FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Engineering » Control
Alternator control problem
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 14 [210 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 12, 13, 14 Next
Author Message
Cameron Dorrough
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 103

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am    Post subject: Re: Simple just get do it, then change your future.. Reply with quote

That's all Greek to me (or Spanish)...

Cameron:-)

"Anatolio" <A-b04@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:2e1600b6.0502140337.5703faff@posting.google.com...
Quote:
EL MAIL DEL DINERO QUE SI FUNCIONA. INTENTALO

Si dedicas 5 minutos a leer este articulo completo, te darás cuenta
que es algo verdaderamente ingenioso y que de seguro resulta y te
hará ganar unos cuantos dólares, y lo más atractivo que tiene es que
la inversión solo cuesta 6 dólares, y eso no es nada comparado con
lo que podría reportarte si le dedicas tiempo y sacrificio.

{etc. etc. ad infinitum}
Back to top
Arthur J. Schreuder
science forum beginner


Joined: 11 Feb 2005
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am    Post subject: Re: DO YOU WANT TO OBTAIN MANY DOLLARS? READ THIS DOCUMENT!!! Reply with quote

YOU MUST BE EITHER KIDDING, OR DEMENTED TO THINK THAT ANYONE IN THIS GROUP
WILL RESPOND TO YOU IN A MANNER MORE POLITE THAN I AM BEING WITH YOU RIGHT
NOW. CEASE, AND DESIST THIS OFF-TOPIC POSTING IN THIS GROUP. YOU HAVE BEEN
WARNED.
"adarting" <adarting@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1a655d59.0501181437.40d8f529@posting.google.com...
Quote:
YOU WANT TO OBTAIN MANY DOLLARS ?
I've been trying to figure out the way to make extra money in the
internet, checking news groups and ads. It's not easy but I try to
keep an open mind to opportunities. In these websites you would find
messages like the one described further below. The message got me
thinking: This is just a chain, I don't buy it. But, what if it works?
It's not something new.

People have been doing it for decades and I've never heard of anyone
that have actually made some money out of it. But, what if it works?
When you really think about it, this is a real job. I finally made
up my mind and here I go. If you made up your mind too, or if you're
still giving it a little more thought, keep reading. It won't be
easy. Putting this message on every single website that you can think
of, like news, newsgroups and ads will be necessary.

The more you do it, the better for you (and for me too, of course),
that's why it's a real job. It'll take several hours of advertising
and promoting. This chain is different because it doesn't depend on
five or ten persons to whom the messages would have to be sent by
traditional mail. With the internet, the message is sent worldwide,
available to thousands and someone (like me) it's going to go for it.

Finally, did you think how much you're going to learn from this kind
of task so you can use this knowledge on future jobs or projects? Now
my name is the last one on the list, where, if you decide to go on,
you'll put yours at the end leaving my name as the one before last. I
wish you good luck, because part of this luck is for me too. This is
the message I found:

"A few days back, when I was visiting news websites, just like you are
now, I saw an article, very similar to this one, saying you can make
thousands of dollars in just a few weeks by investing only US$6°°! I
though: "Oh no! Another fraud?" But just like most of us, I got very
curious and I kept reading. The article showed six names and
addresses for you to send US$1°°. Then, you have to write your name at
the end of the list replacing the one on #6 and send the article to at
least 200 "newsgroups" (there are thousands of these all around the
world). There's no trick, that was it. The big difference between
this chain system and others is that you have a list of six members
instead of five. This means that your average profit will be fifteen
times higher!!! After thinking it through with my friends, I decided
to give it a try.
After all, I had nothing to lose but six stamps and US$6°°, right? I
was worried about the whole thing being legal, so I contacted the
Correo Central de Chile and they confirmed this chain is completely
legal! So I invested my US$6°°.....GUESS WHAT!!!... seven days later,
I started to receive money by mail!!! I was really surprised!!! I
still thought this would end in a few days, but the money kept
comming!!!
The first week I made from US$20°° to US$30°°.

