Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / How often can joints be cut and rewelded in low carbon stl?
1 2 Previous Next  
- - By G.S.Crisi (****) Date 02-16-2012 19:42 Edited 02-17-2012 21:53
This question has been asked many times on the AWS Forum.
This question is also the title of an article that four professors at Mackenzie Engineering School in Sao Paulo (me among them) have authored on the February, 2012 issue of Welding Journal, the magazine of AWS.

The article is based on an actual research we have carried out in the School's labs, which consisted in welding, cutting and rewelding low carbon steel specimens. After every reweld, the specimens were submitted to the following tests, to compare their properties with those of the base metal:

Bending
Tensile
Elongation
Impact
Metallographical analysis (Micrograph)
 
I kindly invite you frequentors of this Forum to read the article. Your comments, no matter if in favor or against it, will be appreciated.

Giovanni S. Crisi
Sao Paulo - Brazil
Parent - By Mikeqc1 (****) Date 02-16-2012 21:08
Crisi,
that was a great read.
Parent - By TimGary (****) Date 02-16-2012 21:34
Excellent work.
Parent - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 02-17-2012 00:18
Good stuff!
Parent - By Ringo (***) Date 02-17-2012 14:13
It was a good read.I've often wondered about that very thing.
Parent - By nantong (**) Date 02-21-2012 10:45
How can i get hold of.a.copy
Parent - - By Tyrone (***) Date 02-21-2012 12:40
Great article Giovanni.
It's got me thinking of doing a similar test on armour steel.

Did you consider using plates 200mm wide x 2640mm (6x440mm) long?  You would cut sections as your test progresses.  This may also remove the outliers that you saw on your impact tests.

Tyrone
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 02-22-2012 03:39
I somehow miss placed my February issue of WJ! Darn it!

Al
Parent - By Blaster (***) Date 02-22-2012 03:45
I enjoyed that Giovanni.
Parent - - By TimGary (****) Date 02-22-2012 12:23
Hello Giovanni,

Have you had the time yet for further testing?

Tim
Parent - - By nantong (**) Date 02-23-2012 12:35
I am totally astounded in this report and frankly I am amazed that AWS actually published it! It is so flawed. This investigation was developed to determine why there are no recognised specifications detailing on how many repairs can be allowed on a weld regarding deleterious effects to the HAZ. What materials what processes?
A283GrB material 9.5mm thick welded ER 70S-6 (not rocket science). The story was to measure the effect of repeated heat cycles on the HAZ. How was this controlled or measured? I would have expected a 45 degree bevel to allow charpy testing from the straight edge and mapping of the HAZ with microphotographs to ensure that the original repair maintains the original repair HAZ microstructure.
I was totally astounded that Prof. Crisi in this paper states that they wanted to reflect actual working conditions then proceeds to tell us they used a "file" for back-gouging as they do not have welding equipment for back-gouging. How much did ur ur budget run to? Tell me prof. where did u buy ur welding machine B&Q?

Look at the AWS site more closely and you may find some answers and guidance for future projects.

TWI are the world leaders in my opinion and as a professional member of TWI I can give you guidance on a more comprehensive outlook. TWI are the world leaders.
Parent - - By cddolan74 (**) Date 02-23-2012 13:16
what kind of reponse do you expect from this post nantong?
Parent - By cddolan74 (**) Date 02-23-2012 13:21
sorry response,. dont want you to criticize my spelling
Parent - - By TimGary (****) Date 02-23-2012 14:11
Nantong, you should really spend some time actually reading the article and consider the circumstances that the professors were trying to replicate before jumping out and criticizing.
Your ridiculous attack only points out your own ignorance.
If you have questions about the procedures or process, fine ask them. That's what this discussion forum is all about.
Professor Crisis is a consummate professional who does not deserve your callous, thoughtless remarks.

Tim Gary
Parent - By welderbrent (*****) Date 02-24-2012 04:20
Times like this remind me of an old proverb: 'answer not a fool in his folly lest thou be like him' sums it up quite well.

