I have an idea… if you guys want to continue this, how about you email each other directly… I would imagine that a lot of people are put-off by the list merely by the constant bickering – much less the direct personal attacks.
Definitely me. I often shop at Fiesta.We are seeking facilitators with the following skills and experience:
-- Strong experience working in multi-cultural situations;
Not only am I good at working with them, but I have experience both as a child AND as a young person. So I can definitely relate.-- Excellent skills and background working with children with young people;
I live in Texas where, it is said, if you don't like the "climate" right this moment, just wait. It will CHANGE in just a little while. Now, I have not actually facilitated any climate change workshops, but I'm sure that I could be counted upon to help a group of yout's to create sufficient CO2 as a demonstration. So I would put a "check mark" on this item as well.-- Strong background in climate change; facilitating climate change
youth workshops preferred;
As a child, I was often MADE to participate in various activities, including washing dishes, making my bed, vacuuming, and feeding and walking the dogs. I have taken that talent into my adult years, and have often made my own children and grandchildren to participate in similar activities. I know that MAKING someone participate in community activities is looked upon with great favor in those countries that think the U.N. is there to "help" them, and I can certainly do my part.-- Ideally trained in minimum standards for child participation
I'm not doing anything else right now, as it happens. Or then.-- Available 18 to 24 September and 25 November to 6 December, travel
I hope it won't be a problem if I don't speak fluent Copenish.and in-country costs covered for the November/December portion in
Copenhagen
-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Caldwell [mailto:stancaldwell@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 5:51 PM
To: SEAINT Listserv
Subject: OT: I Think I Am Going To Be Sick !!Original Message-----
From: kerry.unicef@gmail.com On Behalf Of Kerry Constabile
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 10:35 AM
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Subject: Fwd: Seeking Climate Change Facilitators
Dear all,
We are currently seeking climate change facilitators to lead the
facilitation team at and before UNICEF's Children Climate
Forum - Copenhagen 2009. If you can recommend individuals with
climate change facilitation experience or if you are interested in
facilitating our team, please let me know.
We are seeking facilitators with the following skills and experience:
-- Strong experience working in multi-cultural situations;
-- Excellent skills and background working with children with young people;
-- Strong background in climate change; facilitating climate change
youth workshops preferred;
-- Ideally trained in minimum standards for child participation
-- Available 18 to 24 September and 25 November to 6 December, travel
and in-country costs covered for the November/December portion in
Copenhagen
Many thanks for your help.
Regards,
Kerry
Kerry Constabile
Specialist, Environment and Young People
Adolescent Development and Participation (ADAP)
Division of Policy and Practice
UNICEF Headquarters
3 United Nations Plaza
New York 10017, U.S.A.
Tel : +1-917-265-4545
Fax : +1-212-824 6470
E-Mail :kconstabile@unicef.org
Do I get to wear a powder blue helmet during the indoctrination sessions?
A Structural Engineer, P.C.
Glenn C. Otto, P.E.
Virginia Beach, VA
-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Caldwell [mailto:stancaldwell@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 8:51 PM
To: SEAINT Listserv
Subject: OT: I Think I Am Going To Be Sick !!
Original Message-----
From: kerry.unicef@gmail.com On Behalf Of Kerry Constabile
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 10:35 AM
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Subject: Fwd: Seeking Climate Change Facilitators
Dear all,
We are currently seeking climate change facilitators to lead the
facilitation team at and before UNICEF's Children Climate
Forum - Copenhagen 2009. If you can recommend individuals with
climate change facilitation experience or if you are interested in
facilitating our team, please let me know.
We are seeking facilitators with the following skills and experience:
-- Strong experience working in multi-cultural situations;
-- Excellent skills and background working with children with young people;
-- Strong background in climate change; facilitating climate change
youth workshops preferred;
-- Ideally trained in minimum standards for child participation
-- Available 18 to 24 September and 25 November to 6 December, travel
and in-country costs covered for the November/December portion in
Copenhagen
Many thanks for your help.
Regards,
Kerry
Kerry Constabile
Specialist, Environment and Young People
Adolescent Development and Participation (ADAP)
Division of Policy and Practice
UNICEF Headquarters
3 United Nations Plaza
New York 10017, U.S.A.
Tel : +1-917-265-4545
Fax : +1-212-824 6470
E-Mail :kconstabile@unicef.org
Original Message-----
From: kerry.unicef@gmail.com On Behalf Of Kerry Constabile
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 10:35 AM
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Subject: Fwd: Seeking Climate Change Facilitators
Dear all,
We are currently seeking climate change facilitators to lead the
facilitation team at and before UNICEF's Children Climate
Forum - Copenhagen 2009. If you can recommend individuals with
climate change facilitation experience or if you are interested in
facilitating our team, please let me know.
