Engineers and Egos

[ivsenroute]

Hm.... how about the electricians who decided to rewire 500+ pushbuttons in the field where the only thing need to be changed an incorrectly configured I/O status? Then they went around to spread the news how badly the EE's and ED's have screwed up.

I can definitely understand this. When I was trying to teach ladder logic for AB PLC5's to electricians in a plant it was like I was speaking Greek. The concept of an open switch allowing a function to happen (such as an open circuit on a photo eye allowing a motor to start) was very difficult for them to grasp.


We all have our issues and problems and communication is key as long as neither person communicating has an ego problem.

drbond24 said:

Engineers are regular people just like everyone else. Some are OK, some are really good, and some are jerks. It has less to do with the degree and more to do with what that person is like. To say the same thing a different way, if you are dealing with an engineer that is a jerk, that person is just a jerk that happens to be an engineer. There are lots of other jerks that happen to be lawyers, teachers, and yes, even electricians.

This is an A+++ statement

 

[quogueelectric]

I am not sure I understand this comment. But when I design a control scheme, the symbols I use on the drawing will show the contact in its "shelf state." It does not matter that that particular contact will really be in the other state for 99.9% of its operational life. Is that consistent with how you like to do it?

The shelf state is of course with the contact on the shelf in a box that shows its state. However when you attatch this contact to a mechanical operator the way that it is attatched often tiimes changes the state of the BOXED contact to the oposite of how it was in the box.

This needs to be understood by the person assembling say a buildable hoa switch where if you attatch the contacts on one side of the operating switch the state will be opposite of if it was attatched to the other side of the operating switch with a ramping actuator.

Once the switch is assembled there is no boxed state as you have a custom built switch. Which came first the chicken or the egg??
It amazes me that some engineers are not able to put the one line drawing aside for a minute to believe that a mechanical condition can easily reverse the logic.

 

[quogueelectric]

If I am the one you are dealing with, I want to know if something is not right. Don't do what you know to be wrong, just because there is an engineer's name on the drawing. Don't play dumb; the client that we share (i.e., the owner) deserves to have it done right.

But I do not want you to "fix my mistake." That is because I might have designed something that way on purpose. It might not be wrong, but rather just different than you are accustomed to see. So let's talk about it, let's do that politely, and let's not start off by assigning blame.

I as an installer sometimes am forced to do what is wrong based on explicit instructions from an engineer which no one wants to contradict.
I was given the job of replacing a critical simple 2 pole C form relay which I believe was a part of a turbine trip schematic. The relay that found its way to me was a used relay probably 30 yrs old and missing insulating and guarding pieces .
I searched the plant and found a new relay with all of the parts. Now it was on a night shift so the ee went home to sleep for a few hours and get right back.
Because I was specifically instructed to install that particular relay I could not find a single soul to OK me to use the brand new relay. I tried everyone.
The safe thing for me to do was to install the old piece of junk which I did. The right thing to do was to install the new one but I did not have the sheepskin to make that call so I took the insulating parts and guards from the new one and used it to make the junk safer.
That night I walked away muttering.

 

[drbond24]

I as an installer sometimes am forced to do what is wrong based on explicit instructions from an engineer which no one wants to contradict.
I was given the job of replacing a critical simple 2 pole C form relay which I believe was a part of a turbine trip schematic. The relay that found its way to me was a used relay probably 30 yrs old and missing insulating and guarding pieces .
I searched the plant and found a new relay with all of the parts. Now it was on a night shift so the ee went home to sleep for a few hours and get right back.
Because I was specifically instructed to install that particular relay I could not find a single soul to OK me to use the brand new relay. I tried everyone.
The safe thing for me to do was to install the old piece of junk which I did. The right thing to do was to install the new one but I did not have the sheepskin to make that call so I took the insulating parts and guards from the new one and used it to make the junk safer.
That night I walked away muttering.

I'm not sure about this one. If the safe thing to do was to install the old junk, why did you go looking for a new one in the first place?

Perhaps you should have just installed what you were given in the first place and moved on? I can understand if you were worried about it failing and you getting the blame, but if everyone was so certain that the engineer wanted that particular piece of junk installed, it would would be pretty obvious who was to blame.

I'm just making observations based on your story. Please don't take it personally. As an engineer, I've worked with a lot of other engineers that were of the worst kind; the kind that you guys are complaining about. I know thery're out there. My point is that they are NOT all that way, and you should be careful not to judge the ones you don't know by the ones you do know. All of us are unique, just like everyone else (re-phrasing someone's signature there...don't remember who it is.)

Looks like the worst thing this engineer did was work day shift. Sorry, most of us do that.

