|
Post by alanstepney on Apr 14, 2009 7:58:32 GMT
To start, we must realise that every country has its own rules. Indeed, in the USA, each State has its own specific requirements. The AMBSC codes whilst they obviously have some merit, do have limitations, and although a fixed set of rules might appear an attractive idea, that may not cover existing designs, or even some new ideas. (I can just imagine the outcry if, suddenly, everyone was banned from building, say, one of LBSC's designs. And before anyone states the obvious, a complete redesign and engineers assessment on all his work would be prohibitively expensive.)
The actual technical requirments are well known, and as John said, can be found in many books including those mentioned. There is no need to update the formulae, in the same way that we dont need to update the theorem of Pythagorus.
Wayne, it is interesting to read your comments on industrial/professional practice. I am pleased to see that my understanding of the qualifications was correct.
Shawki, you said "if a professional engineer....". That is precisely the point. The published designs HAVE been checked and approved by a professional engineer, and that is what makes them automatically accepted. You, or anyone else, is free to design your own boiler, and, as long as you can get a qualified engineer to sign off the design, it too would be quite acceptable.
As for the qualifications of boiler testers, as I have said, I used to be one. My modest ONC doesnt count, and neither do other qualifications in non-engineering fields, but the fact that I have built many boilers, does give me some experience, and that was considered sufficient to allow me to conduct routine boiler tests.
As for designs, I have also designed a few boilers, but getting them signed off by an engineer is not always as easy as one may assume. As one example, in one US State, the "suitably qualified engineer" has to be resident in that State and have a licence issued to practice there. In the UK, one can easily find engineers who either (a) see it as easy money and add lots of noughts to their fee, or (b) wont take the risk unless they have done all the work.
The "published (and by definition approved) design" has some benefits.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2009 8:14:48 GMT
As for the qualifications of boiler testers, as I have said, I used to be one. My modest ONC doesnt count, and neither do other qualifications in non-engineering fields, but the fact that I have built many boilers, does give me some experience, and that was considered sufficient to allow me to conduct routine boiler tests. Modest ONC? I think not. I bet you, like me, had to do proper 'sums' without a calculator, and write your name correctly at the top of the paper! Oh, and come to think of it, we had to be able to spell 'maffematics' correctly. Nowadays Alan you'd probably get into almost any University in the land with that! JB
|
|
|
Post by Shawki Shlemon on Apr 14, 2009 10:15:00 GMT
AMBSC code is a published design rules and therefore any boiler built to these rules/requirements is approved design here . Any old designs such as LBSC's are accepted if meets the AMBSC code or accepted after slight modification/s .An example , the code require the bottom of the water gauge to be above the crown by not less than 10% of the distance from the crown to the outer wrapper, if this is not enough on the plan , the builder will be asked to raise the bottom bush to achieve the requirements . To my knowledge no English boiler design has been rejected here , may be a few minor modification/s to bring the design to AMBSC code requirement. I built a few English engines and only had to make a few minor changes to boilers . One thing comes to my mind old designs did not have blow down valves , now it is mandatory in the code ( it is not retrospective ) , so the builder will be asked to fit blow down valve . I think we have a flexible,safe and affordable national boiler code .
|
|
|
Post by kneedeepinswarf on Apr 14, 2009 16:39:52 GMT
Modest ONC? Up until the late 1950s you could become a chartered engineer with a HNC! I once worked with someone who had an HNC and just got his CEng. before the rules changed. I was a bit younger than he and missed out. I can remember feeling rather peeved that his opinions seemed to carry more weight with some people than mine because he was a CEng., although our backgrounds and qualifications were much the same!
