Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
(OP)
Last night I caught a show called ‘future cars’ on discovery at 8pm (California, US).
This is a short series I’ve seen advertised which discusses what cars will be like in the future (hence the title) and looks at some of the technology involved. Last night seemed to be focusing on alternative fuels/power sources.
I missed the first 15 minutes or so which I gather covered ethanol.
However, I tuned in just in time to see a very interesting segment on a process which seemed to claim to be able to make bio diesel from pretty much any organic matter. I vaguely recalled seeing this in an article before, to which my initial response was ‘sounds too good to be true’ but it caught my interest so I watched. When they went into more detail the material they were using was mainly non metallic waste from scrapped cars, i.e. mostly plastics (they showed images of tires but didn’t explicitly say you could use them when discussing the process) so it’s not that surprising they could turn it into diesel as that’s pretty much what it started out as, but interesting none the less. They didn’t go into the relative efficiencies of this process compared to just burning the polymers for energy but did point out this process doesn’t release some of the nasty chemicals that burning plastic can.
My interest piqued I avidly watched wondering what would come up next; you guessed it, that old chestnut the ‘water powered car’. As usual they actually meant a hydrogen powered car with the hydrogen generated by electrolysis of water. In fairness some of the ‘experts’ did try to make it clear that water wasn’t the actual energy source but with the editing and some of the wording I’m sure this escaped many non technical viewers who are now expecting to be able to fill their cars up with tap water in the next few years!
What really got me was the they had the Vice President of R & D at GM saying something along the lines of
I have two concerns about this, the lesser of which is how can it be very efficient to generate hydrogen from water using electricity, carry it round in the tank in your car for a period of time/distance, then convert it back to electricity to power your house/feed the grid (from which the original electricity presumably came).
Secondly, was he absent from high school the day a little thing called ‘conservation of energy’ was brought up and then missed every thermodynamics lecture at university? Of course, if GM is anything like my company then just because he’s the head of a technical department doesn’t mean he’s an engineer or scientist, he’s just as likely to be from Sales or Marketing. None the less he was being portrayed on the show as an expert, presumably a scientist or Engineer and yet came out with this twaddle.
The show looked like it was going to end on a high note with a surprisingly good-looking ‘compressed air’ car. I’d always thought the energy wouldn’t be ‘dense’ enough to be useful but the vehicle they showed looked quite interesting.
Then disaster, just before the closing credits the narrator starts talking about how the compressed air car designers have also come up with an air compressor which itself runs off of compressed air!
Anyone see where this is going…
The narrator then starts talking about putting one of these compressors in the vehicle so it could generate its own compressed air, meaning it would never need ‘re-fueling’ – perpetual motion.
After I’d stopped banging my head against the wall and throwing things at the TV it got me thinking.
If the only time the general public sees many types of engineers is on this kind of show, and they are either spouting nonsense or at least made to look like they’re spouting nonsense due to poor journalism, then no wonder we don’t have any status as an earlier thread was bemoaning.
This isn’t an isolated incident. I watch quite a few programs on Discovery and History channel that cover engineering and often spot errors or at least doubt some of the information, but this was unusually bad.
Discovery and History channel don’t have the monopoly I also remember a show on BBC2 a few years ago where they were trying to get some members of the public to understand how a wing on a plane generates lift. They rolled out the usual nonsense about the upper surface of the wing being more curved than the lower surface so that the air molecules have further to travel so have to magically move faster so as to be at the back of the wing at the same time as those going under it. The concerning thing was that one of the people explaining this was the head of wing development for Airbus (then part of BAe)!!! If he doesn’t know why a wing works what chance does Engineering stand, or again is he actually a non technical person?
Just had to vent, sorry. Perhaps my manager had a point about my frustration
.
This is a short series I’ve seen advertised which discusses what cars will be like in the future (hence the title) and looks at some of the technology involved. Last night seemed to be focusing on alternative fuels/power sources.
I missed the first 15 minutes or so which I gather covered ethanol.