 

[charlietuna]

We were installing a change in a Smoke Evacuation System on an existing 40 story office building concerning providing additional emergency power. In the Engineering calculations they did not consider the fans operating on the floor below and above the floor of incidence! As we were installing some sub feeds we questioned this to the Engineer handling this job for the building owners. His remarks were something like this "i'll put it on the paper-you just install it!" When the system was installed and tested-these feeder breakers tripped on overload in the presence of the Fire Marshall ! We had already made plans for an alternate emergency power feed and had properly sized breakers in place to re-feed the system. The Fire Marshall wanted immeadiate action since the building was fully occupied and operational. The engineer of record was there for the test and refused to admit his error, but agreed to use our solution. Additional work was required, which he authorized and said he would approach the building owners for about $26,000 in added funds. Well, after a few months, we contacted him and he stalled us again and again! Three months later he said he couldn't get the building owner to approve the added funds and wanted us to accept additional work from his firm in payment for this $26,000. . My company always had more work than we could handle and i told him i wanted to get payed for the work he authorized !! Ended up i had to take him to court to get payed! In court he had to admit he made a mistake and that he had authorize the presently installed operational system -- judge asked him if he had "ERRORS AND ADMISSION" insurance? He said "yes"! Judge said "PAY HIM!" It's hard to get an engineer to admit a mistake !!!

 

[drbond24]

It's hard to get an engineer to admit a mistake !!!

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You can't make a statement like that unless you know ALL of the engineers.

It is definitely true that it is hard to get SOME engineers to make a mistake. I've admitted to at least two mistakes in this forum in the last two days. I'm not like this guy you dealt with, and I don't like being categorized with him just because we have the same degree.

If I knew a lazy, dishonest, good-for-nothing electrician and I started making all-encompassing statements about all electricians based on my bad experiences with him, you guys would be throwing a fit! I don't do that, I wouldn't do that, and I would appreciate the same in return.


As a side note, why am I the only engineer defending myself here? Speak up, ladies and gentlemen!!!


(My next step is going to be starting a thread entitled "Electricians, Electrical Contractors, and pains in my neck." )

 

[barclayd]

As a side note, why am I the only engineer defending myself here? Speak up, ladies and gentlemen!!!

I thought it was only for Engineers who made mistakes.

db

 

[drbond24]

I thought it was only for Engineers who made mistakes.

db

Hahaha! That caught me off guard. I'm pretty sure the guy sitting next to me thinks I'm a retard right now for the way I start laughing out loud all of a sudden.

 

[zog]

As a side note, why am I the only engineer defending myself here? Speak up, ladies and gentlemen!!!

Having too much fun reading your posts.

 

[petersonra]

The shelf state is of course with the contact on the shelf in a box that shows its state. However when you attatch this contact to a mechanical operator the way that it is attatched often tiimes changes the state of the BOXED contact to the oposite of how it was in the box.

This needs to be understood by the person assembling say a buildable hoa switch where if you attatch the contacts on one side of the operating switch the state will be opposite of if it was attatched to the other side of the operating switch with a ramping actuator.

Once the switch is assembled there is no boxed state as you have a custom built switch. Which came first the chicken or the egg??
It amazes me that some engineers are not able to put the one line drawing aside for a minute to believe that a mechanical condition can easily reverse the logic.

For such things most control drawings will have a contact chart that shows what circuits are closed when the selector is in a particular position. My drawings certainly do. I am not going to waste time trying to figure out which side is A and B on the operator and how a particular cam operates.

However, if I show wires going to the NO and Common terminals of a switch, thats where I expect them to be landed. Not to the contact that happens to be open when the thing is installed.

 

[Cold Fusion]

As a side note, why am I the only engineer defending myself here? Speak up, ladies and gentlemen!!!

I'm not in it because I don't feel any need to defend myself. Near as I can tell, you don't need to either.

And the ones that should be defending their actions - won't. After all, "they know they are right"

Another inconsequential tought: Do you really think that anything you have said has caused anyone to reconsider their thinking? I'm thinking those that got it already had it figured out. Those that didn't get it ....

cf

 

[LarryFine]

The shelf state is of course with the contact on the shelf in a box that shows its state. However when you attatch this contact to a mechanical operator the way that it is attatched often tiimes changes the state of the BOXED contact to the oposite of how it was in the box.

This needs to be understood by the person assembling say a buildable hoa switch where if you attatch the contacts on one side of the operating switch the state will be opposite of if it was attatched to the other side of the operating switch with a ramping actuator.

Once the switch is assembled there is no boxed state as you have a custom built switch. Which came first the chicken or the egg??
It amazes me that some engineers are not able to put the one line drawing aside for a minute to believe that a mechanical condition can easily reverse the logic.

There's a big difference between a contactor with the contacts shown as in the de-energized state, and a switch or contact set attached to a mechanical device with the contacts shown in the 'normal' state, whatever that is.

I would expect an as-built or as-wired schematic or diagram for any field-assembled equipment. Whether any given contact set should be shown as open or closed needs to have the 'normal' state of the mechanism clearly defined.

