054/A FFG Thread II

[Blitzo]

I just want to point out the lighting in the 054a pics above are so the tv crew have an easier time filming. We've seen pictures of CICs in PLAN ships with similarly dark environments to USN and other navy ships

 

[steve_rolfe]

Looking at these consoles in these combat rooms raises a question.

Are these consoles mounted rigidly to the floor of the room, or are they mounted on some sort of shock absorbent mountings?. Because obviously during an attack on the ship, any possible shocks from explosions on the ships could render the malfunctioning of the instruments. Yes i do know that the equipment is built to high military specs....but!
Also are the CIC rooms protected with a layer of kevlar as well.

I ask about the support of the equipment, as i remember when i was working on the design for the RN instrumentation for sub-harpoon, the consoles were designed so they were fitted onto leaf springs, so that any shock the sub may take during an attack wouldn't put out the use of the sub-harpoon firing equipment.

Was just wondering if this principle is applied to surface warships?

 

[Jeff Head]

Are these consoles mounted rigidly to the floor of the room, or are they mounted on some sort of shock absorbent mountings?.

Also are the CIC rooms protected with a layer of kevlar as well.

Was just wondering if this principle is applied to surface warships?

The Nimitz (and Ford) carriers, the Tico crusiers, the Burke destroyers, the new LHAs, LHDs, LPDs, LCS, etc., etc. all have Kevlar splinter armor surrounding command and other critical spaces.

All of the consoles in the command and control spaces are specifically desinged, mounted, and set up to take the shocks associated with battle damage, short of direct blast damage in the compartment itself.

So, in short, for US vessels, yes.

I have to imaginge that the UK, France, Japan, Korea, and others do the same. I trust that people like Spain and others who are building some of their warships to lesser military standards will have not applied those lesser standards to the command and control spaces, but I do not know.

 

[vesicles]

You are only in a movie theatre for 2-3 hours max at a time. Trying actually working in those light conditions with a backlit LED screen for 7 hours a day every day and it will mess up your eyes, not to mention give you a headache every day.

Low ambient light is good for theatres because it does give more vivid colours, but a radar operator does not need to appreciate how pretty the returns are on his screen. I did also point out in my original post that the extra brightness needs to be within limits as having to squint to make out details because of too much ambient light is also bad for your eyes.

The worst thing about the 054A CIC is the inconsistent light levels, where some operators who are sitting right under the lamps might be getting too much light while those guys in the back are not getting enough.

Well, I use microscopes extensively in my research and routinely have to spend 6-8 hours a day in the scope facility, which is always completely dark. And I have been doing that for the past 12 years. Especially when I was in grad school when I had to do everything myself, I practically lived in the dark imaging facility, sometimes 10-12 hours straight. Yes, at first, it was pretty bad. My eyes were bloodshot and inched like crazy at the end of the day after staying in the dark so long, look through the scope binocular eye piece, staring at 3 30" monitors and with various lasers flashing on and off all the time. However, I got used to it in a while and my actual eyesight was NOT worsened at all. In fact, my eyesight has been exactly the same since my softmore year in college. So I think it's a myth that low ambient light hurt eyes. My students and technicians who are just starting cellular imaging work also worry that their eyesight might get damaged. I always tell them that its ok. None of my colleagues who have been doing microscope work long enough has suffered any kind of long term eye damage. The most unbearable part is actually motion sickness, believe it or not. When you have to move your samples under the microscope around all the time and keep your eyes focused on certain cells, you get motion sickness and it gets pretty bad sometimes depending on whether you are susceptible to motion sickness. One of my technicians has a pretty bad motion sickness and she sometimes can't even eat dinner after spending several hours on the scope. But again, she is getting better.

Again, once you get used to the low ambient light environment, it should be ok. I now can spend 6-8 hours in the dark microscope facility without feeling a thing. Bear in mind that we have a lot more potentially harmful stuff in our imaging facility than on a ship. All those high power lasers for one.

 

[plawolf]

Well, I use microscopes extensively in my research and routinely have to spend 6-8 hours a day in the scope facility, which is always completely dark. And I have been doing that for the past 12 years. Especially when I was in grad school when I had to do everything myself, I practically lived in the dark imaging facility, sometimes 10-12 hours straight. Yes, at first, it was pretty bad. My eyes were bloodshot and inched like crazy at the end of the day after staying in the dark so long, look through the scope binocular eye piece, staring at 3 30" monitors and with various lasers flashing on and off all the time. However, I got used to it in a while and my actual eyesight was NOT worsened at all. In fact, my eyesight has been exactly the same since my softmore year in college. So I think it's a myth that low ambient light hurt eyes. My students and technicians who are just starting cellular imaging work also worry that their eyesight might get damaged. I always tell them that its ok. None of my colleagues who have been doing microscope work long enough has suffered any kind of long term eye damage. The most unbearable part is actually motion sickness, believe it or not. When you have to move your samples under the microscope around all the time and keep your eyes focused on certain cells, you get motion sickness and it gets pretty bad sometimes depending on whether you are susceptible to motion sickness. One of my technicians has a pretty bad motion sickness and she sometimes can't even eat dinner after spending several hours on the scope. But again, she is getting better.

Again, once you get used to the low ambient light environment, it should be ok. I now can spend 6-8 hours in the dark microscope facility without feeling a thing. Bear in mind that we have a lot more potentially harmful stuff in our imaging facility than on a ship. All those high power lasers for one.