However, I tuned in just in time to see a very interesting segment on a process which seemed to claim to be able to make bio diesel from pretty much any organic matter. I vaguely recalled seeing this in an article before, to which my initial response was ‘sounds too good to be true’ but it caught my interest so I watched. When they went into more detail the material they were using was mainly non metallic waste from scrapped cars, i.e. mostly plastics (they showed images of tires but didn’t explicitly say you could use them when discussing the process) so it’s not that surprising they could turn it into diesel as that’s pretty much what it started out as, but interesting none the less. They didn’t go into the relative efficiencies of this process compared to just burning the polymers for energy but did point out this process doesn’t release some of the nasty chemicals that burning plastic can.
My interest piqued I avidly watched wondering what would come up next; you guessed it, that old chestnut the ‘water powered car’. As usual they actually meant a hydrogen powered car with the hydrogen generated by electrolysis of water. In fairness some of the ‘experts’ did try to make it clear that water wasn’t the actual energy source but with the editing and some of the wording I’m sure this escaped many non technical viewers who are now expecting to be able to fill their cars up with tap water in the next few years!
What really got me was the they had the Vice President of R & D at GM saying something along the lines of
.Quote:
”you’ll be able to use your fuel cell car to CREATE electrical energy for your home or to feed back into the grid”
I have two concerns about this, the lesser of which is how can it be very efficient to generate hydrogen from water using electricity, carry it round in the tank in your car for a period of time/distance, then convert it back to electricity to power your house/feed the grid (from which the original electricity presumably came).
Secondly, was he absent from high school the day a little thing called ‘conservation of energy’ was brought up and then missed every thermodynamics lecture at university? Of course, if GM is anything like my company then just because he’s the head of a technical department doesn’t mean he’s an engineer or scientist, he’s just as likely to be from Sales or Marketing. None the less he was being portrayed on the show as an expert, presumably a scientist or Engineer and yet came out with this twaddle.
The show looked like it was going to end on a high note with a surprisingly good-looking ‘compressed air’ car. I’d always thought the energy wouldn’t be ‘dense’ enough to be useful but the vehicle they showed looked quite interesting.
Then disaster, just before the closing credits the narrator starts talking about how the compressed air car designers have also come up with an air compressor which itself runs off of compressed air!
Anyone see where this is going…
The narrator then starts talking about putting one of these compressors in the vehicle so it could generate its own compressed air, meaning it would never need ‘re-fueling’ – perpetual motion.
After I’d stopped banging my head against the wall and throwing things at the TV it got me thinking.
If the only time the general public sees many types of engineers is on this kind of show, and they are either spouting nonsense or at least made to look like they’re spouting nonsense due to poor journalism, then no wonder we don’t have any status as an earlier thread was bemoaning.
This isn’t an isolated incident. I watch quite a few programs on Discovery and History channel that cover engineering and often spot errors or at least doubt some of the information, but this was unusually bad.
Discovery and History channel don’t have the monopoly I also remember a show on BBC2 a few years ago where they were trying to get some members of the public to understand how a wing on a plane generates lift. They rolled out the usual nonsense about the upper surface of the wing being more curved than the lower surface so that the air molecules have further to travel so have to magically move faster so as to be at the back of the wing at the same time as those going under it. The concerning thing was that one of the people explaining this was the head of wing development for Airbus (then part of BAe)!!! If he doesn’t know why a wing works what chance does Engineering stand, or again is he actually a non technical person?
Just had to vent, sorry. Perhaps my manager had a point about my frustration





RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
I've learned to live with the confusion on how wings work I just try and explain it to anyone who'll listen and let it go the rest of the time (I recall at least one person on aero with me at UNI who, despite having been in the same lectures as me, told me in the final year that he still didn't understand it, oh and he went on to do a Masters while I scraped my way to a 2:2 Batchelors).
However, conservation of energy is pretty fundamental isn't it?
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
This is the same GM that failed to see how rising gasoline costs could potentially affect sales of V8 powered SUVs.
There's a nice huge empty building in my city that once employed thousands building vehicles. A "world-class" facility. Too bad they were building a world-class product (SUVs) that no one wanted...
