Impossible Engineering

I watched recent episode of Impossible Engineering about a North Sea wind farm described as the London Array.

In the story they described a groundbreaking windmill which pioneered many great innovations. This turbine supposedly produces 2MW and has over its lifetime produced 21 million KWH of electricity. This would then be 21 x 10^9 WH. The statement they made that I disagree with is they said over its life it produced enough energy to power New York City for THREE YEARS! This did not seem right to me. According to Google search, NYC consumes 11,000MWH per DAY; bringing back to the above common terms, that would be 11 x 10^9 WH. So you can see from this that the output of that turbine over 40 years would have only supplied NYC's needs, using round numbers, for only TWO DAYS, not 3 years! To put it another way, IF That turbine does in fact put out 2 GW (and it probably doesn't considering the wind does not blow all the time), then it would require (11 x 10^9)/(2 x 10^6) = about 5000 such turbines working at full capacity to meet the needs of that mighty city. There is a lot of talk about misinformation these days. If the misinformation comes from a conservative it seems to get branded as "Fascist" or other bad words. But in a case such as this, the creators would probably respond with a shoulder shrug and mumble something about a typo or honest mistake, because, after all, it was in support of the GREEN agenda.

Don't misunderstand, I am in favor of wind and solar power when placed in optimum locations and when it makes economic sense, but misleading people with a false fact such as described above is detrimental to the discussion. I DO enjoy watching the show, and I think it is great to inspire (especially) young people to do great things; this particular piece just stuck in my craw.

With the incredible amount of talented voice actors/narrator's, how did Michael Bratton get the job?

Although he does not have the severe affectations as Erik Dellums presents, it sounds very much like they went to the nearest high school and hired one of the students from the school radio station.

His voice texture is very thin, he does not have the command, authority or timbre of a professional adult male voice talent. "Google" mail voiceover or voice actor and just pick anyone from the first 100 and you'll discover much better talent for a network-based program.

Program content is phenomenal, but loses any authority when listening to a high school junior do the narration.

First, "Impossible Engineering" is about the stupidest title possible. And no, saying "making the impossible, possible" does not make it better.

Second, the production quality and 'experts' seem bottom of the barrel.

Third, the explanation and exploration of the engineering involved in these projects is pathetic. Engineering should not be 'dumbed down'. (multiples of 'Olympic swimming pools', 'football pitches' and 'elephants' are not recognized units of measurement)

Lastly, the constant repeating and replaying of what was said and shown only five minutes ago? Annoying beyond belief.

This is a not very good show, made for the ADHD crowd. A real shame as it could have been so much better. I get the feeling it was made by people who really wanted to make a sci-fi action show, but this was all that was available to them.

The concept is great. Explain how engineers have created modern marvels, drawing upon past experiments by their predecessors. However, the actual show is unbearably drawn out. I only watched one episode; about the Shanghai Maglev Train. Fascinating subject but it was a half hour documentary padded out to last twice that long. I lost count of the number of times the same shots were re-used; the music was intrusive; the repetitive commentary was aimed at an immature audience and what exactly was the presenter in Shanghai doing? If she was presenting the show then she should have been doing it to camera; if she was an interviewee then she should have been directed to keep her eye line closer to the camera, not be staring into the middle distance. Viewers have to sit through a whole hour of this stuff, just to enjoy a handful of three minute bursts of interesting information separated by plenty of padding. The only reason I give it 4/10 is for a few engaging sequences of archive material and modern experiments, with appropriate homages to the engineering pioneers. Oh and by the way, Nigel Gresley's streamlined locomotive is usually called "Mallard" and not "The Mallard" but it's a moot point so no marks lost there.

Great intent. They constantly repeat and repeat and repeat to make the show longer. Just tell the story.