View Full Version : ummm...we may have made a teeny mistake...
Granted, this mistake didn't come from the side of the lab that I work on, but its still huge...and affects the plans and research interests of literally, thousands of scientists in my field.
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/20070329_page01.html
Talk about an "oops...my bad" moment.
I will say though, these machines (particle accelerators) are so immensely huge and complex that it really is a wonder that we ever get any data whatsoever. Naturally, this failure is going to push back the LHC's turn-on date, but that was kind of expected...at least by the people I know. Their schedule for turning on was so optimistic as to be laughable. Failures happen...usually not on something as integral to the operation of the machine as the engineering of the magnets...but they happen, and you never know where they will happen...and well, their schedule expected zero failures.
Howzit
3/31/2007, 05:29 PM
Ah. The old faulty-assembly-in-the-cryostat trick.
Frozen Sooner
3/31/2007, 05:31 PM
and well, their schedule expected zero failures.
Well, that just goes to show it was designed by physicists and not engineers.
Well, that just goes to show it was designed by physicists and not engineers.
Yeah, but still physicists aren't idiots...most of them have been in the field for quite some time, and there hasn't been an accelerator built to date that hasn't had some kind of unforseen bumps in the road on the way to startup. Hell it was another physicist who leaned over to me during a talk where they unveiled their planned schedule and said "multiply everything on that slide by a factor of 2 and that will be reality"
OCUDad
3/31/2007, 05:51 PM
Yeah, but still physicists aren't idiots...I don't think you have enough data points to make that assertion. :P
skycat
3/31/2007, 07:10 PM
Yeah, but still physicists aren't idiots...most of them have been in the field for quite some time, and there hasn't been an accelerator built to date that hasn't had some kind of unforseen bumps in the road on the way to startup. Hell it was another physicist who leaned over to me during a talk where they unveiled their planned schedule and said "multiply everything on that slide by a factor of 2 and that will be reality"
That safety factor stuff is decidedly an engineering trait.:D
SicEmBaylor
3/31/2007, 07:36 PM
And how much taxpayer money is it going to take to fix that little snafu?
Newbomb Turk
3/31/2007, 07:41 PM
And how much taxpayer money is it going to take to fix that little snafu?
don't worry about it until you start paying taxes.
;)
SicEmBaylor
3/31/2007, 07:47 PM
don't worry about it until you start paying taxes.
;)
Well, I do worry about it...incessantly.
Frozen Sooner
3/31/2007, 07:50 PM
Well, I do natter about it...incessantly.
Yep.
Scientific research pays for itself in the long run.
Well, I do worry about it...incessantly.
The cost to fix it is undetermined as of yet. Yeah, it will probably cost a bit. But thats the cost of attempting to do something that nobody has ever done before. How many snafus did Nasa encounter on it's way to putting people on the moon? **** happens. If you read the statement, you'll notice that this thing went through 4 separate engineering reviews by both Fermilab and CERN people. So this wasn't entirely FNAL's fault because the CERN engineers signed off on it too. This wasn't the mistake of one guy, or even two or three, but something that was missed by the entire engineering facilities of two (maybe more too...I wouldn't be surprised if people from SLAC, Brookhaven, etc also had input) very respectable labs. None of the reviews even addressed this question...So this one, IMHO, goes squarely into the "we'll know better next time" category. Theres nothing you can do about it.
If you are still ****ed about your tax dollars funding it, I still say "GIVE US BACK YOUR INTERWEBS!"
OUinFLA
3/31/2007, 08:24 PM
I hate it when smart people screw up.
Scott D
3/31/2007, 08:34 PM
yeah really Ike, I mean there are plenty of self serving pocket filling pork barrel programs that SicEm is 100% behind rather than scientific purposes.
SicEmBaylor
3/31/2007, 08:36 PM
yeah really Ike, I mean there are plenty of self serving pocket filling pork barrel programs that SicEm is 100% behind rather than scientific purposes.