Lionel
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2009 17:00:29 GMT
Lionel, I remember that caper: a new or young institute gets lots of members at 'easy' qualification 'A', raises the joining requirements to harder 'B', shuts the door on newcomers without 'B', and enhances the status and pay of the original members without doing any further study! I expect this con trick continues today...... JB
|
|
|
Post by weldsol on Apr 14, 2009 19:28:20 GMT
Lionel, I remember that caper: a new or young institute gets lots of members at 'easy' qualification 'A', raises the joining requirements to harder 'B', shuts the door on newcomers without 'B', and enhances the status and pay of the original members without doing any further study! I expect this con trick continues today...... JB Been there and done that back in 79 with THE WELDING INSTITUTE after a friend got his Tech. Weld I. Eng, Tech by default of having the same cert's as me but one week earlier. I had to do another 2 yrs at 2 nights a week and then submit a paper and an interview before I got mine Paul
|
|
Tony K
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,573
|
Post by Tony K on Apr 15, 2009 8:12:43 GMT
We in the UK appear to be developing a system of double standards. On the one hand, I could build a boiler to an LBSC 40 year old design from materials assembled from the club auction night and under my bench, with all externals screwed directly into the copper and soft-soldered caulked stays and get it approved by a boiler inspector because it is an approved design. On the other I could have a similar one built to modern standards and the supplier has to get approvals various, traceability of materials, demonstrate calculations, CE marking etc. I think I would prefer to stand next to the latter. I am not sure where this is all getting us folks. Sometimes I think it is best not to ask some of the questions and be grateful for what we have. The alternative to what we have is either employing loads of people to police it all (which we would pay for) or to have loads of admin types dictating to us about something of which they know nothing (like all admin types). I expect people achieved what they could whilst discussing the regulations. Laissez faire for me - linked to personal responsibility.
|
|
russell
Statesman
Chain driven
Posts: 762
|
Post by russell on Apr 15, 2009 10:23:50 GMT
If the LBSC design has been around for 40 years with no history of accidents I would be confident that it is a safe design without it meeting current rules.
Russell.
|
|
|
Post by alanstepney on Apr 15, 2009 18:13:17 GMT
Sometimes I think it is best not to ask some of the questions and be grateful for what we have. That is a point that I have hinted at before. The system we have right now, whilst not perfect, is a lot better than some of the possible alternatives.
|
|
wayne
Seasoned Member
Posts: 137
|
Post by wayne on Apr 15, 2009 21:10:39 GMT
On qualifications front, to get EngTech this is now onc/ NVQ level 3, IEng is accredited Bachelors or honours degree in engineering or technology or NVQ level 4), CEng is fast approaching masters degree, This is all thanks to the eu especially Germany where you cannot call yourself an engineer by law unless you have a degree as above.
By the way the cut of is 1999 (from memory) prior to this a HNC or LCGI would in most cases have got you IEng. Also, if your HNC was obtained before this date may be able to still get your IEng status today via the appropriate institute under Sartor 2.
You can also now take an exam for IENG through C&G
Hope this is usefull Wayne
|
|
steam4ian
Elder Statesman
One good turn deserves another
Posts: 2,069
|
Post by steam4ian on Apr 15, 2009 21:54:35 GMT
G'day all
I'll wade in again. As a professional engineer (CPEng) who has to have demonstrated competence both in accademic terms and by experience I am very jealous of the name "engineer". Not only did I have to demonstate competence but I also have to regularly prove that I am maintaining that competence. Continuing professional developemnt (CPD) is now a fundamantal part of maintaining recognition in many professions. (A lucrative business for some "training" organisations and circuit speakers. say he cynically)
We wouldn't take our cars to a mechanic without proven competence, have a house built by an unlicensed builder or go under the knife of a self taught "surgeon".
If model builders want to be called engineers then they have to act like engineers. That is, they have have to think through what they are doing not blindly follow some "words and music" and be capable of at least elementary design. I would rate being able to design a boiler to the AMBSC Codes as one of the competencies.
If the model engineering fraternity in the UK and elsewhere are truly engineers then they will be exploring, possibly expanding, the envelope of what they are capacble of doing and what they are allowed to do.
