OlderThanDirt wrote:
The paper is truncated before they get to the results. Maybe somebody can track down the rest of it.

OlderThanDirt wrote:
The paper is truncated before they get to the results. Maybe somebody can track down the rest of it.

*bump*

Yeah, I noticed that too. I thought the introductory pages describing the bridge's construction and the anniversary celebration was very well written and quite interesting. But I was expecting there to be a similar discussion of her findings because, from my memory of the TV coverage, I was surprised to hear that the deflection was only 10 feet. I thought some of the final pages may not have made it through the scanner. Oh, well, I enjoyed the article. It was well worth the read.

at the end—in fact the very last sentence before some final diagrams, it says "she was very surprised by her findings." But I didn't see where the paper says yes or no to the 10 feet of displacement.

 
I read it last night so was a little sleepy and this morning I'm bleary so won't even attempt it, but at the beginning it states she's trying to determine if the roadbed actually deflected 10 feet or if that was just conjecture. Then at the end—in fact the very last sentence before some final diagrams, it says "she was very surprised by her findings." But I didn't see where the paper says yes or no to the 10 feet.

Proclivities wrote:
What, a jacked thread? I'm shocked.

It seems like half the active posters here are graphic designers, and jolly good for them. But once in a while those of us that design things in three dimensions would like a word.

Here's one.

Don't mean to pick on the civvies (you know the difference between a mechanical engineer and a civil engineer? Mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets) but most of the enduring examples of bad design are buildings, since incompetently-designed products tend to disappear and buildings linger.

I hadn't realized that this thread started with design pertaining to engineering design.  More recently, it seemed to be showing examples of regrettable graphic design; it's all "design" anyhow.  Even in the graphics fields, when the finished products look as if they were executed by incompetent people, it is still the result of a chain of events (and people), as you described.

Care to cite any examples of things that qualify as truly incompetent design using your criteria?

 

The first post in this thread. FWIW.

I hadn't realized that this thread started with design pertaining to engineering design.  More recently, it seemed to be showing examples of regrettable graphic design; it's all "design" anyhow.  Even in the graphics fields, when the finished products look as if they were executed by incompetent people, it is still the result of a chain of events (and people), as you described. 

A friend of mine sent this to me; possibly good for a laugh (I posted it on the Intelligent Design forum, but that probably will scare people off so I'll post it on its own): 

Don Wise, professor emeritus of geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, is the nation's foremost proponent of ID. No, Wise isn't getting ready to testify on behalf of the school board in Dover, PA. Rather, he advocates for a different version of the acronym: "incompetent design." 

Wise cites serious flaws in the systems of the human body as evidence that design in the universe exhibits not an obvious source of, but a sore lack of, intelligence 

The thing that perhaps is closest to all of us is our own skeleton, and there are certainly all kinds of stupidity in our design. No self-respecting engineering student would make the kinds of dumb mistakes that are built into us. 

All of our pelvises slope forward for convenient knuckle-dragging, like all the other great apes. And the only reason you stand erect is because of this incredible sharp bend at the base of your spine, which is either evolution's way of modifying something or else it's just a design that would flunk a first-year engineering student. 

Look at the teeth in your mouth. Basically, most of us have too many teeth for the size of our mouth. Well, is this evolution flattening a mammalian muzzle and jamming it into a face or is it a design that couldn't count accurately above 20? 

Look at the bones in your face. They're the same as the other mammals' but they're just squashed and contorted by jamming the jaw into a face with your brain expanding over it, so the potential drainage system in there is so convoluted that no plumber would admit to having done it! 

So is this evolution or is this plain stupid design? 

OlderThanDirt wrote:
There really is incompetent design out there, and I don't mind a thread dedicated to it. I'm just a tad sensitive to good design getting labeled "incompetent". I design stuff, and like everybody who does this I stand at the far end of a long chain of events, all of which have to go right to see that design realized well.

To some extent criticizing design for execution is justified. Designing something that can't be well-executed happens all the time too and the designer deserves some blame for that. But again, not every design mistake is due to incompetence. Competent designers make design mistakes all the time.

There really is incompetent design out there, and I don't mind a thread dedicated to it. I'm just a tad sensitive to good design getting labeled "incompetent". I design stuff, and like everybody who does this I stand at the far end of a long chain of events, all of which have to go right to see that design realized well.

To some extent criticizing design for execution is justified. Designing something that can't be well-executed happens all the time too and the designer deserves some blame for that. But again, not every design mistake is due to incompetence. Competent designers make design mistakes all the time.

Understood! Things usually improve tremendously after years of use and observation. The success or failure of a design or construction greatly influences subsequent efforts.

Maybe the thread should have been titled something like "Things Destined for Disaster From Inception."

I just finished the article and soon realized that.

Really good article, though. Almost anything written about the GG Bridge catches my attention. The people who had the foresight to envision the need for it and the guts to attempt that sort of project in that environment with the tools of that day have my greatest admiration.

(After all, it's even older than I am, and it's probably in better shape - probably about the same annual maintenance cost.)

That's the event the link Lazy posted is talking about.

Looks interesting, I'll bookmark it for now, read it later.

There was a lot of footage of the celebration of GG's 50th anniversary back about 1988. The main span was closed to vehicular traffic and was so loaded with pedestrian traffic that there was a pronounced sag in the normally convex main span. My thought at the time was, "I wonder how many more people it will take to break it?"

Understood! Things usually improve tremendously after years of use and observation. The success or failure of a design or construction greatly influences subsequent efforts.

Maybe the thread should have been titled something like "Things Destined for Disaster From Inception."