By the end of the second week, I had made a total of US$1.000°°!!!!!
By the third week I got more than US$10.000°° and I was getting more.
This is my fourth week and I've made over US$41.000°° and It's still
comming ( my family spend the time opening the envelopes and I spend
my time finding "newsgroups"). This is getting serious!!!.
At the end, it really paid the US$6°° and six stamps investment. I
sure spent more on lotto!!!
Let me explain how it works, and most of all, the reason why it works
so well. Make sure to print a copy of this article RIGHT NOW so you
can get all the information needed. It's a very simple 3 step process:
STEP N°1: Get six pieces of paper and write this down on everyone:
"PLEASE INCLUDE ME IN YOUR ADDRESS LIST OR E-MAIL." Now get six US$1°°
bills. Then, fold the papers and put the one dollar bill in each so it
won't be seen through the envelope. It'll be better if you cover the
bill with a dark color paper so it won't be stolen. At the end you'll
have six sealed envelopes with six one dollar bills enclosed. By doing
this you're creating a "service" which makes it ABSOLUTELY LEGAL!!!
Send the envelopes to the following addresses:

1. Oscar Javier Rodríguez z
CR 31 # 45 - 23 barrio el triunfo, Villavicencio Colombia

2. Jorge Balcázar
Convento San Juan de los Lagos N° 36, Jardines de Santa Mónica, C.P.
54050, Tlalnepantla, Estado de Mexico, MÉXICO

3. Marco Vinicio Gramajo Leal
2a. Avenida 4-66 Zona 1, Mazatenango Suchitepequez, Guatemala, Centro
América.

4. Ricardo Portillo Arteaga
Calle Gonzalo de Berceo Nº 52 piso 2º letra B, codigo postal 26005,
Logroño - La Rioja, España.



5. Javier Piñeros Barreto
Carrera 72 No 62 f 33 sur, manzana 2 entrada 3 apto 102, Urbanización
Calabria, Bogota Colombia,

6. JAVIER DARIO ARENAS
Apartado postal : 243003
ADPOSTAL: Palmira - Valle Del Cauca - Colombia
Email: adarting@hotmail.com o darting@latinmail.com

STEP2: Remove name #1 of the top of the list and move the other names
one number up (#6 becomes #5 and so on), add your name and address as
#6. REMEMBER, YOU MUST REMOVE #1 NOT #6, MODIFY THE NUMBER ON THE
REMAINING NAMES AND ADD YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS TO THE LIST AS #6.
STEP3: Change all those things you consider to be changed in this
article, but try to keep it as close to the original as possible. Now
put your article on at least 200 "newsgroups" (there are more than
24.000 groups). Just search in google.com by the keyword "newsgroups"
and you'll find more than 56.000 items. You just need 200, but the
more you put the article on line, the more money you'll get!!
These are instructions to get into the "Newsgroups":
N°1 Since you must have your own article, there's no need to write it
all over again. Just select the whole text and use the "copy"
function from the "edit" menu.
N°2 Create a "notepad" file and "paste" the text, also using this
function from the "edit" menu. Now you have the text as a notepad file
and you can add your name and address as #6.
N°3 Save the text as a .txt file. This will make It easier for you to
make changes on the text whenever you want.
FOR THOSE WHO USE NETSCAPE
N°4 In the Netscape browser go to "window" and select "netscapeNews".
Then, select "options" from the menu and then selct "show all
Newsgroups" so you can get the list of all the "Newsgroups" in the
server. Click on any of the newsgroups, and then click on "TO NEWS",
it should appear at the top on the left. This will lead you to the
messages box.
N°5 Fill in that space. That will be the title everyone will see when
visiting any group.
N°6 Copy your article and paste it there. Go back to the Newsgroup and
"TO NEWS" and you'll be creating and pasting inside the program or
"posting".
N°7 Click on "send" AND YOU'RE DONE!..CONGRATULATIONS!!
TO THOSE WHO USE INTERNET EXPLORER
Step N°4 Go to Newsgroups and select "Post an article".
Step N°5 Load the article
Step N°6 Repeat step N°6 for the Netscape users.
Step N°7 Press "Post"
THAT'S ALL! All you have to do is search for different Newsgroups.
After a few loads, It'll take like 30 seconds to put the article in
each newsgroup!
Eventually you might want to get a P.O Box ‘cause you're gonna
get a
great amount of envelopes. You can also use a nickname as long as
the address is correct. MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE ADDRESSES ARE CORRECT.
Now, let's check the numbers:
Supose I only get 5 answers out of 200 sent messages (which is a
really low example), then I made US$5°° with my name as #6 on the
list. Now, if everyone who sent me US$1°° contact a minimum of 200
Newsgroups too, all of them with my name as #5 on the list, and just
five answer to the 5 original messages, I'll get US$25°°. This 25
persons put my name as #4 on a minimum of 200 Newsgroups getting just
5 answers I'd be making another US$125°°. Then, 125 persons put my
name as #3 on a minimum of 200 Newsgroups, again getting just 5
answers, I'd be getting another US$625°° and so on!! With my name as
#2 I'll get US$3.125°°, and as #1 , US$15.625!!!
Now, as I said before, getting only 5 answers is extreme, the real
average of answers is 20 to 30, so DO THE MATH!!! Once your name is
out of the list, get the last ad on the newsgroup and send the US$6°°
to the names listed and put yours as #6 and start all over!!
Just remember: Thousands of people all around the world surf the
Internet every day reading the article just like you and me! So I
think many of them wont see a problem on investing US$6°° to see if it
really works. I know that some will think, "what if no one answers?"
No way!!! What are the chances that will happen, when there are
millions of honest persons (like us) who need to pay bills, who are
looking for financial independence and who are willing to give it a
shot.
You can also do this by getting at least 200 e-mails. With this
system, the probability of success is 5% to 15%. Eather way you do
it, always remember to be honest and I promise you It will work.
Just make sure to print this article NOW. Try to keep a list to track
all those who sent you money. Keep checking the newsgroups so you can
see if everyone is playing fair. REMEMER, HONESTY ES THE BEST WAY TO
GET WHAT YOU WANT. I've heard of people who sent the message with
their names on the list but without sending the money and they hardly
received any money back.
TIME IS IMPORTANT! Don't wait more than seven days from the moment you
see this article! Let's follow the rules so we can all win! Don't
forget to mention this extra money on your tax declaration. THANK YOU
AND GOOD LUCK!
Back to top
Francis
science forum beginner


