Re: List Reborn

Strange - is there an echo in this chat room? It seems to me that I heard nearly the same thing in a discussion in my company the other day.....maybe I even said it myself....

George McKinney
Augusta Engineering & Design
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Bowers" <pbowers@pipingdesign.com> To: <PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 9:00 PM
Subject: [PipingDesign] List Reborn

> Hello All,
>
> Just to keep you up to date, the pipingdesign list has been trimmed from
> about 1500 to around 850 members - Mr. Wright is now looking after the
> subscribe requests and is being notoriously diligent.
>
> I recently had an offline email exchange with a group member and he gave
> permission to post his edited comments, so it's reproduced below (I've
> only edited out personal information, per his request). Some of his
> comments are in reply to my questions, so you'll have to read between
> the lines.
>
> What he has to say is definitely not boring, especially for those of you
> that have suffered through the drafting board to 2D CAD to 3D CAD
> "industry transformation".
>
> Paul
>
> ===================================================
>
> Just turned 50; last week in fact. Good stuff, half a century. Now I can
> officially join all the clubs: "Dirty Old Man", "Old Farts", and "Over
> The Hill". And the best part is that I've already paid my dues.
>
> I'm not sure if I did what you think I did or not, but if you're
> thinking I went back to basics, you'd be right. When I say "old 2D guy"
> I really meant "manual drafting", which is of course the old 2D way.
> Funny how you get used to using different terms in this computer age.
> Sorry for any confusion. Anyway, like all of us who've been working in
> piping for the last couple of decades or more, I progressed from manual
> into working with 2D CAD firstly, followed by 3D CAD. Never made total
> sense to me that the new age drafters would keep working in the same
> drawing file from study through to finished product. Let me explain, and
> I hope I'm not going to bore you here. I really do feel strongly about
> this. I also apologize for preaching to the converted, but you did ask,
> so there!
>
> Back in the "good old days" I was taught to study my area before I
> started on the "to-be" final drawing. Why was that (rhetorical question
> of course)?
>
> First stage: Run a blueprint of the plot plan and do a transposition.
> Transposition; not a word I hear very often now. This was my first run
> at proving out the plot and firming up the equipment locations. Are
> there lines coming back on themselves? Well let's switch these two
> pieces of equipment around. Do I have some large diameter, alloy
> (expensive), maybe even high temp and traced, lines that can be
> shortened? Let's see, if I move this over here and this here, that'll
> shorten 'em. And so on. Have a few discussions with my Squady and the
> Process Engineer, (get in shit for taking too long) and we'd have a
> close to finished arrangement.
>
> Second stage: Off I went and cut a drawing size sheet from a role of
> velum. With preliminary vendor data in hand and a set of P&IDs I'd start
> my study. Place the equipment and start running lines. Now I'm into the
> real thing: exactly positioning equipment, establishing building sizes,
> proving out sub-rack widths and elevations, positioning lines,
> positioning control valves and flow meters, positioning nozzles,
> investigating platform requirements, getting preliminary stress analysis
> done on the major lines, etc., etc. I might cut a new sheet off of that
> vellum role two or three times, (and get more shit for taking too long),
> but when I started on the mylar drawing I not only had a good
> arrangement, but I'd also established how I was going to detail this. I
> knew where my elevation and section cuts were needed and how many D size
> drawings it would take.
>
> Third stage: Get the mylar drawing sheet out. With plastic leads,
> eraser, and, by now, some firm vendor data and updated P&IDs in hand
> away we go. Was this now just an exercise of creating a pretty drawing.
> Not quite, but it was darn close. Did things change? Of course. That
> horizontal pump you were told would be front-side, comes in as top-top.
> Bloody hell! Process change a line from 8" to 10". That control valve
> size changed. So you adjusted and you progressed, but by this time you
> had an excellent handle on your area, and the impact of any changes.
> Cause for discussion with your squady (and Project Engineer) before you
> made the changes and got even more shit for taking too long.
>
> My point here is that at least 50%, maybe 60% of you time was in first
> and second stages. This study exercise set you up with a vast knowledge
> of your area, able to move fairly quickly through the final drawing
> stage, if there weren't too many changes. As an aside comment, people
