Milestone-Proposal talk:Chirp Sonar Subbottom Profiler
Advocates and reviewers will post their comments below. In addition, any IEEE member can sign in with their ETHW login (different from IEEE Single Sign On) and comment on the milestone proposal's accuracy or completeness as a form of public review.
clarification -- Allisonmarsh (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
What does "scatter bottom multiple" mean?
I agree, the term is not generally known. Per Wikipedia: Powerful low frequency echo-sounders have been developed for providing profiles of the upper layers of the ocean bottom. Can the wording be modified for clarity? - Dave Bart
Wrong Location for the plaque -- Juancarlos (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
This Cable is undoubtedly a very significant feat of engineering and deserves to be an IEEE Milestone. And the presentation is in fact an excellent essay on the subject.
The location of the plaque worries me. The equipment was designed and built in France by french engineers and it was installed and set in operation (laid) by a french company.
The Milestone really belongs to french engineering. Why is the plaque not in France ? The proposed location is just the far end of the cable, a small part of teh project. We may face a problem from the french section in the near future.
A few months ago a Milestone for a big display system in California was approved with the plaque’s location in Japan, where it was designed (and its part were probably built) but it was installed and set in operation in California. We can discuss for hours which was more significant, the design, the building of its parts, the construction itself. All this is really much dependent on each project. Sometimes there is a lot of engineering done “on site” – as in case of dams, some times “just mounting” as it was probably the case in California.
Now we have the opposite case. The achievement is the design, construction and installation of the cable, and all of them are well outside the proposed location for the plaque.
Esoteric -- Juancarlos (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
The whole matter and its wording are much too esoteric. An important component of the Milestones program is for the public to appreciate technology. If some of us –(good Engineers ?) do not even know what we are talking about nor quite understand the words of the citation (“seismograms” may be technically correct but is completely misleading) what do we expect from the rest of the world ? For this reasons I ask myself, is this really a MAJOR achievement for the benefit of Humanity if many of us have never heard about it? Fro these reasons I think we must reject this proposal.