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am    Post subject: Re: Required FDA and OSHA control system documentation? Reply with quote

Yes, wrong word, sorry. I meant prescribe or enforce.
And all you have to do to check is tap Define and the word into a search as
I just did.


"Bruce Durdle" <bmdurdle@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:421f76dc$1@clear.net.nz...
Quote:
Shouldn't that be "prescribe"?

(That's my nit pick for the week) - but the IEE Guidelines (and I think
the HSE before that) recomend a Functional Spec to be "complete, concise,
and unambiguous". Add accurate to that as well.

Bruce.

Francis wrote:
It is a principle of the FDA not to proscribe a particular way. It's a
sort of consultants charter really.
Back to top
Jerry Avins
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 534

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am    Post subject: Re: Required FDA and OSHA control system documentation? Reply with quote

Bruce Durdle wrote:
Quote:
Shouldn't that be "prescribe"?

(That's my nit pick for the week) - but the IEE Guidelines (and I think
the HSE before that) recomend a Functional Spec to be "complete,
concise, and unambiguous". Add accurate to that as well.

Bruce.

Francis wrote:

It is a principle of the FDA not to proscribe a particular way. It's a
sort of consultants charter really.

That's only half a nit. Smile With complete freedom, nothing is either
prescribed or proscribed.

With no official requirements document, nothing is prohibited. Neither
can one claim to have met the requirements.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Back to top
Bruce Durdle
science forum beginner


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am    Post subject: Re: Required FDA and OSHA control system documentation? Reply with quote

Shouldn't that be "prescribe"?

(That's my nit pick for the week) - but the IEE Guidelines (and I think
the HSE before that) recomend a Functional Spec to be "complete,
concise, and unambiguous". Add accurate to that as well.

Bruce.

Francis wrote:
Quote:
It is a principle of the FDA not to proscribe a particular way. It's a sort
of consultants charter really.
Back to top
Francis
science forum beginner


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am    Post subject: Re: Required FDA and OSHA control system documentation? Reply with quote

It is a principle of the FDA not to proscribe a particular way. It's a sort
of consultants charter really.
I think there is a lot that "strongly recommends" it though:
The first standard that I remember being adopted widely was the IEE
Guidelines - I can't find a free copy on the web, but the following (just
one example - there are many) is I believe based on that.
http://www.searcheng.co.uk/selection/control/Articles/controldocs/fds.htm
The TickIT guide is widely used here in the UK
http://www.tickit.org
They provide a long list of reference documents which includes the IEEE ones
which are comparable
http://www.tickit.org/references.pdf
Then there is GAMP - Good Automated Manufacturing Practise.