We are seeking facilitators with the following skills and experience:
-- Strong experience working in multi-cultural situations;
-- Excellent skills and background working with children with young people;
-- Strong background in climate change; facilitating climate change
youth workshops preferred;
-- Ideally trained in minimum standards for child participation
-- Available 18 to 24 September and 25 November to 6 December, travel
and in-country costs covered for the November/December portion in
Copenhagen
Many thanks for your help.
Regards,
Kerry
Kerry Constabile
Specialist, Environment and Young People
Adolescent Development and Participation (ADAP)
Division of Policy and Practice
UNICEF Headquarters
3 United Nations Plaza
New York 10017, U.S.A.
Tel : +1-917-265-4545
Fax : +1-212-824 6470
E-Mail :kconstabile@unicef.org
Original Message-----
From: kerry.unicef@gmail.com On Behalf Of Kerry Constabile
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 10:35 AM
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Subject: Fwd: Seeking Climate Change Facilitators
Dear all,
We are currently seeking climate change facilitators to lead the
facilitation team at and before UNICEF's Children Climate
Forum - Copenhagen 2009. If you can recommend individuals with
climate change facilitation experience or if you are interested in
facilitating our team, please let me know.
We are seeking facilitators with the following skills and experience:
-- Strong experience working in multi-cultural situations;
-- Excellent skills and background working with children with young people;
-- Strong background in climate change; facilitating climate change
youth workshops preferred;
-- Ideally trained in minimum standards for child participation
-- Available 18 to 24 September and 25 November to 6 December, travel
and in-country costs covered for the November/December portion in
Copenhagen
Many thanks for your help.
Regards,
Kerry
Kerry Constabile
Specialist, Environment and Young People
Adolescent Development and Participation (ADAP)
Division of Policy and Practice
UNICEF Headquarters
3 United Nations Plaza
New York 10017, U.S.A.
Tel : +1-917-265-4545
Fax : +1-212-824 6470
E-Mail :kconstabile@unicef.org
Just wondering where your B.Tech (mfg & mech) places you in this mix
of building designers you are talking about.
I do disagree with a lot of what you say below but this has dragged
on long enough and I have more important things to do so have decided
not to try to extend the discussion.
At 05:15 PM 14/08/2009, you wrote:
>Gil, and others
>
>Gil, I don't disagree with you there. They get's what they pay for!
>
>Part of the original issue is what value the structural engineer? If the
>structural engineer is only interested in simple frame and fabric box like
>structures, then they cannot expect to gain a large remuneration for their
>contribution to a project. They should also expect and be aware that the
>skills/service they are offering also overlap with those of other
>occupations, from architects to engineering associates. As a consequence
>their services may be dispensed with all together.
>
>Also if the market place, does limit everything to simple boxes, then it
>could be said the market has little need for structural engineers, and
>greater need for say structural engineering associates. But gets complex, if
>a 50% pass mark gets a B.Eng, then "engineers" operating at level of
>engineering associates. If 50% gets associate diploma/degree, then
>engineering associates operating at level of drafters. But some engineering
>associates get 100%, and are operating at a level above the lower level of
>those with the B.Eng. These engineering associates hit a problem turn to an
>engineer, and fail to find the level of competence they expect. If increase
>the minimum pass mark to 90% then create an entirely different environment.
>Or from another aspect if market only requires structural engineering
>associates, then civil engineers will suffice and no need to extend to
>providing structural engineers. {But what can a modern time (2000's) civil
>engineer do? Test water quality?}
>
>The collectives of architects, structural engineers, and engineering
>associates have little to do with the market place, such titles and
>classifications refer to idealistic specifications of competence and service
>provision. The market place is much more complex, people have to get by with
>the limited resources they have access to. Creating licenses does not help.
>The license simply defines the absolute minimum quality of service to be
>provided, and required to be provided. Anything more is unnecessary
>otherwise it would be in included in the license requirements. Thus fees
>diminish to the level of the licensed task: which has little to do with
>design or engineering, and more to do with code checking.
>
>Also from an historical perspective: Robert Stephenson, who built the
>Britannia bridge, turned to Fairbairn for advice, mostly experimental, he in
>turn, sought the assistance of Hodgkinson for a more mathematical
>assessment, using those new fangled theories from the continent. Who or what
>we call the people on the project is largely irrelevant as long as the
>required skills for the project are enlisted: and adequate evidence of
>suitability for the proposal is produced.
>
>Thus community can either look for an architect or look for Frank
>Lloyd-Wright or Frank Gehry. It can look for a structural engineer, or seek
>the services of Ove Arup. For the most part however, people will look for
>some one with a local reputation: the name and reputation more important
>than the group they belong to. Unless group is the name of business: like
>Arup.