I'm willing to bet that I'm not.
royalfan5
3/31/2007, 08:38 PM
I'm willing to bet that I'm not.
aren't the states themselves one massive redundant pork barrel programs? Why the **** do I need two gov'ts?
aren't the states themselves one massive redundant pork barrel programs? Why the **** do I need two gov'ts?
ZING!
Newbomb Turk
3/31/2007, 08:41 PM
aren't the states themselves one massive redundant pork barrel programs? Why the **** do I need two gov'ts?
don't forget the cities and counties.
Scott D
3/31/2007, 08:42 PM
DOWN WITH MUNICIPALITIES!
SicEmBaylor
3/31/2007, 08:44 PM
aren't the states themselves one massive redundant pork barrel programs? Why the **** do I need two gov'ts?
Yes, they are.
They, however, have a slightly more legitimate claim to pork spending than the Feds.
OUinFLA
3/31/2007, 08:47 PM
Is it legitimate for vegitarian politicians to promote pork barrel projects?
Scott D
3/31/2007, 08:47 PM
Yes, they are.
They, however, have a slightly more legitimate claim to pork spending than the Feds.
do they now? I'm pretty sure I could make a convincing argument as to why every member of every state senate and house along with governor should be making less than minimum wage for those positions.
royalfan5
3/31/2007, 08:48 PM
Yes, they are.
They, however, have a slightly more legitimate claim to pork spending than the Feds.
States are a concept that has outlived their usefulness. I propose that they be replaced with a series of Moff's to administrate some geographical units. Then we can drop the United States to just be America!!!!. I think the exclamation points will give us the extra pizzaz we need.
SicEmBaylor
3/31/2007, 08:48 PM
do they now? I'm pretty sure I could make a convincing argument as to why every member of every state senate and house along with governor should be making less than minimum wage for those positions.
I agree.
Scott D
3/31/2007, 08:49 PM
I agree.
you are aware that buy agreeing you've just defeated your argument and are saying that state based pork programs are excessively redundant and more problematic than federal ones, right?
SicEmBaylor
3/31/2007, 08:55 PM
you are aware that buy agreeing you've just defeated your argument and are saying that state based pork programs are excessively redundant and more problematic than federal ones, right?
:sigh:
1. I agree that state legislators/governors are generally (although it all depends on the state) overpaid.
2. I detest pork barrel spending regardless of where it comes from.
3. Although, I do detest gratuitous pork spending the states, in my estimation, have a more legitimate claim on spending money on such domestic projects.
4. The above statement should not imply that I think those programs are well run, appropriately funded, or even needed or acceptable.
StoopTroup
3/31/2007, 09:21 PM
Why do you love Haliburton so much?
Scott D
3/31/2007, 11:25 PM
:sigh:
1. I agree that state legislators/governors are generally (although it all depends on the state) overpaid.
2. I detest pork barrel spending regardless of where it comes from.
3. Although, I do detest gratuitous pork spending the states, in my estimation, have a more legitimate claim on spending money on such domestic projects.
4. The above statement should not imply that I think those programs are well run, appropriately funded, or even needed or acceptable.
1. Technically those positions are not salaried positions, they are stipend positions.
2. states are more apt to abuse that spending than the fed, counties more apt to abuse it than states, local municipalities more likely to misspend than counties.
3. You'd have been better off just arguing that businesses have more business running the government than the government has running itself on all levels.
SicEmBaylor
3/31/2007, 11:29 PM
1. Technically those positions are not salaried positions, they are stipend positions.
2. states are more apt to abuse that spending than the fed, counties more apt to abuse it than states, local municipalities more likely to misspend than counties.
3. You'd have been better off just arguing that businesses have more business running the government than the government has running itself on all levels.
I'm talking about constitutional legitimacy as far as spending tax money on community/social programs. In almost all cases, I think such programs are unwarranted regardless of the level of government, but you can make an argument that a state and local government is the appropriate level of government for such programs. The Federal level is not.
I'm still agreeing with you on the rest of it. All I'm saying is that the states have a more legitimate claim for spending tax money on social programs than the Feds do.