> thought long and hard at this stage before making a change. Project
> Engineers appreciated the impact of erasing and redrawing.
>
> So, into 2D CAD. The world changed. To this day I have many a debate in
> the pub, and I still haven't quite put my finger on it. But, for certain
> there were several significant shifts: Once a drawing file has been
> created, continue it through to completion, and because this is CAD
> anybody can work on it. No fears of the individual drafting styles
> messing up the look. Another was the acceptance of Project Engineers
> straight out of university. A younger generation of degree holders
> somewhat disrespectful at times in their attitude and lacking in
> understanding of orderly project execution. Call me old fashioned, but I
> never grasped the concept of "fast track" and "just in time"
> engineering. Piping as a discipline lost some authority. The non-degreed
> tech's were too often looked upon as a "drafting service". The idea that
> a drawing should be blown away after the study and started again just
> didn't fly. What sort of brainless twat would make that suggestion? In
> fact there was no study stage anymore, just a muddied water of design
> and change, and drawing file manipulation followed by more change and
> manipulation. Then checking (with lots of blood), then the hunt for whom
> ever was available for back drafting. The net result: loss of ownership,
> loss of learning from one's own mistakes, poor presentation, i.e. too
> much information in a single plan or section making it difficult to
> read. Too many sections, and bad dimensioning practices. Another aside
> comment: Why don't the younger designers know how to dimension? I see
> far too much double dimensioning, and one that really irritates me is
> dimensioning from a match line.
>
> Now, don't get me wrong, I've worked with some very excellent younger
> engineers and designers who appreciate the old guy's grey hair, but I've
> also had to explain my hours to PE's who have no control on their
> project.
>
> I'm getting on my soapbox here, aren't I? (Calm down Richard, calm
> down). I'm speaking in generalizations of course, not by any means
> intending to tar everyone with the same brush.
>
> Exposure to the new world and plain old logic told me that constant
> manipulation of a drawing file was taking longer than getting your
> thinking straight first, before moving forward. Many discussions (in the
> pub) had me convinced that our industry lost it's way, that we did far
> too much shooting from the hip. We'd become reactive rather than
> proactive. 3D, while interesting and in many ways fascinating, and I can
> now say an excellent tool, didn't in itself seem the answer to me.
>
> [...]
>
> At this time I was a novice to using 3D for design, but I decided not to
> break with these two principles. My first principle was respect for the
> individuals on my squad. I did not bounce people around. The designers
> started and finished an area. The checking has changed with 3D. It is
> more of an ongoing process now, but I made sure that it was theirs from
> beginning to end, including generating their own iso's. My second
> principle was to study before going into detail. Call it a perception; I
> believe manipulation takes more time than redrafting. We did the
> previously mentioned first and second stages in the model. Froze it,
> x-ref'd it and started a new detailed model. Things weren't trouble
> free, however the problems were more CAD related. I really felt that if
> manipulating a 2D CAD drawing file didn't work well, then manipulation
> of a 3D data base model could only be worse. Plus I'd heard enough
> stories of corrupted data bases and problems with iso generation. Our
> clash detection was minimal and iso production almost trouble free (so
> I'm told by those on my squad with previous 3D experience). Were my
> principles on their own a deciding factor? Not entirely, but I think
> this is the right track. To be clear, I was extremely lucky to be able
> to assemble just an amazing group of people, including two squad leaders
> with 3D experience who I could bounce ideas of off, and who helped me in
> decision making.
>
> I know that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and by hook or by
> crook, by tenacity and hard work, all projects get done. Our project did
> come in on time and on budget, and while that's not definitive proof
> (many projects do), the team firmly believes we did the right thing.
>
>
>
> =========================================
> PipingOffice - Excel Spreadsheets for Piping Calculations
> <a href="http://www.pipingoffice.us/">http://www.pipingoffice.us/</a>
> =========================================
> Main site: <a href="http://www.pipingdesign.com">http://www.pipingdesign.com</a>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Mon Oct 17 09:20:00 2005