There may have been some areas that could have been covered better, but overall a very interesting and informative read Professor.  I appreciate your time and efforts in examining this issue.

Have a Great Day, Brent
Parent - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 02-26-2012 14:21
Are there any published studies indicating there IS a problem with cutting out and repairing welds in plain carbon steel ?  I have wondered about this myself for years. Any info would be appreciated.

My "normal" method for performing repairs would consist of grinding or air carbon arc gouging out the defective area and if needed, follow up with a rotary file.

Does TWI have publications on this specific topic ?

Thanks

Gerald Austin
Parent - By Lawrence (*****) Date 02-23-2012 14:49 Edited 02-23-2012 15:20
Giovanni,

Thank you for participating in the forum for the last 12 years.

It's a real blessing to have a friend half a world away who shares my interests and is willing to mentor and help at no cost other than providing you with quality questions.

I look up to you, both personally and professonally, and hold your generous and polite countenance in the highest regard.

The negative comments?   As a person who has for decades submitted his work to peer review, I know you will have no difficulty eating the meat and spitting out the bones.

Lar
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 02-23-2012 15:33
Giovanni,
Enjoyed reading the article, the testing looked very well thought out and methodically performed. It confirms what I have suspected about multiple cutting and welding of low carbon steels. I'd be very curious to see how these same tests would come out on other higher grades of steel.
Parent - - By nantong (**) Date 02-24-2012 03:27
Gents, it is well noted that none of you attempted to address any of the technical issues I raised.
Parent - - By swsweld (****) Date 02-24-2012 04:13
I haven't read the article but did read your disrespectful post above and you do have serious "technical issues". It seems your main "technical" issue was that they didn't have access to an arc gouger. Deep stuff natong.
Parent - - By nantong (**) Date 02-24-2012 06:02
swsweld, don't get side tracked by "respect" issues. By the way my main area concern was not the use of a file but on how was the removal of the weld metal controlled to ensure that the original HAZ is not removed so that it can be re-heated each time by subsequent repair, there is no mention of this. I queried why a 60 degree V prep was used when a 45 degree bevel would have been more suitable to allow for example the impact tests to contain all the HAZ. Using a V prep then the charpy is mainly comprised of weld metal and base metal and contains very little HAZ. What is the point of x-weld tensiles? Do you expect the reheated HAZ to soften?

Before you start making comments get a hold off the report and read it otherwise you cannot make any input.
Parent - - By swsweld (****) Date 02-24-2012 13:06
No, I made my point (input).
Since you didn't get it the first time I'll break it down for you.
You can make your point without such condescending and disrespectful rhetoric towards one of the most appreciated and respected forum members, that being Professor Crisi. You could have worded your "technical issue" concerns without the cheap shots and sensationalism (amazed, astounded,lack of welding equipment, etc)

Out of your 12 line (on my computer) post, 3.5 were valid technical concerns and the rest were your opinion and personal attack on Prof. Crisi. Don't be surprised when you get some attitude after that post of yours.
Parent - - By nantong (**) Date 02-24-2012 14:00
ssweld, I am a welding engineer at the front end of industry  not a back-slap buddy, I call a spade a spade capeche?. I do no not care if Crisi has written here for twelve years, that means nothing to me.

Multiple repairs to the same weld repair area is extremely complex considering different materials, thicknesses, mode of manufacture of materials, welding processes, etc etc etc it is endless.

How can Crisi put forward such  a simplistic view. I question the integrity by the simple statement of using a file for back-grinding along with the main points of how you control that the original HAZ has been reheated.

If he wants I will personally donate a 5 inch angle grinder to his university.

U guys seem to be so be preoccupied by titles and how many posts they have made. In my honest opinion most he writes is erroneous, he maybe an engineer but he he knows little about welding.

I see "Prof. Crisi" has gone AWOL
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 02-24-2012 14:33 Edited 02-24-2012 14:39
We can all be straight shooters nantong.

You enjoy upsetting people with your posts.. Furthermore, you were actually banned from the forum under another screen name If I'm correct, like some bad behaving child.   See, I can call a spade a spade too.