Prudence may dictate that for a while the status quo should be unchallenged, but ultimately it must be challenged. Don't put up with a bad job.
BTW I saw briefly a copy of the draft of the new AMBSC Code for Duplex alloy steel boilers the other night. To my eyes it appears to be heading in the right direction but I may comment more later. Challenging the envelope.
Regards Ian
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2009 22:44:17 GMT
Hi Ian, I think it may be my turn to defend the term 'Model Engineer'! Because of the wide range of activities covered by Model Engineering, no one definition can cover them all. Essentially it is the construction of scale model traction engines, stationary engines, locomotives, and machinery in home workshops. There are probably few of us who would deem themselves competent to understand the complexities of the various calculations that have been made in the past to render us safe from the mistakes of the incompetent! I'm of the opinion that that one shouldn't transport the mantle of intellectual achievement into the model engineering field, (unless it is used to redirect the misguided) as it may disillusion and disaffect aspirants to our most fulfilling hobby. We get by, trusting LBSC to get it right, and our engineering skills are utilised by making the best of our knowledge, enthusiasm, and the limited equipment available within our budgets. In summary, model engineers 'engineer' the best solution to the problem at hand. We don't need a BSc. to enjoy what we do! JB
|
|
steam4ian
Elder Statesman
One good turn deserves another
Posts: 2,069
|
Post by steam4ian on Apr 15, 2009 22:59:10 GMT
G'day JB
Like you I DO NOT want to make model engineering an exclusive province. We need to do all we can to get the inexperienced into our craft. Some may just find satisfaction and achievement in declining years. The younger may find it leads then into engineering/technical professions and craft related trades. Heaven knows we need more skilled people.
My point is that we could be called model crafts men (crafts persons?). To be model engineers to my oppinion means we employ a level of ingenuity (engineering) in what we do. This applies to the whole range from those who design their own models and make the casting to the assemblers of kits. From what I have read erecting a kit requires a level of organisation and ingenuity to get the parts together.
Back to boilers. I trust my UK friends do not stop pushing against the borders and just accept the status quo.
Regards Ian
|
|
|
Post by ripslider on Apr 15, 2009 23:35:46 GMT
Picking up on SimplyLoco and Steam4Ian's points I'll ask a very newbie-type question:
"Where does the innovation happen?"
Currently a very nice chap is acting as something of a mentor to me in the world of Model Engineering. And he shouts at me if I come to him with questions without doing research first. And he also lends me interesting books.
So in the course of this research I've found out - just in the world of boilers - about many interesting things. systems incoperating CO2 and nitrogen between the water and the heat source to increase efficiency. boiler skins made via a spinning process rather than the our more traditional processes. un-stayed designs using reflexed components. Steels. Aluminiums. Carbon composites for boiler bodies. Different jointing mechanisms. And my current fascination of flash steam. 3,000psi of superheated steam from a bit of bent pipe and a gas burner!
All of these *could* make for very interesting designs. And safe designs. And maybe move the hobby forwards, or reduce the cost of entry, or quadruple the safety factor over night. But it would seem that, at least under the UK system, none of these will ever see the light, because a few chaps got together at some point, wrote a book with a blue cover and decided that there is one way to build a boiler, and be damned with progress.
Maybe that's not true. Perhaps the chaps who create and maintain the Blue Book have an on-going R+D programme to keep up with new materials and methods and possibilities. Perhaps right now someone is toiling over the new sections relating to 4xxx series aluminium alloys and updating the rules on laser welding on steel boilers to take into account the new sodium based lens cooling systems available in Ng-YAG systems and what that means to the model engineer on a budget.
But as - in the main - an outsider looking in, I don't see that.
And right now, that's the main reason for me not joining any of the local ME groups. All my local groups are called "xxxxx Model and EXPERIMENTAL engineering society" but I can't find any experiments. And most of the reasons given come back to "well... it says in this blue book..."
