Dear Mr Old Fart
being somewhat of a seasoned flatulator myself, and a stress analysis simpleton, I would like to take you to task over your latest edicts. First, why should the newcomers be the intended primary beneficiaries of this group? This is not the way I see it, having learned more than I have helped.
Second, re CAD detail questions, I have learnt a lot from this as well. For example, I would guess a significant proportion of the questions deal with driving instructions for various CAD packages. Very few deal with real world boundary conditions such as scaling, erosion, corrosion allowances, materials selection, surge, dimensional accuracy, product quality, constructability (excluding pipe rack layouts and pipe supports, which get a fair hammering), serviceability, process stability etc etc. This suggests to me that these latter conditions, which I often struggle with, are either predefined for many of the active members in this group or are not considered sufficiently difficult to need a second opinion. I suspect the former, but may be doing a disservice to many group members in doing so.
How this helps me is when I employ a piping draftsman, I now pay particular attention to the individual strengths of the person. Some are quite happy to carry out the entire design while others prefer to do the stress analysis and layout details (flanges, hangers reactions etc) only. Some want to trace.
Third, and more important, this group enables me to throw the odd "curved ball" question to piping design "experts" I meet during my work. Its not really that important, but gives me a little perverse pleasure from time to time.
I have no problem with the CAD detail questions, and feel that this is an appropriate forum. If a separate forum was formed, then I would be concerned that this would create a further division between the applied theoretical and the more practical aspects of piping design.
If this response appears inflammatory to you then you are right. I am doing my tax return this evening, and I fail to see why I should be the only one to suffer.
Cheers
Steve McKenzie
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Bowers [mailto:pbowers@pipingdesign.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 12:01 AM
To: PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [PipingDesign] Nozzle placement in PDS
Perhaps this is a good opportunity to more clearly define the goals of this list.
It was originally founded to promote the concept of piping design as an engineering discipline, to aid in transferring knowledge from the "old-timers" to the newcomers, to discuss and explore interesting projects, processes and methods, and to create a world-wide community of people with similar interests.
-Now I revert back to Old Fart mode-
Detailed CAD piping software questions do not really belong on the list, as they are far too technically specific for the majority of the subscribers to be able to relate to.
What I am seeing on this list is a lot of great input and responses (75%), some irrelevant stuff (10%) and my usual moderator blatherings (5%).
With the amount of subscribers we have, we could have a really good list fight about this.
Paul
> > -----Original Message-----
> > actually programming is available only upto 36" only in pds.
> > For placing 40" Nozzle you have write EDEN PROGRAM.
> > If you are not aware of it, your administrator might be knowing it,
> > just consult him.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.363 / Virus Database: 201 - Release Date: 5/21/2002 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.363 / Virus Database: 201 - Release Date: 5/21/2002Received on Fri May 24 06:40:00 2002
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 27 2008 - 20:23:57 EDT