PS: no I don’t have a twitter account …maybe I should check out ryour radio thing its probably more effective…my god I’m slipping into talk back radio…
In our quiz last week, we asked, "Have you had any experiences (either receiving reactions or delivering your own reaction) you wish to share?"
In a number of cases, the disagreement or negative feedback has helped to open a dialog that led to better mutual understanding - and in some cases a change in my or the other's viewpoint.
While not a specific example, I have found several times that when I offer an opposing view, the other person counters with their sound reasons for their opinion. The result has sometimes been that I rethink my own opinion or approach to the issue.
Once I made a comment regarding the effect of particle size on the reaction rate in a liquid/solid reaction environment and then suggested that the long-held idea that smaller reaction particles would result in smaller reaction by-product size distribution making post-reaction settling more difficult was not applicable here. Immediately my boss, a self-aclaimed expert on this process, threw out my process revision suggestions based on this line of thinking and suggested in understandable terms that I discontinue further pursuit of it. Like a turtle, I withdrew. Later, having the flexibility to make minor process changes on my own, particle sizes were reduced slowly over time while simultaneously adjusting coagulant/settling aids as required to the point that, in the end, process reaction rates and raw material conversion efficiency were improved, and operating cost reduced. This was accomplished without fanfare and/or recognition--positive nor negative. But improving the process was the goal anyway.
Sometimes you need the experience to repeat a few times [with discussion afterwards] to work out what is a useful response...i'd suggest people reflect on their personal relations
I am reminded about a long running 'discussion' I had with a machine superintendent about efflux ratio on one of his four machine. The machine was making newsprint on an open draw (shows the age) and of-course had a myriad of problem, not least MD tensile. I set out to make the case. Each time I passed the machine I measured the head and worked out the efflux then plotted the value against the next tensile value on a graph on my wall. Over 3 months a beautiful bell-shaped curve developed, lots of tensiles lower than the curve due to other factors, furnish etc. but not one above the line. Eventually, he admitted the correctness of my view - and the books - the correct efflux was needed to get the best tensile from any stock. The value of this was short-lived as within 3 months the reality of things were grasped and the machine was shut. And, I also have to say, he did know more about the machine than I did but I did have 9 to worry about. People have the strongest conviction on topics for which they have the least evidence. Insert your own example.
I try to get people to explain their reasons for their opinion. I learn more and often so do they. Sometimes, opinions change; sometimes, we agree to disagree.
Have a comment? Send your email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Unless you tell us otherwise, we will assume we can use your name if we publish your letter.
Remember, if you please, to let your suppliers know you read Nip Impressions!