Be that as it may, I still hold my reservations about working in poor lighting, especially since the advice about working in good lighting conditions was given to me by a succession of optometrist over the years every time I get my eyes checked, and I'd like to think they would know a thing or two about eyes and eye care.

I am also doubtful about just how comprehensive the testing militarise are supposed to have conducted to determine the light levels used in their CICs were, what their testing criteria were and what their actual findings were.

Did they exhaustively test all lighting levels within reason, or did they just decide what was the optimal dark light level needed to work under minimal illumination levels? Militarise can be great scientific innovators and set new trends based on scientific findings, but it is hardly unheard of for militarise to base their choices on tradition rather than science. Its easy to imagine the origins of the dark CIC in the bridges of the WWI and WWII warships where their CIC was also the bridge. With the introduction of the new submarine and air threats, strict light discipline were necessary to minimise the risks to the ship from these new threats and navies have been keeping their CICs dark ever since even when they movement them to the middle of their ships where there are no windows to have to worry about light disciple.

I find it somewhat suspect that if the kinds of dark lighting levels shown in various CICs is truly the optimum working light levels with no health and safety implications, then why are we not all working in offices illuminated to such low levels? It would certainly save the world's companies a hell of a lot of money from the electricity bill alone, and if there were productivity gains, then surely businesses and education centres would be rushing to follow suit and emulate the military in that? Its not like the civilian sectors have ever been slow or shy about adapting military methods, especially if those methods were backed up by solid scientific research and evidence.

 

[Jeff Head]

... then why are we not all working in offices illuminated to such low levels? It would certainly save the world's companies a hell of a lot of money from the electricity bill alone, and if there were productivity gains, then surely businesses and education centres would be rushing to follow suit and emulate the military in that?

Well, while it is certainly not exhaustive, and is certainly not meant to indicate that all private or commercial interests operate the same, here are a few pics of comercial contol rooms for new services:

CNN Control Room:

MSNBC Control Room:

ABC News Control Room:

CBS News Control Room:

In additon, while many powerplant control rooms are shown all lit up for publicity photographs, I personally work in such control rooms all the time and I can tell you that the lighjing there is kept at a low level too during most actual operations.

 

[vesicles]

Be that as it may, I still hold my reservations about working in poor lighting, especially since the advice about working in good lighting conditions was given to me by a succession of optometrist over the years every time I get my eyes checked, and I'd like to think they would know a thing or two about eyes and eye care.

My maternal grandfather was an ophthalmologist and one of the leading experts in eye surgery in Northeastern China. He never had any problem with us reading in low ambient light environment. Although he always said working with proper lighting would make you feel more comfortable, he never said it would cause any permanent damage to our eyes. I distinctly remember one time we went to visit my grandparents in Shen Yang when I was about 11/12. Both my sister and I were reading comic books without lights being turned on at early evening when it was already pretty dark in the house. My mom yelled at us and warned about our eyes being damaged. But my grandpa simply said "don't get carried away. It's not that bad. Bad eyesight has more to do with genetics than anything else..."

Additionally, I once shared an office with a resident MD when I was a postdoc and he always turned off lights in our office. I got annoyed and finally asked him why. And he said his eye doctor said low ambient light soothes his eyes even with the computer screen flashing... And more importantly, the fluorescent lights in typical offices stimulate brains in the wrong way and makes people feel tired more easily. So low ambient light has both pros and cons...

 

[solarz]

Additionally, I once shared an office with a resident MD when I was a postdoc and he always turned off lights in our office. I got annoyed and finally asked him why. And he said his eye doctor said low ambient light soothes his eyes even with the computer screen flashing... And more importantly, the fluorescent lights in typical offices stimulate brains in the wrong way and makes people feel tired more easily. So low ambient light has both pros and cons...

I don't think I'd ever be able to work in an office with low ambient lights. I'd be more likely to fall asleep at the desk, lol.

 

[steve_rolfe]

I'am sure over time working in such a conditions in a room with a dark background, but staring at ultra bright screens does affect eye sight.........i mean if you see people who work outside in natural light.....eg builders.........how many of them wear glasses?........very few indeed!..........BUT many CAD operators need to wear glasses....DON'T they?

 

[vesicles]

I'am sure over time working in such a conditions in a room with a dark background, but staring at ultra bright screens does affect eye sight.........i mean if you see people who work outside in natural light.....eg builders.........how many of them wear glasses?........very few indeed!..........BUT many CAD operators need to wear glasses....DON'T they?

It might have something to do with cultures. You might get laughed at a lot if you are a construction worker and wear glasses, but not so much if you are a CAD operator. Plus, glasses might be hazardous on construction sites, compared to goggles. So many construction workers might wear contact and you would never know if they have bad eyesight...

I don't think I'd ever be able to work in an office with low ambient lights. I'd be more likely to fall asleep at the desk, lol.

Yeah, I hate dark. It's not because of my eyes, but just personal preference. Whenever I enter a room, I open all the blinds and make sure the room is as bright as possible. I used to hate microscope work so much because I have to stay in the dark for so long, especially when experiments don't work. I get cranky... Especially a special kind of microscopy, called total internal reflection fluorescence microscopy, any ambient light is bad. So we have to line the walls with special material to absorb any ambient light that might leak into the room. So the whole room is like a black black hole... So to make myself feel better, I always imagine I am entering the bat cave and the bat mobile is just sitting in front of me... It sucks even more when the laser comes on... It's like an atomic bomb exploding right in front of you...