Quote:
Originally Posted by Regina14
There isn't a simpler way to put it. Nothing was technical about my language. I understand if you don't know what an internal climber is, but I'm having a hard time understanding why you couldn't do a simple Google search of "internal climber". This is the very first link that comes up. As I'm sure you can see from the video, explaing that procedure would have taken far too long and frankly very difficult to someone who has never witnessed the process and has no knowledge of what individual parts are called, tehnical or not.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t8I3Is5J-wE
The 3rd tower section installed in the video would be the equivalent to the section that has been used on this site to set the base. When the erection crew returns when the base has been poured, they will pull that current section off and replace it with the bottom section of the climber which contains the hydraulic ram that will push the crane up through the collars that will be placed on the slabs above it as the building progresses. |
I work directly in this field and know what you are saying. I don't need to Google anything. But most of the rest of us don't, and the thread simply works better without having to Google/research what everyone is saying.
It's not about saying things "more simply" but simply using language that produces a clear description. Your second paragraph is what i am talking about. It describes things and hits the right note concerning the base level of knowledge appropriate here.
Most people here know the basics about how tower cranes work. Most everyone knows about cranes that get hydraulically pushed up as the structure rises. So that doesn't need explaining. You could have just noted that and then pointed out the parts of it you can see in the photos. That's it. And you basically did that. So, that's all.
Please know, I'm not picking on you. And while it is off topic, I thought it might be of interest to some. Architecture/buildings/construction comes from a lot of complexity, including consultants sometimes working at cross purposes. The management of it, typically governed by the architect, as prime consultants, is quite interesting. It’s mostly that the needs for effective management of engineering consultants along with all the others on a design team, has made this issue of communication a professional concern of mine. I taught a course at UBC (Civil Engineering) on this. Like I said, professionally, I insist everyone who's trying at all to understand what is happening is able to do so. Very few consultants dislike this being required of them. In fact, almost all really like it . . . I think they really want people outside of their specialization to know what they are trying to achieve. Some have described it as being liberated from their small technical world. For me, it allows more input, resulting in more refined solutions that solve more "interference" (between different building systems) issues before construction begins and things begin to really cost money. Also, my experience is that when I have design meetings alone with engineers, they talk this way anyway. Architects also do this. The higher one goes, the more conceptual the discussion - which means non-technical language. As the higher up work starts to push its way down the organizational ladder, ultimately to the CAD kids producing working drawings, the more technical it all becomes. This is natural and by necessity.
And, a last aside: I raised this question with my son who is a mathematical physicist. His team is working within the weirdness of Quantum Entanglement. Talk about technical language. Nonetheless, he agreed to a point; if you can't explain what you are doing to a lay person such that they can understand, in general, what you are doing, it is likely you yourself are lost in the details and don't know the guiding picture very well yourself. Outside of relatives, it’s obvious he doesn't do this if he can help it. But, he says, it is similar to the situation of a group of diverse building consultants trying to work together while coming from different sets of understanding and concentration. He says, it is quite difficult for many physicists to understand the work done by other physicists, and mathematics is much worse. He showed me this giant encyclopaedia (sort of) of all the hundreds upon hundreds of current mathematical 'working points' and told me it was the reference that allowed mathematicians to talk to each other. The work they do is so specialized, that they have no detailed idea of what all the other mathematicians are doing. Crazy world.
Ok, no more of this and back to structural construction.
Prev
Linear Mode
