Impossible Engineering

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.

Although this show does lack in the animation and graphical effects it is very good at the history of the engineering topic. The show highlights a project and then goes back in history and explains how the technology was developed. The show highlights several different specific engineering challenges relevant to the project and then tells the history behind each challenge. The show really dives into the historical significance of engineering ingenuity and how it impacts the project. They cover old technology and why it didn't work and what replaced it and why it's better. I find this show to be very interesting and well done from an Engineers standpoint. The show really encapsulates the saying "Standing on the shoulders of giants" from Issac Newton stating that his discoveries were dependent on other peoples past discoveries.

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.

The premise of Impossible Engineering sounds great; highlight huge or revolutionary engineering projects, tell the history behind them and what makes these projects special and incredible. I was excited to see this show and set my DVR to record all episodes. Tonight I sat down to watch two episodes which I thought would be of the most interest to me, "Ultimate Warship" about the British aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth and "World's Biggest Cruise Ship" about the Empress of the Seas. Unfortunately I was so very disappointed. I already know a fair amount about these ships and the history of their respective classes and was appalled by the amount of misinformation in these episodes. So many times the narrator used hyperbole about the "biggest," "fastest," "first" and on and on when those statements should come with qualifications. When they say "It was biggest project..." what they should be saying is "It was the biggest project in the UK..." or "...the aircraft carrier was an effective weapon for the first time in history" when the described event took place two years after it had been done in two other parts of the world, and four years before an aircraft carrier was used in warfare as a weapon. If these kinds of things were errors in just a few places they would easily be forgiven but the entire show is predicated on making everything be the "biggest," "fastest," "first" or other extreme and the wording used reflects that goal. So my thinking was that if on an episode where I knew, or could readily look up specifications, there were this many errors or out an out misleading statements how could I trust what the other shows were telling me? So I watched a second episode and sure enough it too was full of errors. There are some reasonably good parts of the shows but in no way enough good to offset all the horrible bad. I deleted the rest of the episodes from my DVR and will donate the time to watching something that is truly educational. Oh, and I can't forget to rip the horrible choice of background martial music and the volume that is so high as to almost drown out the voices and sounds.

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.