>
>On the other hand icons can be important, icons set very high bench marks:
>now who is the current icon of structural engineering? Trehair for steel,
>Hancock for cold-formed steel, and Holmes for wind loading, Murray for
>vibration. But who for structural engineering?
>
>Which individual or which business is the Mega-Star of structural
>engineering? Are they represented on this list? Further more who is the
>favourite in line to replace them when they retire? What will we loose or
>gain in the process?
>
>The discipline of structural engineering exists, because the field overlaps
>civil engineering, mechanical engineering, architecture, naval architecture
>and aeronautical engineering and has additional requirements as well. But
>this doesn't mean that all the structural engineering aspects of
>architecture and naval architecture should be handed over to structural
>engineers, nor that civil and mechanical engineers should be excluded from
>practising in the areas. When turn to the structural engineer really looking
>for that additional specialist aspect of their skill base, not the common
>aspect which over laps with other fields. That specialist aspect however,
>typically has infrequent demand, and thus a small market. So the bread and
>butter work, typically has significant over lap with other occupations,
>hence large number of potential suppliers, but still not a great volume of
>work.
>
>Universities and learned societies defining jobs is a major problem and
>obstacle to technological progress. One group of people concerned about
>their status, another simply want to get the real job done, not some
>idealistic perspective of what the job should be. The community wants
>buildings and machines, not pictures of, nor calculations about. The market
>doesn't care about the professions, and nor does business. Business will
>organise in what ever way it sees fit, to supply to anticipated demand.
>
>And for the most I would say the modern engineer has become the Hodgkinson,
>or Euler: great at mathematics, but for everybody's sake should probably
>keep most of them well in the background. It is a complicated balance: we
>need people with the higher analytical ability but in so acquiring they tend
>to loose perspective of the more practical aspects of design. Those with the
>more practical skills tend to lack the higher analytical ability. Need the
>balance of skills in both individuals and within the community.
>
>That balance is where we have an increasing problem. The middle area is
>shrinking. The trade/technical skills are diminishing at one end, and the
>analytical skills increasing at the other end, and a huge gap in between. So
>can analyse complex systems, but cannot get made. So the system is
>simplified to what the skill base can produce and then the system is seen as
>defective. But our society is focused on pushing people through university
>to the neglect of the more practical technical skills. Any attempt to direct
>education to be more in tune with the needs of the community, is seen as an
>attempt to deny access to university. So university is what the market
>demands, but not necessarily what it needs. In response create all kinds of
>new occupational degrees, and new professions, or rather new higher status
>titles for old jobs. More pride in their job title and profession, than the
>quality of their work. Increasingly degrees are pursued as a ticket to
>employment, and not any real interest in the field of practice: just which
>profession gives the highest remuneration for the least effort.
>
>As I said in an earlier post. Structural engineers are simply an industrial
>product, which like any other product can be displaced from the market.
>Already have architectural engineers with overlapping skills, with emphasis
>on building structures. And building engineers, who combine the skills of
>the electrical and mechanical engineer for building services. Given an
>engineering degree is 4 years, and an architecture degree 5 to 6 years, it
>is not difficult to perceive that the architectural engineering and building
>engineering degrees could be combined to create a single say 5 year degree
>taking account of the over lapping arts and sciences.
>
>Human knowledge can be organised into all kinds of different packages to
>create a whole variety of different professions at different times. Whilst a
>professional title may remain, a large portion of the knowledge base may
>not.
>
>Therefore the value of a structural engineer, and their contribution to a
>project, has to be investigated relative to the resources available in the
>local market environment. The meaning of the term itself also has to be
>considered relative to a given local environment. In Australia anyone with a
>B.Eng is considered to be a professional engineer (PE), the top echelon is
>the chartered professional engineer (CPEng.), or those with state
>registration/licenses which may or may not be compatible with
>NPER(structural). Thus in Australia a structural engineer, may well be
>deficient of skill and experience, but if don't employ NPER(Structural),
>then cannot expect high quality. But does community really know NPER exists?
>
>Largely doesn't matter because people look for persons who can provide the
>services they require, compatible with what they can afford. Whilst safety
>is governed by codes of practice, and various review and approval processes.
>
>Achieving compliance with codes is a given. Quality and Value of service is
>determined by that provided over and above the routine. And such is not
>provided by collective groups (architects and engineers) and others who want
>to protect titles, rather quality and value is provided by individuals. Such
>individuals also tend not to make too much reference to any particular
>professional group, for to do so is to undervalue the full extent of their
>skill base: their skill base is not so limited. So status lies in personal
>reputation or that of the business they have built.