I'm just a teacher and a welder... You and Prof. Crisi are engineers/scientists   I get that.

Just last week you were on this forum asking for help..  Not much came.  Meditate on the reason for that..   I'll give you a hint.  It's not because your question was beyond the scope of many of the folks who read it.

Maybe you should offer to help Prof. Crisi next time.    Not because you want to join the "back slappers" or "good ol boys"  but because you are engineers/scientists who both want to see the best data put out there so folks like me can put it to use on our admittedly lower level.

My last words on this thread.

I apologize Giovanni for inturrupting the flow of the thread you started.
Parent - - By nantong (**) Date 02-25-2012 03:06
Lawrence, I thought this was a forum to discuss technical issues. Crisi posted his paper on multiple repairs and invited people to comment. I commented.

I am not interested if you are a teacher, a professor or have posted on this forum for 100 years.

I have given examples where, in my opinion, the report is severely flawed.

BTW Crisi did not ask for help with his project he asked for comment.

How about responding to my comments?

Are they valid or not?

Lawrence, I do not expect you to comment as you have made your last words on this thread but I would expect Crisi to reply.
Parent - - By DaveBoyer (*****) Date 02-25-2012 04:05
I am a nobody in the welding world, and I did not read the article as My AWS membership has lapsed for the last 30 years.

Since You find so much fault with this article, perhaps You could post a link to where a more  comprehensive article that YOU wrote has been published.
Parent - - By nantong (**) Date 02-25-2012 05:11
DaveBoyer, is this forum about posting threads to others who know what they are talking about, is this forum about posting links?

I am not a member of AWS but I was interested in the topic and asked how to get a copy of the topic and was sent it and I made my comments as Crisi requested. If you want to make comment read his article first!

I don't post links, I tell you what I know.

You say you are a nobody in welding and from your response I tend to agree.

READ THE ARTICLE AND READ MY COMMENTS
Parent - - By TimGary (****) Date 02-25-2012 20:19
Look nantong, or electrode, or common arc, or whatever the hell your name is today, just shut up and go away. You're pathetic.

My "ignore" list is getting long...
Parent - - By electrode (***) Date 02-26-2012 09:29 Edited 02-28-2012 09:34
.
Parent - By nantong (**) Date 02-26-2012 12:35
Electrode I am not sure if I missed ur posts earlier (by the way the answering system is set up) but I thank you for your posts. The administrators of the forum will know that we are not the same person by checking our IP addresses, I live in China and I take it you are in the USA.

I am sad that you said you will not post again on this forum as I do think you have much to offer.

The USA is a very important ally to my country and I will not walk away from trying to help them even if they do not like my attitude.

Please send me an PM so we can keep in contact.

I can try to help you if you want to work abroad.

I helped Shane Feder on this forum, who will vouch for me, best inspector I have ever worked with and I always want to help the right people.
Parent - - By DaveBoyer (*****) Date 02-26-2012 04:39 Edited 02-26-2012 05:10
I make no bones about being a nobody in the welding buisness. I am a tool & die maker. I learned welding as a necesity a long time ago, and now it is an interesting hobby that proves useful from time to time.

I am not commenting on the relevance  of Giovanni's article in real world conditions, and I am not commenting on the validity of Your criticisms.
Your post shows a lack of professionalism on Your part in Your choice of verbiage and overall approach to critique of another's work.

Let Us all know when You have written a superior article and gotten it published in one of the trade journals.
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 02-26-2012 11:55

>I am not commenting on the relevance  of Giovanni's article in real world conditions, and I am not commenting on the validity of Your criticisms.


>Your post shows a lack of professionalism on Your part in Your choice of verbiage and overall approach to critique of another's work.


>Let Us all know when You have written a superior article and gotten it published in one of the trade journals.