But, even disregarding the standards, it is just good engineering practise.
Have you ever looked at the documentation that comes out of a DCS, or
PLC/SCADA?
Unless you understand the system well, it is very hard to follow, and it is
massive. Thousand of pages of cross reference, long lists of parameters, if
you are lucky some loop diagrams (but the loops may only be constructed by
linking points through some configuration data) and sequence diagrams (again
maybe not)
The first thing I do when I see a system that is only documented internally
is try to get an idea of it's structure and things like naming standards and
then how it relates to such specifications as exist, at least P&ID's and
maybe process descriptions - but these are often very poor from a control
point of view.


"John Shaw" <john@jashaw.com> wrote in message
news:1109294879.356269.300950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Jerry Avins wrote:
....
If anyone can point me to a regulation (U.S. or elsewhere), standard,
or even discussion in a publication that requires or strongly
recommends the use of functional requirements documentation for control
system software, I would like to hear about it.

John Shaw
Process Control Solutions
Back to top
John Shaw
science forum beginner


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 29

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am    Post subject: Re: Required FDA and OSHA control system documentation? Reply with quote

Jerry Avins wrote:

Quote:
This has been a long thread filled with good advice and appropriate
admonitions. It puzzled me from the start, though. The documentation
that government agencies require is not, by and large. a matter of
opinion or of accumulated experience. Those agencies publish
regulations. Why doesn't the OP consult them?

Unfortunately, the regulations do not seem clear about the required
control system documentation. 21CFR (FDA) and 29CFR chapter XVII (OSHA)
give very little guidance.

FDA has a guidance document, "General Principles of Software
Validation; Final Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff", January 11,
2002, that has some interesting discussion. It is very general and open
to intrepretation. The closest it comes (that I could find) is a
statement (sec. 4.1) "The software validation process cannot be
completed without an established software requirements specification
(Ref: 21 CFR 820.3(z) and (aa) and 820.30(f) and (g))." However, 21CFR
820 is part of the Medical Devices subchapter (H) and does not appear
to apply to drug manufacturing. (As someone in a pharmaceuticals plant
pointed out to me when I raised the issue). There is also a guidance
document that source code for control software be made a part of the
master batch record (there are specific requirements for maintaining
batch records).

So far, the only thing I have seen in writing discussing requirements
for such documentation is in this discussion and similar discussions
elsewhere on the internet. I have not seen it in government
regulations, organization standards, or books. Perhaps I am just
looking in the wrong place.

There seems to be full agreement here and on other fora about the
importance of functional requirements documentation for control
software, and I am sure that there are many who actually put this into
practice (I have seen numerous cases of excellent documentation--even
in industries where there is not a regulatory need). Many of use who
work in many different plants in many process industries have horror
tales of either lack of documentation or documentation that was years
out of date.

If anyone can point me to a regulation (U.S. or elsewhere), standard,
or even discussion in a publication that requires or strongly
recommends the use of functional requirements documentation for control
system software, I would like to hear about it.

John Shaw
Process Control Solutions
Back to top
Jerry Avins
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 534

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am    Post subject: Re: Required FDA and OSHA control system documentation? Reply with quote

Bruce Durdle wrote:

...

Quote:
On a lighter note ...

There are 4 ways of doing a job -
The way the designer originally intended it to be done
The way the manufacturer's instruction manual says it should be done.
The way the site procedures say it should be done.
The way it actually is done.

One of the first people I had to report to was the superintendent of a
thermal power station. He told us young engineers how he got the job -
in hiis previous position, he was in charge of a shift on another power
station, and always managed to get the station up and running half an
hour faster than any of the other shift charge engineers. How did he do
it? He ignored the specified limit on the steam temperature during warm
up - since he "knew he only had to go a couple of degrees over to make
all the difference".

Yup! And back in the old days, Sonny, it was quite usual to tie down the
boiler's safety valve when racing locomotives.

