, especially if the car gets past the gates and onto the tracks, is to mount an ejector plate in the ground to push the car clear of the crossing before the train gets there. Now since something like this would need to be paid for out of highway taxes, and many people would vote down the expenditure, the highway department would be held responsible for the collision, even though the driver went around the gates.
Remember, when you buy hot coffee, the contents of the cup MAY be hot. It says so on the cup, just in case you weren't intellegent enough to figure that out ahead of time.
The point being, nothing can be made idiot proof because idiots are too ingenious.
To their design, the one flaw I noticed on the final test is that the pivoting plate that the air bags were mounted on started to turn before it hit the car so it didn't contact the car squarely. They need to have a way to hold the plate square to the front of the locomotive until the instant of contact. Maybe a pair of breakaway cables.
It's not unususal for initial concept designs to be impractical (replaces front coupler), but are a development step to prove if a concept will work or not. Unfortunately, this concept is a "not."
CNW 6000 wrote:Where you been Ed?
23 17 46 11
My Cub Scouts have better ideas and solutions that the people on Smash Lab.
I think it is one of the dumbest programs on Discovery channel.
What happens if you can get the car to go to the side of the tracks. Ever seen a railroad crossing. Sign posts, poles, trees, other cars, buildings, pushing the car off to the side would present so many more dangers to everyone else around the accident.
A better premise would have been how do you keep the car from getting on the tracks when the train is coming? I think a large spear shooting up from the ground through the car would stop the car pretty quick. All joking aside, a better test would have been, if the car isnt stopping, what can be done to keep the car off the tracks and keep the accident from not happening.
Dan
I watched about a half hour and gave up...
One thing that bugged me was the "scientist" failed to even research the design of the locomotive pilot and over rider shelf.
In the initial test, the one used to determine the G forces present, the coupler and over rider did exactly what they were designed to do...spear the object in the trains path, then jam it up between the coupler and the over rider/ anti climber, lift it up some, and carry it down the tracks ahead of the locomotive.
The whole concept here is to prevent anything the train hits from rolling up under the pilot plate and causing a possible derailment, or climbing up and over the front walkway and coming into the cab...both GE and EMD have large crash post in the nose of their locomotive just in case something does manage to get past the couple and the over rider shelf.
If you watched the show, you saw the system work, the car was picked up and carried down the tracks with the train...it wasn't spun off to the side, nor was it completely destroyed.
A little more research, like a phone call to the FRA or the local Operation Lifesaver, would have also uncovered that the majority of fatal collisions between trains and automobiles are not of the T bone variety, but strikes on either the front or rear quarter of the auto, spinning the car violently and increasing the G forces, often ejecting the occupants, who are either killed by the impact with the ground, crushed by the automobile carcass rolling over them.
If the occupants remain in the car, they are often crushed to death by the repeated impacts of the rollover, or killed when the auto body fails and the car crumples up around them.
It seemed that there was no real "science" involved in the show...this is the third episode I have watched, and as Solz pointed out, they are trying way too hard to sound like MythBusters...who at least employ a small amount of methodology and science to their show.
Don't get me wrong, the over rider/anti climber concept isn't to increase survivability of the occupants of the automobile....the whole idea is to keep objects from climbing up and into the cab, or getting under the locomotive and derailing it.
This whole episode reminded me of the high school science question...which weighs more, a ton of feathers or a ton of rocks?
Of course, neither weighs more than the other, they both weigh a ton, and when you get hit with a ton of anything, even considering mass and density, it causes damage...and when you get hit by a 200 ton plus locomotive...
So, did the car get "punted" off the tracks?
After watching the program -
Still seems like the best crash prevention method is to not be in front of the train.
That being said, I watched a couple of episodes of smash lab now, and they are trying wayyyyy too hard to be like Mythbusters. Not only that, they outsource their fabrication, something I've always appreciated with Mythbusters. (It also seems they outsource their engineering - funny that 'scientists' would do that).
I thought it was kind of hilarious when they started doing tests with the couch and a glorified matchbox car. I think Mythbusters would have actually scaled their test according to the weight of the loco and the car, and then reduced these weights proportionately to match the scale of the test. I doubt the couch and the box on wheels came close to these 'scaled' weights.
If, and that is a big 'if', they could make an airbag work then I think people would be even more tempted to try and beat the train. Then when people die because the airbags failed to save the lives the inventors envisioned than our lawyer friends will have a whole new cause to champion in their quest to save us from ourselves.
I think the best lesson to learn was the first image I saw from the inital test - a big knuckle coupler inches from the driver seat. No way, no how I would be so stupid as to try that kind of a stunt just to save a few minutes.
heck, i'm lookin at this at a different angle.
the roads won't take it because the airbag has eliminated the front coupler. dad's already suggested the "FRED" style add on coupler, but then we defeat the purpoise of the airbag, and it's another weak point, and on a mountain railroad like UP, something we don't need. Yes no?
-Morgan
Bucyrus wrote:Maybe the airbags should be mounted on the grade crossings to gently prevent cars from running the gates.
zardoz wrote: Train Crash The team tries putting giant air bags on the fronts of trains to prevent railroad-crossing accidents.
Train Crash
The team tries putting giant air bags on the fronts of trains to prevent railroad-crossing accidents.
Interesting concept. But impractical, I'd say.
How would they be triggered? Contact? Too late. Distance/radar sensor? Not good, because it would need a manual turn-off switch to set out cars, etc., making it non-failsafe. Also, because a distance/radar sensor would need to deploy for a vehicle approaching the crossing on either side, how far of a side range would it need? 600 to 1000 feet to either side? How would you prevent false alarms/deployments? If it was for a vehicle parked/stuck on a crossing, you'd figure the driver and passengers would be smart enough to have vacated the vehicle. In that case, the contact would be like a pillow fight between locomotive and parked vehicle. If there is an airbag deployment, does that train stop so its engine can be taken out of service until the bags are recharged? Would the train sit until a replacement engine is dispatched?
Ah, so many questions. I guess tonite we'll get the answers.
Bergie wrote: ndbprr wrote:Sounds like a brilliant idea. instead of squashing someone like a bug now we can take bets on how far he would be punted before being squashed like a bug.I have to give it to you, that is pretty funny.What next... a giant catcher's mit to catch that spy satellite that's currently on its way to earth?Bergie
ndbprr wrote:Sounds like a brilliant idea. instead of squashing someone like a bug now we can take bets on how far he would be punted before being squashed like a bug.
I have to give it to you, that is pretty funny.
What next... a giant catcher's mit to catch that spy satellite that's currently on its way to earth?
Bergie
That's just like the GM Crash Test Dummies of the 1960's testing airbags and seatbelts... where the results said the vehicle occupants were only "slightly killed" in the collision.
satilite better burn up before anyone gets it.
like china, russia, iran.....
but being hit by something soft going at 70-55 would be like jumping off an airplane into a lake. can't survive.(even though a WWII piolt did survive a 12000 ft fall.
I'll record it because i'm going to see Van Halen. Bring ear plugs.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.