Amen Dave! I could care less about the article but rather the way that nantong consistantly responds to other folk's postings(take a minute and look for yourself)...he consistantly belittles the OP in just about every posting that he comments on(regardless of the author of the posting). It's a pitiful display of some self proclaimed front end welding engineer who feels he has to cut other people down to try to make himself look better, rather than simply pointing out some questions he may have or to even comment to clarify a vague point. <---pointing out discrepancies or helping the OP improve their testing is exactly what Giovanni was asking for....post the good and the bad opinions he said

nantong....What this forum is about is sharing the knowledge of welding to further this art of joining materials...not to bash or belittle someone else for the sake of yelling "hey look at me, I'm a welding engineer". If you can point out flaws or questions about the testing that was performed...great...do it kindly, but leave all of the belittling crap behind as it serves no purpose but to make you look foolish and does not help your image or promote that you know what you are even speaking about.

Is it wrong to disagree with a posting or to comment on a better way to perform the testing?...heck no, that is one of the ways that we all can learn and gain some value from the forum and the vast array of knowledge.
Parent - - By nantong (**) Date 02-26-2012 12:19
Daveboyer, I work in the oil and gas industry and the mining industry as a welding engineer and have done so for many years in particular for American and Australian companies. Believe me they do not suffer fools gladly and they do call a spade a spade. They are not interested in niceties and polite speech, they want answers hard concise and even brutal. If the AWS forum wants a ladies knitting forum then well that is not for me, you can read what I say or skip over my posts.
Parent - By 99205 (***) Date 02-26-2012 20:12
I would venture to guess that few of us have the same work environment as you and I'm not sure what the benefit would be in turning this forum into a caveman stomping ground.  This forum is a place to exchange ideas and information, about the jobs we do, in a civil way.  Maybe, you might want to separate yourself from the hard, brutal environment you're in, before you post here.
Parent - By kcd616 (***) Date 02-28-2012 04:28
the oil, gas and mining work? (excuse me, to the good people who work there)
2nd rate and lower pay grade
the day you move up to nukes or high rise buildings is the day you join the big time
run with the big dogs or stay on the porch
you sound like one of the educated idiots who has pissed me off for 40 years
thank you for your time and consideration
sincerely,
Kent
PS: as far as prof Crisi, he is very smart man, I wish he was my engineer on every job I had done
Parent - - By swsweld (****) Date 02-25-2012 19:41 Edited 02-25-2012 23:54
I was taught in my youth that to tear other
people down to try to make you look good
only accomplishes one thing. It makes you look
small and pathetic. You may be a front end engineer,
but professional you are not.
I'm done.
Parent - - By 46.00 (****) Date 02-26-2012 00:42
Hi!

I have read Prof Crisi’s article.

In my opinion, it is flawed! As a published paper, it is next to useless as most (all) of the results are irreproducible and thus worthless!

As an idea, it is excellent, however, the choice of material and method of testing shows lack of familiarity with modern techniques and requirements! For example, back gouging would typically be performed by grinding or arc gouging (usually both!), both methods which input heat into the weld area (not mentioned), using a triangular file is a bit middle age!

The lack of retention of the original weld HAZ for successive tests makes this paper pretty useless as a scientific study!

Also, why choose probably the most forgiven material possible for such a concise test? Would these results be the same with P22/91 materials?

Sorry!
Parent - - By nantong (**) Date 02-26-2012 04:59
At last someone who knows what they are talking about.
Parent - - By cddolan74 (**) Date 02-27-2012 12:27
nantong, I believe that lawrence wrote the best response to your comments. your "contribution" offered nothing in advancing this subject, but rather a whole number of threads about you, maybe thats what you wanted, maybe you were bored and like to through bombs. I would rather see you and Crisi discuss as professionals your differences on this subject. pretty sure thats what this forum is for. hope you can control your impulse for chaos.
Parent - By nantong (**) Date 02-27-2012 13:29
Stop jumping on the bandwagon having a dig at me. Crisi has managed to get an article published and asked on this forum for comment good or bad. I think his article was quite badly flawed and said so. Two people have agreed with me whilst others are not concerned about the technical content but more concerned about how a European expresses himself.
Crisi, in my opinion submitted a very simplistic study into a complex situation which I believe his report gives an impression that it is ok for multiple repairs of carbon steel materials in general.
Someone asked if TWI has any information on this. I have searched their website (and have access to all industrial members technical reports) and could find nothing. It is clearly far too complicated an issue.
I note again Crisi is conspicuous by his absence from this discussion.
Parent - - By Shane Feder (****) Date 02-27-2012 13:33
Guys,
Let me state my position straight away.

