The Skunk Works

12:43 AM

@Air Did you mostly not like this question because at the end the poster asked for references? Other than that, I feel like the two numbered items could be answered.

Stack Exchange

1

Q: Expanding our public beta audience

It's now been one month since Engineering.SE entered private beta. In that month, you've helped to collect nearly 250 questions and 400 answers on engineering topics ranging from steering devices and bridge loading to sustainable housing and metallurgical history. Well done! But as fundamental ...

Ethan48

@hazzey @Air I agree. I think since it was mostly about two specific aspects it wasn't so much an NDQ. I do think it's a little broad, but we could talk about lighting and EMF in broad terms. The 'what else?' at the end is problematic, but easily edited.

hazzey

I will tackle an edit to tighten it up if everyone thinks that it is worthy.

Ethan48

@hazzey Thanks! I'll vote for re-open once you edit.

hazzey

1:01 AM

Ok, I did some minor editing (mostly just deleting). I feel that the original question is still there, but now it is able to be answered.

Trevor Archibald

1:13 AM

@hazzey I edited your edit, it didn't make sense to have the colon and bulleted list when there was only one list item

hazzey

Good point.

Air

1:29 AM

@hazzey we talked about that one privately and agreed it had multiple issues that needed to be addressed. The edits since then are pretty good. I would try to retain the specific concern about lightning safety from the original. It still isn't fantastic but I would not "veto" a community reopen at this point.

Can't speak for the whole team on that count though.

Mahendra Gunawardena

1:46 AM

@GlenH7 Wow over 1K views great question. Great promo for the site. Congrats

user41796

@MahendraGunawardena ty. :-)

user41796

@hazzey I'm not sure about that question still

user41796

We don't have any information regarding the electrical wiring that's currently in place, and that's a huge variable that hasn't been addressed

user41796

If we forced some specifics on the question, it could be answerable. That may or may not meet the OP's intent, but that's where we have to pick and choose between creating quality site content versus answering a particular person's exact question.

Trevor Archibald

My concerns mirror Glen's. I don't deny that the question could be made answerable, but I don't know that we can put the specifics to it that will help the OP. That's something they probably need to provide.

We would answer a question, but not the question.

user41796

1:52 AM

There's a world of difference between "I need to build a bridge over a 240V line" versus "I need to build a bridge over a 500kV line"

user41796

The latter is suicide, the first is possible.

hazzey

2:10 AM

The voltage just gives the clear spacing that is required to keep it from arcing. The more interesting question is whether there could be induced currents in the bridge structure. Of course now we are really going down the path of changing the question into what I want it to be.

Air

The fact that there are multiple interesting questions inside this question is a red flag.

With zero details about the design of the bridge, the nature of the catenary line, any of the geometry involved...

I really would like to read the answer you want to give. I'm just not sure that professionals visiting the site will find it useful to read a collection of different users' interpretations of the problem statement.

That's why I'm on the fence. Maybe we can ask for some of these specifics that are lacking, even a ballpark for the voltage, separation distance, etc.

It'll be easier for the OP to give us those details if we identify what we need.

hazzey

2:38 AM

At this point, should we roll back the edits that have been made? I feel bad about completely chopping it up and then just leaving it.

Air

2:49 AM

@hazzey The author can always rollback if he wants to.

He's got an association bonus so hopefully he knows that.

In a situation like this, where sequential edits are causing the question to drift away from the author's apparent original intent, it's fine to add an edit that reverts part of a previous edit, or just brings back some element that had been lost. Here's an example that comes to mind where I did essentially that (in revision 4 - with a very detailed summary, since it was a suggested edit)

(You don't necessarily want to read through that whole revision history... it was a big effort, my attempt for Red Baron during winter bash)

Air

3:34 AM

@HDE226868 @hazzey Congrats on 1,000 reputation, by the way!

hazzey

@Air Thanks. It is going to be hard to keep up the momentum though.

Transcript for