>
>So those looking for higher remuneration simply because belong to a
>profession, and think profession deserves more, then they have the wrong
>attitude. They as individuals have to contribute more, and extend themselves
>beyond merely doing the job. It is also their choice as to whether they let
>their enhanced reputation rub-off on a chosen profession.
>
>As for fees. I don't believe fees should be based on percentage of
>construction costs or capital value of works, nor hourly rates. The client
>has a budget, which cannot be exceeded. The principal consultants task is to
>distribute the use of that budget to get the maximum possible value
>end-product. Kitchens, bathrooms add value to houses for the first owner and
>all future owners, concrete hidden in the ground does not add value, but
>represents cost, a cost which may not be recovered by sale. Engineering
>drawings, calculations and the construction labour simply add costs, but no
>real long term value to a project. A good design adds value, quality labour
>adds value. The objective is to distribute the materials in the structure so
>that provide maximum possible value.
>
>The principal consultant accepts project for the available budget, if they
>can get the end-product for 50% of the budget they keep the other 50%. If
>they use 99.9% of the budget to get the end-product then they only get to
>keep 0.1%. If consultant has in-house wages to pay at hourly rates, and
>spending too much of budget on such wages, then will have to work smarter
>and harder to get the end-product from the remaining budget: for they have
>to supply the end-product within the budget. That is their task: achieve the
>maximum benefit from the limited but available resources. Any fool can do
>the job for more than the available budget. If task seems impossible within
>the available budget, then don't accept the job. Of course it really helps
>if fulfil role of both chief builder and chief designer. So if we choose to
>be sub-consultants to architects and similar, then our value to the project
>is transformed into a cost to be reduced: therefore expect fees to be pushed
>down. Need to get control of project in whole, to get maximum possible
>portion of available budget. And design-construct is not some new fangled
>thing: it is ancient tradition. I believe we need to get back to it, and
>ensure enterprises are available with a skilled workforce in-house: none of
>this reliance on labour all being individual sub-contractors. It is
>basically a matter of individuals starting businesses and setting new
>benchmarks of quality, rather than settling for the status quo: no easy
>task, but may be interesting.
>
>
>
>
>Regards
>Conrad Harrison
>B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust
>mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com
>Adelaide
>South Australia
>
>
>
>
>
>******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
>* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
>*
>* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
>* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
>* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
>*
>* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
>*
>* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
>* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
>* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
>* site at: http://www.seaint.org
>******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
Regards Gil Brock
Prestressed Concrete Design Consultants Pty. Ltd. (ABN 84 003 163 586)
5 Cameron Street Beenleigh Qld 4207 Australia
Ph +61 7 3807 8022 Fax +61 7 3807 8422
email: gil@raptsoftware.com
email: sales@raptsoftware.com
email: support@raptsoftware.com
webpage: http://www.raptsoftware.com
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daryl Richardson [mailto:h.d.richardson@shaw.ca]
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 1:13 PM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: Re: License (Business)
>
> Al,
>
> You are right! Bill certainly isn't dull!!!
>
> But he is, in my opinion, a good engineer.
>
> Regards,
>
> H. Daryl Richardson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Grathwol, Albert" <albert.grathwol@aecom.com>
> To: <seaint@seaint.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 2:02 PM
> Subject: RE: License (Business)
>
>
> You don't qualify-
> Al
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Polhemus [mailto:bill@polhemus.cc]
> > Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 12:29 PM
> > To: <seaint@seaint.org>
> > Subject: Re: License (Business)
> >
> > Er, define "dull." And how would one's "dullness" be
> > determined beforehand?
> >
> > William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.
> > Via iPhone 3G
> >
> > On Aug 13, 2009, at 9:06 PM, Gil Brock <gil@raptsoftware.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Conrad,
> > >
> > > Dull structural engineers should not be involved in complex
> > > structures, so whoever is selecting the consulting engineer
> > should not
> > > select a dull one if he wants a complex structure. If the
> > idiot paying
> > > the money selects a dull engineer to design a complex
> > structure, what
> > > can he expect to get!
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> > *
> > * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> > * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> > * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> > *
> > * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> > *
> > * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> > * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> > * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> > * site at: http://www.seaint.org
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> >
> >
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
You are right! Bill certainly isn't dull!!!
But he is, in my opinion, a good engineer.
Regards,
H. Daryl Richardson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Grathwol, Albert" <albert.grathwol@aecom.com>
To: <seaint@seaint.org>
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 2:02 PM
Subject: RE: License (Business)
You don't qualify-
Al
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Polhemus [mailto:bill@polhemus.cc]
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 12:29 PM
> To: <seaint@seaint.org>
> Subject: Re: License (Business)
>
> Er, define "dull." And how would one's "dullness" be
> determined beforehand?