Giovanni and I have communicated on this forum for quite a few years and I have a great deal of respect for him.

Nantong is my mentor and also a very good friend.
However, he has never been known for his diplomacy and sometimes he loves "throwing hand grenades" into a discussion. (nearly always with the technical back-up to support) but that doesn't win brownie points.

I personally think there are serious flaws in this research and wonder why something is allowed to be published that as electrode noted may actually be more confusing than helpful.

Finally, Al Moore is one of the most respected contributors on this forum and I hold him in the highest esteem based not only on his knowledge but also his attitude. He calls a spade a spade. Al threw a hand grenade last week (can't remember the post) but I thought to myself - "Jeez Al, that was a bit harsh" but not a word mentioned from anyone.

C'mon guys, take the good with the bad - I know 100% there was nothing personal with nantongs shot at Giovanni. It was a shot at why the AWS was publishing something as gospel with what appears to be serious flaws.
Regards,
Shane
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 02-27-2012 17:33 Edited 02-27-2012 17:36
I haven't read the Giovanni’s article. Somehow the February issue of the WJ and I didn't cross paths.

If someone would be kind enough to scan it and send a copy of the article to amoore999@comcast.net, I will be happy to read it.

The question regarding the repair of a repair of a repair has come up many times. I would view any experimentation that examines how a weld responds to being repaired several times to be useful. I also have enough intelligence to recognize that the experiment is going to be limited in its scope because of the cost associated with running experiments of any kind. The results of the experiment will also be limited in scope due to the number of variables involved. The base metal used, the filler metals used, the welding process and the heat input, are just a few of the variables that will influence the outcome of the experiment. The experimental results do not necessarily transfer to other base metals, heat inputs, etc. However, I suspect the results of any experiment can produce some results that can be of benefit to the understanding of a specific problem or question.

After reviewing the results of the experiment I may not agree with the way the experiment was conducted. I would look for bias in the way the experiment was performed. I would be interested in noting who funded the experiment and whether there was a hidden agenda that would tend to skew the test results. I would look at the methodology used to see if the experiment was organized and conducted to produce a reasonable conclusion that could be verified.

Nantong could have been constructive in his response. He could have made a number of constructive comments on how the experiment could have been improved, but he elected to do otherwise. He did nothing to bolster his character or his standing in our community. He had nothing constructive to add to the conversation.

I don’t agree with Nantong’s means of conveying his opinions about the experiment or his attack on a person many of us hold in high regard. However, Nantong has a right to be heard provide he is willing to allow others to express their opinions of him. He did little to bolster our opinion of him and we will probably pay less attention to his postings as a result.

You may note that I didn’t jump into this fray right away, because I thought it was a waste of my time to respond to his rant. His wouldn’t be the first post that I chose to ignore.  If he (or I) wishes to toss hand grenades, he (and I) has to expect to be hit with some of the shrapnel. We shouldn’t be surprised when we bleed from the grenades we elect to toss. 

Shane, you mention that I tore someone a new anus a while back. You are correct and I pulled my rant after reflecting upon it for a day or so. The individual had his opinion and he voiced it. I, in turn, voiced my opinion. I usually try to keep my responses from becoming personal attacks on anyone. That one individual managed to piss me off and he got the brunt of both barrels. Thank the Lord I didn’t post what I had written in my first few responses. You may have read my “watered down” response.

The individual in question responded in kind. That was his right. I hold no grudge. However, if he thought he could express his opinions without inciting a response, he was mistaken. The Forum isn’t a one way street. He got what he had due.

Since you know Nantong on a personal level you are positioned to know him based on your personal interactions with him.  We only know him through his postings. Our opinion of him is based on what he writes. If he cares to be viewed in a better light he has to be the one that changes how we see him. If he chooses to toss hand grenades, most of us will learn to duck and move on to more constructive threads.

