this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
682 points (96.5% liked)
Technology
60033 readers
2990 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Might be the doors are fail shut if anything happens... But that seems like the worst design ever.
Come to think of it, it's basic design to designate features as fail closed/fail open on loss of power in an emergency, and you go with what's inherently safe. It appears Tesla did not consider basic safety design. To no one's surprise.
You're assuming they didn't consider it, vs having considered it and thought that its more important to protect property than peoples' lives. Again, to no one's surprise.
It really says something when even oil companies will design for these considerations but Tesla won't.
I design process control equipment for a living and you are 100% correct. When the controller/PLC dies or the power goes out everything goes to a safe state that protects the human. Big part of the design decisions.
I've unfortunately been working on process control strategies for almost a year now on new and novel applications for my company, so I've been intimately familiar with this. If it isn't obvious, this isn't my favorite professional area of interest hahaha.
Designating fail open and fail closed valves is so intrinsic to what I've been doing that I can't imagine someone designing a car control system and not thinking about that at all.
I designed a quencher system that failed closed, no water flowing, during outages once. Granted I was an intern but still not my proudest moment.
It's weird now as my employer is slowing moving into motion control tech for waste. Seeing the changes like having to really think about hardwired limit switches and safety relays. Chemical world I feel is easier.
We all make mistakes. I once forgot to include gravity in a pressure drop calculation for a 100 ft vertical pipe as part of a steam drum system. I had to send an awkward email revising the design pressure I previously communicated out.
But hey, if we were perfect, we wouldn't need peer review.
I have a little bit of experience with limit switches, but that's really interesting. It certainly seems like an unusual system. I'm a lot more familiar with safety relays.
Imagine there is a process that makes a gas that is too hot. The solution is to spray the gas outlet with water. That's a quencher. The PLC controls the amount the water valve is open or rather how much to close it. If the PLC dies the valve should open up as much as possible and blast water. It is better to waste water instead of risking hot gas going through ducting systems that can't handle it.
My mistake was putting failed closed valves in the system. If there was a power outage or a dead PLC no water would have cooled the gas. And presumably the ducting would have melted and there would have been fires.
Like I said my most embarrassing mistake. At least we caught it before shipment.
It happens! The important part is review and learning from the mistakes.