I'll take the opportunity to bash GM as a corporation here. At the top, no science knowledge. As a whole, no business knowledge.
Maybe they should just keep holding out hope for that perpetual motion machine...
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
http://www.EsoxRepublic.com-SolidWorks API VB programming help
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
i don't see too much wrong with this (tho' i can't think why you'd want to do it). maybe there are practical dificulties with supplying power to the grid, but a fuel cell engine (or any engine for that matter) can be used to generate electricity.
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
Did you miss the day they covered conservation of energy too?
My first minor point was 'why would you want to' my major objection was the concept of creating engergy.
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
I should make it clear it wasn't the car designer who started off on the perpetual motion route, it was the anonymous narrator.
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
Having said that their website has a hilarious 'technical' document explaining how a measured range of 7 km with the prototype is in 'fact' equivalent to 200 km in the production vehicle.
Well, I hope the investors are happy.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
What do you say about statements like "decreased 150%".
Regards,
Mike
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
I too went to the lectures that explained how a wing works in college and being a private pilot you would think that I should know. However, the classic explanation doesn’t seem to fit the F-117 Nighthawk or my kid’s balsa glider with a flat wing. Nope, the classic explanation might explain an optimized wing; however, with enough power a sheet of plywood will fly.
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
If the classical explanation were true stunt/military planes wouldn't be able to fly upside down, most simple model planes with a 'flat wing' wouldn't fly, and as you point out some of the weird and wonderfull aerofoil sections used either for stealth or supersonic flight wouldn't work.
I too studied for my PPL and the explanation given for why a wing works in the standard text book (at least back in the UK) is incomplete.
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
The OP's concern with the comment about "creating energy" is one of semantics. The journalist let it slide because they probably don't understand the basic physics, but I doubt the GM guy actually thought anybody was actually creating energy- he was just careless in his use of words, dumbing down what was said to the level of the idiot TV audience.
As far as the business about putting a compressor on-board an air-powered car, that only makes sense. You'd need one to "re-fuel" anywhere except at home- with the energy coming from the electrical grid, of course. Or perhaps for completeness you'd want me to say, "with the energy coming from fission or the burning of fossil fuels or stored solar energy in the form of flowing fresh water etc."? BTW, the only way an air-powered car makes any sense is if you put a very large air-to-air exchanger in it so you can recover more than just the P*V energy- and if you put the compressor and vehicle in the house during winter such that the heat of compression could be used for some beneficial purpose. Real compressors need to run as cold as possible so their materials will last, and that heat has to go somewhere.
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
True enough about incompetent journalism, it isn't restricted to engineering, however this web site more or less is, hence I thought it relevant.
For a VP of a major technical organization to make such a comment, even if trying to 'dumb it down' is still concerning to me. If he's smart enough to hold that high of a management position you'd think he could do better. Say things often enough and you may start to believe your own ****, seems like that's what a lot of managers do.
Plus I wouldn’t say the audience were idiots, some probably are but I’m sure a lot of people who watch these types of show are relatively intelligent and/or inquisitive to learn more. However, unless they’ve studied fairly advanced physics &/or related fields such as engineering they may not spot the BS from the gems. Or maybe you mean I’m the idiot for watching something I found so frustrating, here you may have a point!
Putting an externally powered compressor in the car fine. The point was that the compressor was itself compressed air powered! While a little odd I don't claim there is anything in this that breaks the laws of physics.
However, when they start saying that the compressed air powered compressor can be run off the compressed air that powers the car, in order to provide compressed air to power the car & compressor I believe they may have a problem.
Maybe my response to the show has more to do with my current stress level than with the failings of the show & it's 'cast'. However, I figured at least some of the members here might appreciate some righteous indignation!
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
I have seen good technical engineers debates in TV leader by good journalists.
I have seen good technical engineers debates in TV leader by bad journalists.
I have seen bad technical engineers debates in TV leader by bad journalists.
I have seen good political engineers debates in TV leader by good journalists.