This has been a long thread filled with good advice and appropriate
admonitions. It puzzled me from the start, though. The documentation
that government agencies require is not, by and large. a matter of
opinion or of accumulated experience. Those agencies publish
regulations. Why doesn't the OP consult them?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Back to top
Bruce Durdle
science forum beginner


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am    Post subject: Re: Required FDA and OSHA control system documentation? Reply with quote

Further to John's comments, -

in the IEC 61508 standard, there is reference to:

verification - checking the outcomes of each stage to ensure that they
meet the requirements of the inputs

validation - checking the result of the whole design exercise to ensure
it does the job that was originally intended.

In brief - verification asks - "Have we done the job right?" while
validation asks "Have we done the right job?"

It's no use having a well-documented and "correct" implementation of a
control or protection scheme if the original intention was flawed - and
this should be the start for any design, and all documents ned to be
traceable back to this original intention document.

On a lighter note ...

There are 4 ways of doing a job -
The way the designer originally intended it to be done
The way the manufacturer's instruction manual says it should be done.
The way the site procedures say it should be done.
The way it actually is done.

One of the first people I had to report to was the superintendent of a
thermal power station. He told us young engineers how he got the job -
in hiis previous position, he was in charge of a shift on another power
station, and always managed to get the station up and running half an
hour faster than any of the other shift charge engineers. How did he do
it? He ignored the specified limit on the steam temperature during warm
up - since he "knew he only had to go a couple of degrees over to make
all the difference".


Bruce.

John Shaw wrote:
Quote:
Anita,

Yes, some DCSs can, perhaps by providing data to a program in a PC,
supply very good documentation of the software in the DCS. This
includes listings of programs and block diagrams of control logic.

However, this is not sufficient documentation.

There are three types of control system software documentation that is
needed.
(1) Functional description of control logic -- what should be
implemented,
(2) Detailed implementation description based on the functional
documentation - how it should be implemented,
(3) Detailed implementation data that is actually in use on the DCS --
what actually was implemented. (This is what the DCS can automatically
provide.)

Looking at each of those types of documentation:

(1) The functional requirements description, also known as control
narrative, requirements description, and other terms, describes, in
terms understood by operators and process engineers. The functional
description is a plain language description of the desired function of
each loop, interlock, batch phase, and other control function. In
general, it is independent of the implementation but instead explains
what shall be implemented. For each simple control loop, for example,
there should be an explanation of which process is to be controlled and
which process variable must be manipulated. Likewise, interlocks should
explain what triggers the interlock and which loops are affected and
how they are affected. This document will generally be reviewed and
approved by the appropriate people before implementation.

(2) The detailed implementation description (known by many names) is an
interpretation of the functional requirements description and is used
to actually implement the control software. It has the specifics for
the particular control system.

(3) The detailed implementation data that is actually in use on the
DCS, and often can be printed from the DCS in various formats, shows
not what is supposed to be in the DCS but what actually is in the DCS.
This type of documentation can be used for debugging, and a comparison
between this and the implementation details of type (2) can be used to
find errors in the implementation.

While DCSs and other systems are producing better documentation of type
(3), no system can produce the functional requirements (1)
automatically. That document is based on intent. The system cannot
determine the intent of the control engineer.

I know that it is common to skip the functional requirements
documentation (type 1). While I do not know what the FDA and OSHA
require, I suspect that you should have it to meet the requirements.
Even if you are not subject to regulatory requirements, you should have
this documentation as a way of recording the intent of the control
system engineering, as others have pointed out.

Anita Richards wrote:

Dear all,
Thanks for your comments.

Now a DCS vendor (we are selecting a new DCS) has said that their
system is self documenting and will produce the documentation of the
control system design by dumping the configuration information and
custom program code into one of several formats including Access data
base, Word documents suitable for printing, drawings, etc.

Is this adequate? Will it take the place of spending time at the desk
on the PC writing stuff in Word or building long loop lists in Excel?
It looks like it will save a bunch of man-hours (or woman hours!).

Thanks

Back to top
John Shaw
science forum beginner


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 29

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am    Post subject: Re: Required FDA and OSHA control system documentation? Reply with quote

Anita,

Yes, some DCSs can, perhaps by providing data to a program in a PC,
supply very good documentation of the software in the DCS. This
includes listings of programs and block diagrams of control logic.

However, this is not sufficient documentation.