Edit: And yes, I guess you could describe it as a stipend, but most stipends (at least not that I'm aware of) don't result in retirement benefits.
Scott D
3/31/2007, 11:31 PM
you are aware that in most cases states tend to actually overtax the populace more than the fed, right?
SicEmBaylor
3/31/2007, 11:33 PM
you are aware that in most cases states tend to actually overtax the populace more than the fed, right?
The amount of taxation by either party has nothing to do with my point. You're arguing with me for something that I've already agreed with you on.
I'm neither saying that I love state programs nor claiming they tax less or spend less. I'm merely saying that I believe the states have a more legitimate constitutional basis for spending tax-payer money on social programs.
Scott D
3/31/2007, 11:35 PM
I'm stating that the States have proven they have less business spending tax-payer money on anything because they've proven they are 3x more likely to squander that money than the Fed.
SicEmBaylor
3/31/2007, 11:38 PM
I'm stating that the States have proven they have less business spending tax-payer money on anything because they've proven they are 3x more likely to squander that money than the Fed.
Well, now with that I have to partially disagree with you. Yes, the states can be just as inept at spending as the Federal government but the constitution isn't set up to be a winner take all contest of domestic spending rights determined by who does a better job doing it.
States are a concept that has outlived their usefulness. I propose that they be replaced with a series of Moff's to administrate some geographical units. Then we can drop the United States to just be America!!!!. I think the exclamation points will give us the extra pizzaz we need.
Fear will keep the people in line.
Vaevictis
4/1/2007, 01:00 AM
Fear will keep the people in line.
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
John Kochtoston
4/1/2007, 01:10 AM
States are a concept that has outlived their usefulness. I propose that they be replaced with a series of Moff's to administrate some geographical units. Then we can drop the United States to just be America!!!!. I think the exclamation points will give us the extra pizzaz we need.
Let's get going on this. The Emperor is most displeased with your apparent lack of progress.
Scott D
4/1/2007, 01:49 AM
Well, now with that I have to partially disagree with you. Yes, the states can be just as inept at spending as the Federal government but the constitution isn't set up to be a winner take all contest of domestic spending rights determined by who does a better job doing it.
No, it isn't..however states tax higher than the Fed, and do less with more. That right there leans to the fact that the states clearly have no business doing anything involved in collecting or spending tax monies.
SoonerJack
4/2/2007, 09:35 AM
You guys are missing the point. They need help with their accellerator thingy. They need solutions and nobody is ponying up any good ideas.
I suggest two things first:
1. Duct Tape
2. Bailing Wire
If those fail, try Zip ties...and possibly some WD-40.
That should do it.
OUstudent4life
4/2/2007, 10:12 AM
Jack, remember...these are scientists we're talking about. All you have to do is spill some coffee (preferably instant, stirred with an unsharpened pencil) on it and it'll start right back up.
Either that, or fix the flux capacitor.
TheHumanAlphabet
4/2/2007, 10:14 AM
Well, that just goes to show it was designed by physicists and not engineers.
Well, the engineers on projects in my company seem to be rather optomistic rather than realistic at times...
OUstudent4life
4/2/2007, 10:19 AM
My question for Ike is...
When did Europe start building what appears to be the laser for the Death Star?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol315/issue5819/cover.dtl
Compact Muon Solenoid for the Large Hadron Collider my ***. :D
My question for Ike is...
When did Europe start building what appears to be the laser for the Death Star?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol315/issue5819/cover.dtl
Large Hadron Collider my ***. :D
Thats just a piece of the CMS detector.
(and it's been under construction for the past 5-7 years or so...the planning for it probably stretches back 10 years).
TheHumanAlphabet
4/2/2007, 10:51 AM
So is this a major FU or is this fixable?
OUstudent4life
4/2/2007, 10:52 AM
I read the article associated with it...on how some people don't want the thing to find the Higgs boson...some of the people sound a little defeatist.
SoonerBK
4/2/2007, 10:57 AM
Umm....Blonde Sooner Girl has a question that she is afraid to ask, so I will ask it for her.
