wilheldp_PE - Engineer Boards
Jump to content
Engineer Boards


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


wilheldp_PE last won the day on August 27 2018

wilheldp_PE had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

799 Excellent

About wilheldp_PE

Previous Fields

  • Engineering Field
  • License
  • Calculator
  • Discipline

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Louisville, KY

Recent Profile Visitors

2,314 profile views
  1. When I worked at the A/E firm, there was an architectural CAD tech that sat right next to the employee entrance. His computer was spec'd to the max because he was running the first version of Revit (which was a massive resource hog). Every day at lunch, he'd fire up a first person shooter (can't remember which one) and play it for his whole lunch break. I'm assuming he had management's permission because he was in an open cubicle near a high-traffic area, and he would have needed IT to install the game for him on that computer.
  2. Teddy Bridgewater is good. He has an excellent arm, he can throw on the run, and his first inclination is to throw (i.e., he isn't a QB that's always looking to run). He was awesome at Louisville with a shitty O-line, and he did really well for the Vikings prior to his leg injury.
  3. The quote in the HBO series was an adaptation of a quote from a Soviet physicist (Vasili Nesterenko) in a documentary glorifying the Russians that risked their lives in the cleanup effort immediately following the Chernobyl meltdown. The quote is widely discredited, and it is believed he used it as hyperbole to inflate the importance of the cleanup crew (i.e., they prevented an explosion that would have leveled half of Ukraine). He was just referencing a steam explosion, but his estimate of the magnitude of the blast was off by a couple orders of magnitude.
  4. The bolded part is why I refuse to watch the show. I've seen several documentaries on the Chernobyl disaster and I've watched some reviews of the HBO show from some pretty smart, science-types. Between the two, I believe it impossible for a nuclear meltdown at a power plant to cause a thermo-nuclear blast. The percentage of U235 is too low in power-grade fuel to produce the fast chain reaction necessary to form a nuclear explosion. The only risks from power plant meltdowns is fallout, direct exposure during cleanup, and ground contamination. There are often explosions during meltdown, but they are caused by ignition of hydrogen accumulated in the reactor vessel. Those types of explosions usually don't even make it to the kiloton level of damage, but it can release more fallout and expand the area of ground contamination.
  5. My major roof surfaces face the wrong direction (need a large south-facing roof in the northern hemisphere to make it work) and my roof is shaded for a large part of the day. If it weren't for those two factors, I would already have rooftop solar.
  6. I think the "negligent" part indicates they might not have known, but they *should have* known.
  7. Heh.. I was gonna ask if that nasty shit came with a free butt plug.
  8. I have no idea how many people were in my office today.
  9. I finally just ordered a Switch and Mario Maker 2. The lure of newly designed levels for old Mario games was too strong for me.
  10. The US came out pretty flat against Spain. We were fortunate to get those two PKs...I don't think we would have won that match without them.
  11. Correct. Taking a case to trial is exorbitantly expensive, so most insurance companies would rather settle. Using an expert with a lot of knowledge of a particular failure mode is typically a good way to get a settlement. But Electrolux was so pissed at that particular expert that they told insurance companies they wouldn't settle any claim when he was involved. Electrolux is using staff engineers as their experts and staff attorneys in court, so it doesn't cost them as much to take something to trail as it does the plaintiff.
  12. Consumer Product Safety Commission is supposed to force the manufacturer to issue a recall when a product is unsafe, but for whatever reason, they neglected to do so with the Electrolux dryers. UL finally updated their standards for dryers to specifically address the issue with the dryers, so Electrolux was forced to change their design in about 2013. But by that time, they had produced millions of the faulty ones. I haven't been involved with any Electrolux dryer fires that caused fatalities, but I'm sure there have been injuries. By my estimate, I have looked at the 3rd most fires caused by that specific issue. There was a guy that did a lot of exemplar testing that proved what the actual defect was, and he has looked at over 3,000 of them. Electrolux told insurance companies that if they hired that particular expert, they would take the claim to trial...no exceptions. So they essentially forced him out of the market. There was another expert that was the one that testified at a class-action lawsuit against Electrolux, which they actually settled (of course, without admitting any fault). I just assume he has seen more of them than I have, but he may not have. Insurance companies will always cover the losses, up to what your policy covers. What I deal with is the insurance company suing the manufacturer to recover what they paid on the loss. It's a specific type of lawsuit called subrogation. It's the vast majority of the work that I do.
  13. I've seen over 2,000 Electrolux dryer fires, and those fuckers never recalled the faulty design.
  14. In the older ones (2002-2006), there was a fault in the control board in the top right corner of the door that caught fire (I've seen over 500 of those fires). In newer models (2016?), there is a proprietary power cord attachment in the bottom back right corner of the tub. I've only seen 5 of those fires.
  • Create New...