Gene Kearns wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:29:33 -0400, NotNow penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|Gene Kearns wrote:
| On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:30:13 -0400, NotNow penned the following well
| considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
|
| |Just wait a frekin' minute! wrote:
| | Jack wrote:
| | On Jul 26, 2:07 pm, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
| | for the Global Warming whack jobs that is.
| |
| | http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JD011637.shtml
| |
| | Oh - Mr. Science? This is a peer reviewed study - from real
| | scientists - you know, like you aren't?
| |
| | I want to know why the GW activists are denying science? Are they
| | crazy?
| |
| | No, they are power hungry and won't "let a good crisis go to waste"...
| | Even if they have to make it up...
| |
| |I'm certainly glad that us engineers don't cling on to one person's
| |ideas because it fits our agendas and ignore the rest of the imperical data.
|
| Wow! You mean I really *didn't* just waste half the morning with two
| contractors, an architect, a project expediter, and an engineer
| because the mechanical engineer unilaterally decided to create some
| ultra complex timer driven interface of an exhaust fan and the HVAC
| system...... when all we really wanted was a wall switch?
|
| .....engineers don't cling on to one person's ideas..... R-i-g-h-t....
|
|
|I have to reference any number of resources on a daily basis. I have to
|design to a certain code, and not pick one that meets my agenda. Then I
|have to design by guidelines of many others. For instance, let's say I'm
|designing foundations and slabs for a project. There's three or four ACI
|publications that I have to adhere to. Those are all by committee. The
|list goes on and on. Did you ever stop to think that the engineer's (if
|he really is an engineer) hand might just be tied by a whole GROUP of
|people's rules? Did you check all applicable codes, etc. to see if the
|guy was blowing smoke or that by code it actually needed to be done the
|way he's suggesting? I run into this crap with architects and project
|managers all of the time. Because we have to follow rules they think
|we're idiots.

Historically, engineers are regarded as idiots because they make up
their own rules as they go along.... the premier rule being, "never
design something simple when something extremely complex and
impossible to repair will do".

As in this case.... not only are there no laws regarding controlling
a simple ventilation fan by a complex PLC that senses the state of the
HVAC system, it is just plain stupid.

The latest proof that engineers spend the first 3 year of school
having logic and common sense sucked out of their brains is that they
believe that if it can be rendered in Solid Works or Autocad it is
real and can exist as such in the real (not virtual) world.

I can't tell you how much fun I've had over the years, when told that
something would work, begging forgiveness for my stupidity and asking
the engineer to please show me how, in his godliness, it *really* does
work. I've rarely had one admit that he screwed up, but I always got a
(usually grudgingly) corrected drawing.....

If you "run into this crap with architects and project managers all of
the time" it is because you aren't communicating very well. AFAIK,
ACI documents aren't binding.... unless incorporated by reference in
the bid specs or code.... all of the pre-bid meetings I've been in
included a lot of "you asked for ______" and we did "_________,"
because that is required by code. That way the purchaser knows who's
hosing him..... and the engineer isn't considered an idiot... the
people who wrote the code are.

No, it's the norm. They think that because you do something that in
their eyes could be done much simpler, it's because you are hard headed,
over-thinking, no using common sense, and on and on. That just isn't the
case. We are bound by codes. And yes, ACI documents ARE "binding" in the
sense that building codes that you must conform to reference the ACI
specifications. Gene, I know, I do this for a living every day. And the
people who "wrote the code" are far from idiots, they have (again,
collectively) decided on an answer to a specific problem that occurs in
different ways in a manner that works for ALL cases. What many people
don't understand is that the structural or civil engineer is bound by
law to protect the citizens of whatever state he/she is practicing in.