There are three types of control system software documentation that is
needed.
(1) Functional description of control logic -- what should be
implemented,
(2) Detailed implementation description based on the functional
documentation - how it should be implemented,
(3) Detailed implementation data that is actually in use on the DCS --
what actually was implemented. (This is what the DCS can automatically
provide.)

Looking at each of those types of documentation:

(1) The functional requirements description, also known as control
narrative, requirements description, and other terms, describes, in
terms understood by operators and process engineers. The functional
description is a plain language description of the desired function of
each loop, interlock, batch phase, and other control function. In
general, it is independent of the implementation but instead explains
what shall be implemented. For each simple control loop, for example,
there should be an explanation of which process is to be controlled and
which process variable must be manipulated. Likewise, interlocks should
explain what triggers the interlock and which loops are affected and
how they are affected. This document will generally be reviewed and
approved by the appropriate people before implementation.

(2) The detailed implementation description (known by many names) is an
interpretation of the functional requirements description and is used
to actually implement the control software. It has the specifics for
the particular control system.

(3) The detailed implementation data that is actually in use on the
DCS, and often can be printed from the DCS in various formats, shows
not what is supposed to be in the DCS but what actually is in the DCS.
This type of documentation can be used for debugging, and a comparison
between this and the implementation details of type (2) can be used to
find errors in the implementation.

While DCSs and other systems are producing better documentation of type
(3), no system can produce the functional requirements (1)
automatically. That document is based on intent. The system cannot
determine the intent of the control engineer.

I know that it is common to skip the functional requirements
documentation (type 1). While I do not know what the FDA and OSHA
require, I suspect that you should have it to meet the requirements.
Even if you are not subject to regulatory requirements, you should have
this documentation as a way of recording the intent of the control
system engineering, as others have pointed out.

Anita Richards wrote:
Quote:
Dear all,
Thanks for your comments.

Now a DCS vendor (we are selecting a new DCS) has said that their
system is self documenting and will produce the documentation of the
control system design by dumping the configuration information and
custom program code into one of several formats including Access data
base, Word documents suitable for printing, drawings, etc.

Is this adequate? Will it take the place of spending time at the desk
on the PC writing stuff in Word or building long loop lists in Excel?
It looks like it will save a bunch of man-hours (or woman hours!).

Thanks
Back to top
Joerg
science forum beginner


Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 31

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am    Post subject: Re: Required FDA and OSHA control system documentation? Reply with quote

Hello Anita,

Quote:
Now a DCS vendor (we are selecting a new DCS) has said that their
system is self documenting and will produce the documentation of the
control system design by dumping the configuration information and
custom program code into one of several formats including Access data
base, Word documents suitable for printing, drawings, etc.

Is this adequate? Will it take the place of spending time at the desk
on the PC writing stuff in Word or building long loop lists in Excel?
It looks like it will save a bunch of man-hours (or woman hours!).



In my line of work this has never been sufficient. There has to be at
least some prose that tells other engineers how something works and,
most importantly, why it was designed the way it is. A golden rule is
that someone of 'adequate skills' has to be able to understand
everything without resorting to asking the original designers. Then
there is tracking back of versions (version control): Say, a PID loop
was changed a bit. What were the reasons? Is it backwards compatible?
Where is the memo of the underlying design review?

Better to spend the woman hours now than scratching your head five years
from now. "Why did I change this?". I often had to plough through oodles
of source code, effectively reverse-engineering client's designs because
the only 'documentation' available were some lines of comment in there.
That's no fun and it was expensive for them.

Just to give you an example: Once a client called in a bit of panic. The
head analog engineer had wrecked out on a motorcycle, badly. Not his
fault, the frame had fractured and the machine literally disintegrated
underneath him. But he was definitely out for weeks. However, he had
started to write his module spec and everything else in the early
conceptual phases of the design, just as I always do. I could hop into
the design in under a day and when he came out of the hospital he could
take the baton back as quickly. If he hadn't documented that way the
whole system would have missed a major milestone. It didn't.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com
Back to top
Francis
science forum beginner


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am    Post subject: Re: Required FDA and OSHA control system documentation? Reply with quote

Anita
How is the DCS vendor supposed to know how to configure their system in the
first place?
They have to have specifications that provide that information, and that is
where your validation should look before looking at the software
documentation.
I have seen this over and over in pharma (and non pharma) projects. The
result is a system that you cannot trace back why it is the way it is, just
what validation says should not happen.
That is exactly what my software ControlDraw is about. Contact me directly
if you like.
Francis

"Anita Richards" <nitarichard@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108933942.485804.103860@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Dear all,
Thanks for your comments.