>
> William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.
> Via iPhone 3G
>
> On Aug 13, 2009, at 9:06 PM, Gil Brock <gil@raptsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> > Conrad,
> >
> > Dull structural engineers should not be involved in complex
> > structures, so whoever is selecting the consulting engineer
> should not
> > select a dull one if he wants a complex structure. If the
> idiot paying
> > the money selects a dull engineer to design a complex
> structure, what
> > can he expect to get!
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Polhemus [mailto:bill@polhemus.cc]
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 12:29 PM
> To: <seaint@seaint.org>
> Subject: Re: License (Business)
>
> Er, define "dull." And how would one's "dullness" be
> determined beforehand?
>
> William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.
> Via iPhone 3G
>
> On Aug 13, 2009, at 9:06 PM, Gil Brock <gil@raptsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> > Conrad,
> >
> > Dull structural engineers should not be involved in complex
> > structures, so whoever is selecting the consulting engineer
> should not
> > select a dull one if he wants a complex structure. If the
> idiot paying
> > the money selects a dull engineer to design a complex
> structure, what
> > can he expect to get!
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.
Via iPhone 3G
On Aug 13, 2009, at 9:06 PM, Gil Brock <gil@raptsoftware.com> wrote:
> Conrad,
>
> Dull structural engineers should not be involved in complex
> structures, so whoever is selecting the consulting engineer should
> not select a dull one if he wants a complex structure. If the idiot
> paying the money selects a dull engineer to design a complex
> structure, what can he expect to get!
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
Give "credit" where credit is due.
Speaking of "the totality," the Sydney Opera House has become the
symbol of an entire country, an entire continent, in spite of their
having fired the creative genius who first imagined it! Does that
make it a success or a failure, or both, in different contexts?
Gehry's Guggenheim Bilbao may have gone over budget (I don't know),
and it certainly cost more than a "box" of equal "utility," but it has
saved the economy of an entire region. What's that worth?
I'm afraid we'll never resolve the conflict between "cost" and
"utility."
Ralph Hueston Kratz
Structural Engineer
(and architecture lover)
Richmond CA USA
Sent from my iPhone 3G
On Aug 14, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Bill Polhemus <bill@polhemus.cc> wrote:
> The opera house is beautiful, but it doesn't work very well as a
> building. The point of the presentation I saw on Nova back fifteen
> tears ago or so, is that the DESIGNERS of buildings seem no longer
> capable of conceiving the totality.
>
> I. M. Pei's design got the John Hancock Bldg in Boston won all sorts
> of design awards - even while it was regularly popping out huge
> panes of curtain-wall glass and dropping them onto th street.
>
> William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.
> Via iPhone 3G
>
> On Aug 14, 2009, at 7:35 AM, Richard Calvert <RichardC@lbbe.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Why is everyone down on the opera house all of a sudden?
>> I mean, I can understand cost far exceeds its direct function.
>> But it's a world known structure that certainly attracts more
>> tourist tax dollars than something lesser would have...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gil Brock [mailto:gil@raptsoftware.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 10:07 PM
>> To: seaint@seaint.org
>> Subject: RE: License (Business)
>>
>> Conrad,
>>
>> Dull structural engineers should not be involved in complex
>> structures, so whoever is selecting the consulting engineer should
>> not select a dull one if he wants a complex structure. If the idiot
>> paying the money selects a dull engineer to design a complex
>> structure, what can he expect to get!
>>
>> I disagree with a lot of what you are saying. Yes, there are
>> engineers who are only up to square boxes. There are probably some
>> who should not design anything that is suspended also, because they
>> hurt when they fall down. Hopefully most of them know their
>> limitations and do not try to take on tasks beyond their abilities.
>>
>> But most times, it is the client who causes the structure to be a big
>> box because they will not pay for anything else, in terms of
>> construction costs, construction time and consultants fees. And often
>> it is a very cheap big box because they use substandard materials
>> that start to look run-down after only a few years, especially with
>> cladding. I know a lot of engineers who are capable of designing any
>> structure they are asked for, but I do not know of many clients who
>> are willing to pay for it, except in the Middle East (and who knows
>> what money is being used to pay for it there). You cannot expect to
>> get the Sydney Opera House for a structural fee .5% of construction
>> cost and have it designed in 3 weeks and built by the end of the year
>> for $300 per/m2.
>>
>> I agree that the Sydney Opera House is overly complex, overly
>> expensive and probably a waste of money, but that is what the
>> Architect came up with and the client was willing to pay (too bad it
>> was our tax dollars). They tried to get it simplified during the
>> design stages but did not succeed.