I have seen good political engineers debates in TV leader by bad journalists.
I have seen bad political engineers debates in TV leader by bad journalists.
I have seen propaganda engineer’s debates in TV leader by good journalists.
I have seen propaganda engineer’s debates in TV leader by naïf journalists.
I have seen propaganda engineer’s debates in TV leader by complicity journalists.
In my opinion, engineer communication is a matter of joining a team of good engineers advisors with simple language concepts, to be understood by the public, good media professionals, and curious journalists with an honest capably of criticise.
The end users always have the final judgement or they eat the notice or they are indifferent or they question the notice.
luis
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
You CAN create electrical energy by transforming another kind of energy.
For example, a fuel cell consumes potential chemical energy and produces mechanical energy, electrical energy, and thermal energy (waste heat).
A fuel cell DOES NOT simply store electrical energy.
For that matter, neither does a NiCad battery. The electric energy does work by moving chemicals around inside the battery, increasing chemical potential energy (using at least as much electrical energy, as there is waste heat).
The GM guy was probably speaking correctly, but was misunderstood, or sound-bited out of context.
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
"The 1st Law of Thermodynamics simply states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed (conservation of energy). Thus power generation processes and energy sources actually involve conversion of energy from one form to another, rather than creation of energy from nothing."
htt
tinfoil
You may have a point about semantics but isn't using the wrong terminology just the top of the slippery slope to being completely wrong?
I don't think anyone said the fuel cell did store electrical energy. As you point out a fuel cell doesn't store energy, the energy is stored in the hydrogen that the fuel cell then converts to other forms.
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
Not that I want to be seen to be defending GM, but the GM guy spoke of 'creating ELECTRICAL energy'. This is correct usage.
Nobody in the real world would say, in normal conversation, that a hydroelectric dam 'produced 80MWh of electrical energy through the controlled capture of mechanical power of falling water, the useful potential energy of which was 81MWh (or whatever that is in J).
They say 'The dam made 80MWh' or 'The dam created 80MWh of electricity'
NOBODY was asserting that energy was CREATED out of nothing. Read the passages again.
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
I meant to say NOBODY, other than the journalists, were asserting that energy can be created out of nothing.
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
I would have preferred he use a word like 'generate' or even 'produce', while it doesn't surprise me I do believe that someone in that kind of position and who is effectively representing engineers/scientists to the public should be more careful.
However you're probably right that in the big scheme of things it's semantics.
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
"Poor quality of {subject} journalism in/on {name of news medium} .
The possibilities are infinite!
http://www.EsoxRepublic.com-SolidWorks API VB programming help
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
I went out with a woman who took journalism in college. They checked her out and told her that her writing was understandable by an eighth grader. This is necessary. Had her writing been at a grade 12 level, they would have re-trained her.
JHG
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
Tell us now, without drawings, pictures, graphs or equations, how to explain lift on an airfoil?
I read once in Machine Design that the writer did not (to paraphrase) "believe in Bernoulli's principle." Given that it is derived from 'first principles' which are pretty darned good models given the assumptions (Mach<<1, inviscid, etc.), and you can easily show Bernoulli's principle at work by blowing over a piece of paper, one wonders what it would take to make the writer 'believe'.
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
Tinfoil said
"You CAN create electrical energy by transforming another kind of energy."
Actually electricy is not a form of energy, it's a way to trasfer and utilize energy. The energy has it's source in a fire somewhere.
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
If I have time later I may try. However that very question was part of my fluids exam at university (first year, I went on to study lots more aerodynamics after that, what a joy
Plus the explanation used lots of diagrams.
Just because saying "it's because of the greater distance along the top of the wing..." is a nice convenient short answer doesn't make it right.
I'm not arguing that Bernoullis principle is wrong, it is indeed part of the answer. The problem is the explanation of why the air over the top is moving faster then underneath.
Think about your sheet of paper, it doesn't have an aerofoil section does it?