To me, electrical diagrams are just like any language. The writer must be concise with both the text and punctuation in order that the reader be able to mentally paint the same mental image the writer was trying to describe.

 

[ce2two]

Just for your information cal-trans has civil engineers inspecting traffic signals, cameras , new nodes for communications etc ,etc ,they refuse to admit there wrong (very common )...civil not electrical engineers (what) that's right ...Remember respect is earned , never let an engineer talk down to you ..otherwise game on ...I could carless how many years a person says they have, in what ever disipline it is ,you must prove your self..your only as good as the last job?

 

[sandsnow]

The one and only thing that sealing a document conveys is the assertion that the work was done by, or under the supervision of, the person applying the seal. That does not, by itself, require anyone to accept anything. The question of whether an inspector must accept a document that is sealed by an engineer is one of local laws.

Let me offer a counter example. Suppose I wanted to fill a conduit with wires of several sizes. Suppose that if all the wires were of the largest size, then number of wires would be over the limits shown in the appropriate Annex C table. Suppose I performed a calculation using the individual areas of each conductor, and was able to demonstate that the total area was less than 40% of the internal area of the conduit. Suppose that I signed and sealed that calculation, and included it in the package I sent for your approval. Would you feel compelled to accept my calculation, or would you reject the package on the basis that the set of wire sizes in my design does not appear in Annex C?

The wet stamp and wet signature we require here would be irrelevant. You either followed the Code rules on sizing or you did not.

I've never questioned an engineers design when it is outside the scope of the Code. If he wants to put one circuit in an individual office or three circuits, that is irrelavant to me.

On many occasions I have wrote corrections for Code violations to engineers whether it be in the field or in plan check. Sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong. I've only dealt with two firms that have been indignant to anything I say. I have a good working relationship with all (about a dozen regularly) the EE firms I deal with.

I do point out when I know things will not work or may be a problem for the electrician. One example would be a long 100amp run upsized to 1/0 cu parallel. The plans show this directly to 100 amp rated devices at both ends. A junction box would be nice to make it easier for the electrician to transition to #2 cu, but it's not really my problem nor would I withold plan approval for it. Most EE are receptive to it.

I strive to be professional in my dealings.

 

[charlie b]

However when you attatch this contact to a mechanical operator the way that it is attatched often tiimes changes the state of the BOXED contact to the oposite of how it was in the box.

If my design calls for use of such a device, then my plans will show (perhaps by way of a table, perhaps by way of a note) the position I want the contact be be in, when the mechanical equipment is in a given condition. If, for example, a contact is to be open when tank water level is within its normal range, and if it is to close when tank water level is low, you will see something on my drawing that makes that clear.

 

[charlie b]

I as an installer sometimes am forced to do what is wrong based on explicit instructions from an engineer which no one wants to contradict.

That is regretable. You won't get that from me. If it were within my power to apologize on behalf of the engineering profession for those among us who behave in that way, I would be glad to do so.

 

[charlie b]

. . . judge asked him if he had "ERRORS AND ADMISSION" insurance?

I usually disregard typographical errors and the occasional incorrect usage of words. But I can't let this one go. The term is, "Errors and Omissions."

 

[LarryFine]

If my design calls for use of such a device, then my plans will show (perhaps by way of a table, perhaps by way of a note) the position I want the contact be be in, when the mechanical equipment is in a given condition. If, for example, a contact is to be open when tank water level is within its normal range, and if it is to close when tank water level is low, you will see something on my drawing that makes that clear.

Didn't I just say that?

If it were within my power to apologize on behalf of the engineering profession for those among us who behave in that way, I would be glad to do so.

Oh, go ahead, give it a try. :smile:

 

[charlie b]

Would you feel compelled to accept my calculation, or would you reject the package on the basis that the set of wire sizes in my design does not appear in Annex C?

The wet stamp and wet signature we require here would be irrelevant. You either followed the Code rules on sizing or you did not.

I don't think you quite caught my point, Larry. In my example, the actual code requirement was the 40% fill. We know that if we follow Annex C, we will have no problem with conduit fill. I was talking about something that was within the scope of the code, but that could be handled in a way that is not explicitly described in the code.

The notion I was getting at was this: I want to put six wires in a conduit. There are three of the smaller size, and three of a larger size. Looking at the applicable table in Annex C, I learn that only five wires of the larger size will fit. But I perform a calculation and show that three large wires and three small wires are still within the 40% limit. That process is not described in the code, but the code requirement (40% fill) is met.

 

[sandsnow]

That process is not described in the code, but the code requirement (40% fill) is met.

As long as you prove 40%, your good to go. Stamp or no stamp.

If you're asking if I would check the math, then yes I would.

Just thought of something else. Some EE's will stamp anything. We had an EE who stamped an electrical room design with workspace dimensioned as clearly wrong.