>>
>>
>> At 05:23 PM 11/08/2009, you wrote:
>>> Gil,
>>>
>>> The architect may operate as part of a team, but the architect is
>>> typically
>>> the team leader and historically the team leader. They may not
>>> make the
>>> engineering decisions, but their decisions influence the structure.
>>>
>>> Thus architects determine whether get the Sydney Opera House, or the
>>> Adelaide Festival theatre, or the Adelaide Entertainment centre.
>>> If a dull
>>> structural engineer involved then the Sydney Opera House would
>>> have been
>>> simplified to being like the Adelaide Entertainment centre: a big
>>> box. And
>>> architects do seem to have a hard time finding structural
>>> engineers who will
>>> go beyond the big box. If sticking with the box, and to historical
>>> conventions, and the tried and tested, then what need of the
>>> engineer?
>>>
>>> The lesser architect will be bullied by the structural engineer into
>>> accepting the dull box, the great architect will not budge and
>>> will find a
>>> better structural engineer (real).
>>>
>>> Since architects are not all alike and structural engineers are
>>> not all
>>> alike, it makes sense that sometimes they need to be paired up and
>>> sometimes
>>> they have no need of each other. Some times neither is required
>>> and have
>>> owner-designer-builders doing it all for themselves.
>>>
>>> There is no one single project organisation structure, that suits
>>> all
>>> projects, all the time, and in all places. The resources available
>>> to a
>>> project have to be managed properly: calling in the higher level
>>> skills when
>>> needed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Conrad Harrison
>>> B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust
>>> mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com
>>> Adelaide
>>> South Australia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
>>> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
>>> *
>>> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
>>> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
>>> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
>>> *
>>> * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
>>> *
>>> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
>>> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
>>> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
>>> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
>>> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>>
>> Regards Gil Brock
>> Prestressed Concrete Design Consultants Pty. Ltd. (ABN 84 003 163
>> 586)
>> 5 Cameron Street Beenleigh Qld 4207 Australia
>> Ph +61 7 3807 8022 Fax +61 7 3807 8422
>> email: gil@raptsoftware.com
>> email: sales@raptsoftware.com
>> email: support@raptsoftware.com
>> webpage: http://www.raptsoftware.com
>>
>>
>> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
>> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
>> *
>> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
>> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
>> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
>> *
>> * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
>> *
>> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
>> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
>> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
>> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
>> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>>
>> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
>> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
>> *
>> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
>> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
>> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
>> *
>> * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
>> *
>> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
>> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
>> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
>> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
>> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> ** This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers*
> Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To* subscribe
> (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you*
> send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted* without
> your permission. Make sure you visit our web* site at: http://www.seaint.org*******
> ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
I. M. Pei's design got the John Hancock Bldg in Boston won all sorts
of design awards - even while it was regularly popping out huge panes
of curtain-wall glass and dropping them onto th street.
William L. Polhemus, Jr. P.E.
Via iPhone 3G
On Aug 14, 2009, at 7:35 AM, Richard Calvert <RichardC@lbbe.com> wrote:
> Why is everyone down on the opera house all of a sudden?
> I mean, I can understand cost far exceeds its direct function.
> But it's a world known structure that certainly attracts more
> tourist tax dollars than something lesser would have...
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gil Brock [mailto:gil@raptsoftware.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 10:07 PM
> To: seaint@seaint.org
> Subject: RE: License (Business)
>
> Conrad,
>
> Dull structural engineers should not be involved in complex
> structures, so whoever is selecting the consulting engineer should
> not select a dull one if he wants a complex structure. If the idiot
> paying the money selects a dull engineer to design a complex
> structure, what can he expect to get!
>
> I disagree with a lot of what you are saying. Yes, there are
> engineers who are only up to square boxes. There are probably some
> who should not design anything that is suspended also, because they
> hurt when they fall down. Hopefully most of them know their
> limitations and do not try to take on tasks beyond their abilities.
>
> But most times, it is the client who causes the structure to be a big
> box because they will not pay for anything else, in terms of
> construction costs, construction time and consultants fees. And often
> it is a very cheap big box because they use substandard materials
> that start to look run-down after only a few years, especially with
> cladding. I know a lot of engineers who are capable of designing any
> structure they are asked for, but I do not know of many clients who
> are willing to pay for it, except in the Middle East (and who knows
> what money is being used to pay for it there). You cannot expect to
> get the Sydney Opera House for a structural fee .5% of construction
> cost and have it designed in 3 weeks and built by the end of the year
> for $300 per/m2.
>
> I agree that the Sydney Opera House is overly complex, overly
> expensive and probably a waste of money, but that is what the
> Architect came up with and the client was willing to pay (too bad it
> was our tax dollars). They tried to get it simplified during the
> design stages but did not succeed.