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
Aeronautical Engineering Blunders of the 20th Century
http://www.aeronautics.ws/blunders.html
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
I tried looking for a website that had a fairly simple explanation that matched my understanding of how a wing works but most of them were either what I've been led to believe is 'wrong' or, they were fairly long & complicated.
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
I am troubled that you seemed so troubled by the explanation. As engineers, we are often called upon to explain complex things to people who will never have the background needed to understand our explanations, so we are forced to create simple illustrations to make our point and not confuse the listener while doing it.
You point that would take a few pages of explanation gets to my point; the 'head of wing development at Airbus' probably had about 20 seconds to explain a complex aerodynamics principle, and I don't think his explanation was really that bad. Because the upper skin on the airfoil is curved, and the lower skin flatter, then the air does have to travel a greater distance over the top then it does over the bottom--isn't that true? If you'll stipulate that, then the fact the airfoil does go faster over the upper skin than the lower and using the Bernoulli principle, you arrive at a relatively simple explanation for the origin of lift. Certainly, two particles next to each other before the airfoil, one goes over upper, the other over the lower, they won't necessarily meet at the trailing edge at the same time (they probably would if the flow was bounded or confined because of conservation of mass flow and Kutta condition at the wing trailing edge). However, and I've never seen any numbers for this; but you might guess that the two particles reach the trailing edge at different times.
Actually anything can be an airfoil. The sheet of paper, however, isn't a very good airfoil at subsonic speeds that characterize my blowing air, however such a cheap illustration goes a long way towards explaining somewhat why airfoils have lift--because the flow is faster over the top, the pressure is lower, hence lift.
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
Aeronautical Engineering Blunders of the 20th Century
http://www.aeronautics.ws/blunders.html
Many of the explanations were unintelligible. It appears to me that the cambered airfoil is set up in the tunnel so that the flow hits the top of the airfoil first, not the bottom. It also appears the author of this site forgot about drag--if for instance in the extreme, the airfoil was vertical (leading edge down) the airfoil would spin clockwise or not at all.
Going to have to dig out the aerodynamics textbooks, however, I recall that you can use camber to predict lift (whether it is a good model or not is another question), suggesting that camber has strong influence on lift generation.
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
"In the discussion of the air flowing through the venturi created by the camber in the forward 1/4 of the chord producing lift directly by the increased velocity and therefor lowered pressure above the wing"
I know what a venturi is; what is the 'venturi created by the camber in the forward 1/4 of the chord'?
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
It's true for a typical non symetric aerofoil but why do the particles have to reach the trailing edge at the same time? In short they don't. Hence the based on this ‘theory’ there is no reason the particles above the wing will go faster than below.
Also as you start saying an aerofoil doesn't have to be the classic aerofoil shape and for many applications isn't, which again blows this theory out of the water.
In fact reading your post you end up disproving, or at least arguing against, the theory yourself.
From what I was taught at university and have confirmed reading a number of text books etc:
The most important thing is that the wing is at an angle (angle of attack) relative to the airflow. A flat plate at an angle generates lift in basically the same way as a nice aerofoil shape, the aerofoil is just more efficient and has better stall characteristics etc.
I’m snowed under at the moment at work but I’ll try and put something more detailed. I’ve explained it to an apprentice before and it didn’t take multiple sheets and loads of diagrams so hopefully I'll keep it brief.
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
If you'd like to write it up with diagrams I'll host it on my website.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
http://www.chem1.com/CQ/wonkywater.html#BEO
Pretty funny stuff & links at bottom to other sites on quacks & debunking them.
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
The subject is 'why does an airfoil produce lift?'. NASA has a website that might help explain it better:
http
Bottom line appears to be: lift occurs when flow changes direction. This appears to me to be a simplistic statement of the (very complicated) principle of the conservation of fluid momentum.
There are even a couple of applets you can download to your PC, so you can play with them off line to simulate effects of air speed, airfoil shape, etc. on lift.
Credit where credit is due: originally picked this link up from a MachineDesign.com forum/blog.
RE: Poor quality of Engineering Journalism on TV
http:
----------------------------------
Sometimes I only open my mouth to swap feet...