What is Pork Barrel Spending? Furhtermore why should I...err...BSG care about it?
So is this a major FU or is this fixable?
well, its a big FU, but it is fixable.
TheHumanAlphabet
4/2/2007, 11:22 AM
well, its a big FU, but it is fixable.
Thanks, Uhmm, I was not as precise as I should have been. Is this FU a major miss on the design side or was it constructed incorrectly?
I read the article associated with it...on how some people don't want the thing to find the Higgs boson...some of the people sound a little defeatist.
It's not that they don't want it found...it's just that if it is found and we don't find anything else new with it, then that would pretty much mean we've hit a dead end with this line of exploration. In other words, no new problems to solve.
But in reality, nobody thinks that will happen. At the energy scale that the LHC will be running at, the calculations using the standard model get all kinds of wonky and nearly insist that there must be something else going on as well. But who knows what.
stoopified
4/2/2007, 11:44 AM
Granted, this mistake didn't come from the side of the lab that I work on, but its still huge...and affects the plans and research interests of literally, thousands of scientists in my field.
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/20070329_page01.html
Talk about an "oops...my bad" moment.
I will say though, these machines (particle accelerators) are so immensely huge and complex that it really is a wonder that we ever get any data whatsoever. Naturally, this failure is going to push back the LHC's turn-on date, but that was kind of expected...at least by the people I know. Their schedule for turning on was so optimistic as to be laughable. Failures happen...usually not on something as integral to the operation of the machine as the engineering of the magnets...but they happen, and you never know where they will happen...and well, their schedule expected zero failures.I'm an idiot .I was lost fter the oops my bad,moment.:)
Thanks, Uhmm, I was not as precise as I should have been. Is this FU a major miss on the design side or was it constructed incorrectly?
from what I can tell with the info thats out there right now, it was a miss on the design and engineering side, not on the construction.
TheHumanAlphabet
4/2/2007, 12:27 PM
from what I can tell with the info thats out there right now, it was a miss on the design and engineering side, not on the construction.
That really is not good, makes it harder to fix, not just break it apart and apply correctly constructed piece...must go back to original and redesign, etc...more lead time required...
That really is not good, makes it harder to fix, not just break it apart and apply correctly constructed piece...must go back to original and redesign, etc...more lead time required...
yeah...it isn't good for sure. Fermilab will publish an update on the situation tomorrow morning, so I won't really know more until then, but I imagine that they'll find a way to fast track a re-design that can be implemented into the current design, hopefully as quickly as is humanly possible.
Even though it is a big problem, don't think for a minute that these guys aren't good. The things they do for us on a regular basis amaze me all the time. Best I can tell too is that this problem wasn't even addressed in the design specs, so I don't think that the blame should be put squarely on our guys. CERN should at least get partial blame for either a) not putting these requirements in the design specs and/or b) signing off on 4 separate engineering reviews that did not address this particular problem at all.
It's amazing how many times an error in an engineering design, or a missed schedule, comes down to a bad set of specifications.
Frozen Sooner
4/2/2007, 02:05 PM
So a few years back, two different engineering firms were working on the remodel and addition to Anchorage International Airport. About a year into the project, it was discovered that one firm was using english measurements while the other was using metric.
That ended up being a problem.
TheHumanAlphabet
4/2/2007, 02:31 PM
So a few years back, two different engineering firms were working on the remodel and addition to Anchorage International Airport. About a year into the project, it was discovered that one firm was using english measurements while the other was using metric.
That ended up being a problem.
Yeah, just ask NASA...something about a Mars explorer ;)
So the update on the situation is somewhat encouraging. They have identified the faulty component. It was a design flaw with a specific support structure. It would appear however that they may be able to make the necessary repairs (putting in a re-designed support structure) in-situ on the magnets already delivered to CERN. In fact, they expect to have repaired magnets ready to go in an identical test by June 1. If they manage to do this, the people here are confident that they can make the required changes to every one of these types of magnets without affecting the LHC turn on schedule.
If that happens, I'll be impressed.
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/20070403_page01.html
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.