Steve
|
|
|
Post by alanstepney on Apr 16, 2009 8:43:35 GMT
I believe that the vast majority of people in the "model engineering" hobby <and that is an important word> are more than satisfied if they can build a working model, of whatever-takes-their-fancy. Most are not engaged in engineering in any way for their "day job", and that, to many, is the appeal. As examples, I know dentists, solicitors, and people who, in their chosen field, and well qualified, but that field doesnt happen to be engineering. (Yes, I also know exceptions to that statement.)
Therefore to take up model engineering as a hobby, learn the skills needed, practice them, and build something that works, is a major achievement, and one that they can be justifiably proud.
Whilst I can see Ian's point about the term "Engineer", it does have a wider meaning than the narrow definistion that he propounded. As one example, in the US, an engineer is the guy who drives a locomotive. Whether or not it is is the correct term for "us", is a different matter. Some also object to the term "model" so if one rules out both words, we are left with nothing to call ourselves. Apart from that, the term is too well established to change now.
Regarding Steves point, some "clubs" do include the term experimental in their name. The SMEE being the most obvious example. You can also find many examples of research, design, and even now ideas coming forward, often by lone individuals who may, or may not, be members of any club.
For long and detailed research on specific historical matters, look at the work by Cherry Hill or David Hulse, to name but two. For more modern ideas, Jim Ewins springs to mind. However, the late Bill Hall also did a vast amount of work on various aspects of boilers, and (Dr) Jos Koopmans has done so on exhausts. Those are just a few, there are many others.
New ideas do get introduced and become" common practice" over time. It is bound to be a relatively slow process because, firstly, the models that most of us build are traditonal by nature. Secondly, any changes, for example, to boilers, to be generally accepted have to be worthy of a change from the status quo, and also have to be approved by the insurers. Whilst they may give the OK for one specific example, to give blanket approval to some major change requires that it has, at least, some history of being safe before they will be happy with it. That is no different from industry, but the latter will build many examples, test them to destruction and in other ways, and spend a fortune is so doing. Even then, it isnt a quick process to get something new approved.
But, to the majority, the experiments are unimportant. After all, if one is building a replica of a 19th century machine, it should be in materials that were available then.
|
|
Tony K
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,573
|
Post by Tony K on Apr 16, 2009 8:46:53 GMT
Perhaps the chaps who create and maintain the Blue Book have an on-going R+D programme to keep up with new materials and methods and possibilities. Perhaps right now someone is toiling over the new sections relating to 4xxx series aluminium alloys and updating the rules on laser welding on steel boilers to take into account the new sodium based lens cooling systems available in Ng-YAG systems and what that means to the model engineer on a budget. But as - in the main - an outsider looking in, I don't see that. And right now, that's the main reason for me not joining any of the local ME groups. Steve So Steve, if you want this - join one of the groups and make it happen. Most need new blood - it could be yours. You may find like-minded people. If you sit on your rump waiting for a club to shout to you that it is actioning the above issues, then I think you just might be disappointed. At the same time - do not forget this is a hobby. Many of us retired from work to escape the grief of development programs and the like and just want to run our locos/traction engines/whatever safely and be happy.
|
|
russell
Statesman
Chain driven
Posts: 762
|
Post by russell on Apr 16, 2009 8:54:29 GMT
First, I think we are getting off topic - could the moderators move this and the last few posts to a new topic "Engineers?"
I think that the problem in the UK is that there is no commonly used term to distinguish a well qualified and experienced engineer from an engineering worker. The term "Chartered Engineer" means nothing to the general public whose perception of an engineer is someone in dirty overalls under a car (no disrespect intended to car mechanics.
C.Eng was introduced (in the early seventies ISTR) to try to publicise the difference but it hasn't worked. It has only served to restrict membership of the institutions and create lucrative training businesses. If I K Brunel was around today he would not be allowed to join!
There is a clear need for unskilled engineering workers, for craftsmen, technicians, and engineers of all levels but there is no difference in the eyes of the media and thus the public.