>
>
> At 05:23 PM 11/08/2009, you wrote:
>> Gil,
>>
>> The architect may operate as part of a team, but the architect is
>> typically
>> the team leader and historically the team leader. They may not make
>> the
>> engineering decisions, but their decisions influence the structure.
>>
>> Thus architects determine whether get the Sydney Opera House, or the
>> Adelaide Festival theatre, or the Adelaide Entertainment centre. If
>> a dull
>> structural engineer involved then the Sydney Opera House would have
>> been
>> simplified to being like the Adelaide Entertainment centre: a big
>> box. And
>> architects do seem to have a hard time finding structural engineers
>> who will
>> go beyond the big box. If sticking with the box, and to historical
>> conventions, and the tried and tested, then what need of the
>> engineer?
>>
>> The lesser architect will be bullied by the structural engineer into
>> accepting the dull box, the great architect will not budge and will
>> find a
>> better structural engineer (real).
>>
>> Since architects are not all alike and structural engineers are not
>> all
>> alike, it makes sense that sometimes they need to be paired up and
>> sometimes
>> they have no need of each other. Some times neither is required and
>> have
>> owner-designer-builders doing it all for themselves.
>>
>> There is no one single project organisation structure, that suits all
>> projects, all the time, and in all places. The resources available
>> to a
>> project have to be managed properly: calling in the higher level
>> skills when
>> needed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Conrad Harrison
>> B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust
>> mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com
>> Adelaide
>> South Australia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
>> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
>> *
>> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
>> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
>> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
>> *
>> * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
>> *
>> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
>> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
>> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
>> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
>> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
> Regards Gil Brock
> Prestressed Concrete Design Consultants Pty. Ltd. (ABN 84 003 163 586)
> 5 Cameron Street Beenleigh Qld 4207 Australia
> Ph +61 7 3807 8022 Fax +61 7 3807 8422
> email: gil@raptsoftware.com
> email: sales@raptsoftware.com
> email: support@raptsoftware.com
> webpage: http://www.raptsoftware.com
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> * site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
Hello All,
I’m trying to create a program to generate the allowable stress (and moreover, the calculation report) of a given aluminum member and alloy. Does anyone know of where I might get my hands on a database for the various alloys (basically Table 1 of V-6 in the ADM05, but in either in excel or an actual database)
A shapes DB would be helpful as well, but I can live on just modifying the steel shapes databases that I already have… plus my clients tend to use a lot of custom sections…
Thanks,
Richard Calvert, EIT
Lindemann Bentzon Bojack
Architects & Engineers
tel: 352.242.0100 ext.141 fax: 352.242.0302
Internet Email Confidentiality
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message.
If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible
for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver
this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message
and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if
you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of
this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message
that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood
as neither given nor endorsed by it.
I have an idea… if you guys want to continue this, how about you email each other directly… I would imagine that a lot of people are put-off by the list merely by the constant bickering – much less the direct personal attacks.
From: Peter Maregan [mailto:pmaregan@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:28 PM
To:
Subject: Re: 16d Common Nail Lateral Design Value
From: Bill Allen <t.w.allen@cox.net>
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:38:24 PM
Subject: RE: 16d Common Nail Lateral Design Value
but I would like to say that I don't attack anybody because of differing opinion.
Yeah, right. Very elegant and professional for someone pretending to be one!
My comments were directed to one certain individual who, for at least the past ten years, has been making lame comments and injecting politics and his personal views to serious engineering inquiries, sometimes even making fun at the person posting the question.
You yourself had several encounters with him on his inappropriate posts in the past.
No, I don't appreciate his non-engineering blather any more than anyone else, but your comments were particularly offensive and very personal. He was offensive and personal, too. Were you asleep or something?
Just recently, you made a similar attack on Christopher Wright and called him an a**hole on this list. I don't see his contribution any more. Is it coinsidence? I don't know. So, you had your share of insulting a fellow engineer on the list who, unlike Bill, has never made a negative comment about anybody.
Yep, and I meant it. The difference is that you don't see that very often and Christopher's comment wasn't political. It was a particularly offensive to a new member of the list on an ENGINEERING ISSUE. Even worse, Hypocrite!
So you're saying I can call you an "ASSHOLE" for insulting my engineering knowledge?
Like Chuck said, I had a better opinion of you.
Oh, now I'm going to lose sleep tonight. You really are one.
T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E.
Consulting Structural Engineers
OC V (949) 248-8588 • F(949) 209-2509
SD V (858) 792-3488 • F(858) 792-3501
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Gil Brock [mailto:gil@raptsoftware.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 10:07 PM
To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: License (Business)
Conrad,
Dull structural engineers should not be involved in complex
structures, so whoever is selecting the consulting engineer should
not select a dull one if he wants a complex structure. If the idiot
paying the money selects a dull engineer to design a complex
structure, what can he expect to get!