Now a DCS vendor (we are selecting a new DCS) has said that their
system is self documenting and will produce the documentation of the
control system design by dumping the configuration information and
custom program code into one of several formats including Access data
base, Word documents suitable for printing, drawings, etc.

Is this adequate? Will it take the place of spending time at the desk
on the PC writing stuff in Word or building long loop lists in Excel?
It looks like it will save a bunch of man-hours (or woman hours!).

Thanks
Back to top
Paul E. Bennett
science forum beginner


Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Posts: 45

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am    Post subject: Re: Required FDA and OSHA control system documentation? Reply with quote

Anita Richards wrote:

Quote:
Dear all,
Thanks for your comments.

Now a DCS vendor (we are selecting a new DCS) has said that their
system is self documenting and will produce the documentation of the
control system design by dumping the configuration information and
custom program code into one of several formats including Access data
base, Word documents suitable for printing, drawings, etc.

I would like to see them prove such a statement. There is much more to the
documentation aspects than merely dumping the program code and
configuration information. If the DCS is in control of potentially
hazardous processes then I would expect that a full risk assessment, a task
analysis and quite detailed operations manuals will also come with the
system. Does your DCS provider really understand your process?

Quote:
Is this adequate? Will it take the place of spending time at the desk
on the PC writing stuff in Word or building long loop lists in Excel?
It looks like it will save a bunch of man-hours (or woman hours!).

To answer your questions more simply; "No", "No" and "Not at all".

--
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett ....................<email://peb@amleth.demon.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy .....<http://www.amleth.demon.co.uk/>
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095
Going Forth Safely ....EBA. http://www.electric-boat-association.org.uk/
********************************************************************
Back to top
Tim Wescott
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 292

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am    Post subject: Re: Required FDA and OSHA control system documentation? Reply with quote

Anita Richards wrote:

Quote:
Dear all,
Thanks for your comments.

Now a DCS vendor (we are selecting a new DCS) has said that their
system is self documenting and will produce the documentation of the
control system design by dumping the configuration information and
custom program code into one of several formats including Access data
base, Word documents suitable for printing, drawings, etc.

Is this adequate? Will it take the place of spending time at the desk
on the PC writing stuff in Word or building long loop lists in Excel?
It looks like it will save a bunch of man-hours (or woman hours!).

Thanks

You still have to document how the DCS is hooked up -- the best you

could hope for from the factory is a map of how input(1), input(2) etc.,
are connected to output(1), output(2), etc. Where those inputs come
from and where the outputs go to will still need to be documented.

If you're planning on using this information I'd suggest that you get
their salespeople to show you some example outputs, and to dig into
detail on how the information is entered -- e.g. if there's an output
that says "fan 1" then ask how it knows it's fan 1, how hard it is to
move fan 1 from one output to another, etc.

Ultimately only you can decide if it's adequate. You should subject it
to the beer truck test* -- if you walk out of work tonight and get run
over by a beer truck, will your successor be able to understand the system?

* I originally learned this from a guy from Milwaukie, WI.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com
Back to top
Anita Richards
science forum beginner


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am    Post subject: Re: Required FDA and OSHA control system documentation? Reply with quote

Dear all,
Thanks for your comments.

Now a DCS vendor (we are selecting a new DCS) has said that their
system is self documenting and will produce the documentation of the
control system design by dumping the configuration information and
custom program code into one of several formats including Access data
base, Word documents suitable for printing, drawings, etc.

Is this adequate? Will it take the place of spending time at the desk
on the PC writing stuff in Word or building long loop lists in Excel?
It looks like it will save a bunch of man-hours (or woman hours!).

Thanks
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 14 [210 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 12, 13, 14 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:15 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Engineering » Control
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts help on problem brb003 Math 0 Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:31 am
No new posts fraction problem mikerule Research 0 Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:10 am
No new posts Mod computer problem William Elliot Math 4 Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:07 pm
No new posts Divine apparitions in the tethered goat problem? jpalmour@gmail.com Math 6 Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:26 pm
No new posts possible to use Generalized Method of Moments for this pr... comtech Math 1 Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:49 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0446s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0056s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]