I don't know what the answer is.
End of rant!
Eur. Ing. Russell C.Eng (retired)
|
|
|
Post by alanstepney on Apr 16, 2009 12:47:45 GMT
Unfortunately we dont have the ability to split topics with this board.
I do agree that the term "engineer" is frequently misunderstood, but dont know any answer to that problem.
|
|
|
Post by ripslider on Apr 17, 2009 19:30:31 GMT
Perhaps the chaps who create and maintain the Blue Book have an on-going R+D programme to keep up with new materials and methods and possibilities. Perhaps right now someone is toiling over the new sections relating to 4xxx series aluminium alloys and updating the rules on laser welding on steel boilers to take into account the new sodium based lens cooling systems available in Ng-YAG systems and what that means to the model engineer on a budget. But as - in the main - an outsider looking in, I don't see that. And right now, that's the main reason for me not joining any of the local ME groups. Steve So Steve, if you want this - join one of the groups and make it happen. Most need new blood - it could be yours. You may find like-minded people. If you sit on your rump waiting for a club to shout to you that it is actioning the above issues, then I think you just might be disappointed. At the same time - do not forget this is a hobby. Many of us retired from work to escape the grief of development programs and the like and just want to run our locos/traction engines/whatever safely and be happy. Two very good points, and also good points from Alan as well. Tony's points: 1) Joining a club - this I have, perhaps petulantly, given up on. I attempted to join my local club, but was taken to one side and had it explained to me clearly that 28 year old IT guys who "wouldn't know proper work if it slapped them" were not the type of people the club was looking to have join. take from that what you will about my local club and it's willingness to support "new blood", let alone new concepts. 2) totally agree with people wanting to sit back and enjoy their hobby, be it traction engines, loco's or building workshop tools. I would never suggest otherwise. However, there is anther group who ARE interested in innovation. That could be people like me, who are never happy with the status quo, and always ask "What's next", or it could be people on a budget who can't easily attain the status quo as it stands, or for any other reason under the sun. As a new entrant into the hobby, it sort of feels like this last group has less room to "play about it" than the world I am more used to in IT, where anything is possible and you just charge in and do it and sort it out afterwards in release 2 if there are issues. Yes there are safety issues to consider, but we have got good at managing, and controlling, risk in many other sectors, including full scale engineering, while still pushing ever forwards at a very fast pace. I do not see it as being any harder in the model engineering space if the desire is there?? Steve
|
|
|
Post by havoc on Apr 18, 2009 14:48:42 GMT
Talk about a club with an attitude problem. Honestly I think it is better to stay away from such people.
Well let us say there this way of thinking is not something that can be done in all cases. Do you think that medical or avionic software is written with that attitude? I think not, I have been in a job involving medical electronics and that is certainly not the way of working.
You do have a point, but when it comes to risk management in engineering (real engineering, not the cowboy-consumer-pc-application type) all parties involved tend to err on the safe side. I don't think that for a new bridge "we'll fix it in rev 2.0" is an option. For such projects risk management is a project in itself.
But a serious problem is time. Pushing the envelope in a radical way is something that asks for time, plenty of it. Having the idea takes an instant. Making it work is another thing. So I understand that a lot of people just go for something "old, reliable and proven". Building my 5" engine will take me to my pension (25 years or so). It will only be a very small push, the only thing in it is that it will be an engine not build from published plans. Lame...I know but I might have a few years fun running it.
I'd like to tackle something more experimental but after a few evenings of tought and a few pages of sketches/calculations it was clear that going that way meant I would never see that engine run in my lifetime. It would have involved a complete boiler, burner, engine, transmission and frame from scratch. Getting that boiler right would take years and several prototypes. And then there is the rest to do and hoping the combination works.
Now if you could get together a group and tackle a radical project with several people you have a chance. It would add to it a load of (people) management that isn't to be underestimated. Just getting 5 people to agree on a detail might be a major undertaking.
|
|