I disagree with a lot of what you are saying. Yes, there are
engineers who are only up to square boxes. There are probably some
who should not design anything that is suspended also, because they
hurt when they fall down. Hopefully most of them know their
limitations and do not try to take on tasks beyond their abilities.
But most times, it is the client who causes the structure to be a big
box because they will not pay for anything else, in terms of
construction costs, construction time and consultants fees. And often
it is a very cheap big box because they use substandard materials
that start to look run-down after only a few years, especially with
cladding. I know a lot of engineers who are capable of designing any
structure they are asked for, but I do not know of many clients who
are willing to pay for it, except in the Middle East (and who knows
what money is being used to pay for it there). You cannot expect to
get the Sydney Opera House for a structural fee .5% of construction
cost and have it designed in 3 weeks and built by the end of the year
for $300 per/m2.
I agree that the Sydney Opera House is overly complex, overly
expensive and probably a waste of money, but that is what the
Architect came up with and the client was willing to pay (too bad it
was our tax dollars). They tried to get it simplified during the
design stages but did not succeed.
At 05:23 PM 11/08/2009, you wrote:
>Gil,
>
>The architect may operate as part of a team, but the architect is typically
>the team leader and historically the team leader. They may not make the
>engineering decisions, but their decisions influence the structure.
>
>Thus architects determine whether get the Sydney Opera House, or the
>Adelaide Festival theatre, or the Adelaide Entertainment centre. If a dull
>structural engineer involved then the Sydney Opera House would have been
>simplified to being like the Adelaide Entertainment centre: a big box. And
>architects do seem to have a hard time finding structural engineers who will
>go beyond the big box. If sticking with the box, and to historical
>conventions, and the tried and tested, then what need of the engineer?
>
>The lesser architect will be bullied by the structural engineer into
>accepting the dull box, the great architect will not budge and will find a
>better structural engineer (real).
>
>Since architects are not all alike and structural engineers are not all
>alike, it makes sense that sometimes they need to be paired up and sometimes
>they have no need of each other. Some times neither is required and have
>owner-designer-builders doing it all for themselves.
>
>There is no one single project organisation structure, that suits all
>projects, all the time, and in all places. The resources available to a
>project have to be managed properly: calling in the higher level skills when
>needed.
>
>
>
>Regards
>Conrad Harrison
>B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust
>mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com
>Adelaide
>South Australia
>
>
>
>
>
>******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
>* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
>*
>* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
>* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
>* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
>*
>* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
>*
>* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
>* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
>* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
>* site at: http://www.seaint.org
>******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
Regards Gil Brock
Prestressed Concrete Design Consultants Pty. Ltd. (ABN 84 003 163 586)
5 Cameron Street Beenleigh Qld 4207 Australia
Ph +61 7 3807 8022 Fax +61 7 3807 8422
email: gil@raptsoftware.com
email: sales@raptsoftware.com
email: support@raptsoftware.com
webpage: http://www.raptsoftware.com
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
Stuart, Matthew wrote:Okay, I don't get this. If this is a "curtain wall company" that has thirty engineers, why do they need outside training for their junior staff?
Dear Matthew Stuart,
We are Curtain Wall company with over 30 Engineers and Project Manager.
We like to know how best you can help us to teach our junior engineer to be come familiar
In the curtain wall design and carry our (project management) work.
It there are institute that give training and certificate on the curtain wall business.
Look forward to your reply.
Regards
Since this is a specialty, there are going to be relatively few experts - and one would assume that a good many of those would be employed by the company itself.
What am I missing here?
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: * * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp * * Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
Now you wrote that
>In Australia anyone with a
>B.Eng is considered to be a professional engineer (PE), the top echelon is
>the chartered professional engineer (CPEng.)
I have always thought that in the Commonwealth countries, the
chartership is more or less equivalent to American PE. Could you
please explain what you mean by comparing a university degree to PE?
To my understanding, in Australia only chartered engineers can stamp
drawings. So what kinds of projects would need only B.Engs or M.Engs
and what would require a CPEng?
I'm asking because here we have a licensing system for enterprises but
not for individuals.
I also see that a medium-level (~5-7 years experience) structural
engineering position would not normally require a CPEng status, which
is different from the US where you are supposed to get licensed at
that stage. Is that really so?
Regards,
Alex.
--
Alexander Bausk
Civil/Structural design & inspection engineer, CAD professional
http://bausk.wordpress.com
ONILAES Lab at PSACEA
Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine
Tel. +38 068 4079692
Fax. +38 0562 470263
bauskas@gmail.com
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********