Like you, most of us will come to the defence of our "friends." That's a sign of an individual with good character.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 02-27-2012 18:57
You got mail. :cool:
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 02-27-2012 19:42 Edited 02-27-2012 19:52
John, I appreciate you taking the time out of your busy schedule to send me a copy of Giovanni's experiment.

Let me start by saying that Giovanni is a member of one of my AWS subcommittees, so I freely admit that I am biased in his favor. That being said, I read the article and found it interesting in the simplicity of the approach he used. He attempted to replicate a procedure that is used by many fabricators, that is he welded, removed the offending weld, and rewelded and repeated the process several times.

It was a nice experiment that can be conducted in any welding facility. They used equipment  you would expect to find in a college or university that has certain limits on the availability of materials and equipment.

His article outlined the procedures he used and the results of the experiment. He stated his conclusions and limited his comments that it appeared no undue harm was caused by the repeated welding cycles on 3/8 inch thick carbon steel. The results of all the tests indicate that the minimum mechanical properties were maintained. The experimental process was outline with a degree of detail so that anyone could repeat it and compare their results with those of Giovanni and his colleagues.

Actually, the results reported were pretty much in line with what I would expect considering the chemistry of the steel and the thermal cycles involved. Maybe thats why I like the experiment. It was simple. It didn't involve a lot of expensive exotic testing machines. the experiment is easily repeatable, and it confirmed what I always suspected, but had no experimental data to back my arguments.

Giovanni's conclusion: the results of the experiment provides us with a basis of permitting multiple repair cycles on carbon steels categorized as P1 per ASME Section IX.

Could this experiment been done differently? I’m sure it could have been performed with a Glebble testing machine. They could have used a carbon arc gouging torch to remove the weld instead of cutting them out with an oxyacetylene torch. They could have also used a single point planer to remove the weld if they could find one. They could have used an electrode meeting a different classification had they chose to do so. Would changing the experiment altered the test results?

Giovanni and company set the ground work for other people to pursue  their own experiments. When they do, I hope they will share their finding with us as Giovanni has done. Go for it fellas! Put your time and money where your mouth is. Dr. Giovanni and his associates did a nice experiment that provides some useful information we can put to use when developing our repair procedures on carbon steel weldments.

I challenge those of you that were not content with Giovanni’s experiment to do something constructive and add to the discussion rather than simply gnawing at the good work of others.

As for calling a Spade a Spade, I think we have.

Thanks Giovanni for sharing your experiment with us.

Best regards – Al
Parent - - By 46.00 (****) Date 02-28-2012 05:22 Edited 02-28-2012 05:24
Hi!

Al, as far as I can make out, Giovanni asked for ALL input, not just favourable ones!

I did not see a prerequisite to have published papers before being allowed to comment?

Nor do I feel the need to agree with general consensus just because I am outnumbered!

Others, much more knowledgeable than I, and myself have found fault with Giovanni’s paper. That is theirs and my opinion.

Already, the general outcry that someone could disagree and have a different opinion on a subject followed by pure name calling, has caused a relatively new poster to actively retract his obvious wisdom from the forum.

Is that the path we want to follow with this forum?

The facts are, it is a simplistic experiment of a very, very complex subject. It was not conducted in a manner that would be representative of modern construction methods (in my opinion). As ‘electrode’ so colloquially states in obviously not his mother tongue, it rambles!

Nice put down Tim BTW! Very intelligent!

Even, you Al, admit bias towards this paper and recognise the simplicity and repeatability in “college or university that has certain limits on the availability of materials and equipment”. Not really a site test then, so not really repeatable or relevant to on site repairs? Don’t know how many weld repairs are carried out in a college or university environment?  But I’m open to all ideas, unlike most on here!

It also seems that as soon as ‘nantong’s’ name appears on a thread, it is open season, where as others seem to have open season on others with little in the way of comeback? Think what you may of nantong’s manner, but no one can deny his knowledge or ignore his views on a subject. Let’s give the guy a break, he does seem to know what he is talking about, and as a relative outsider on this forum, it seem obvious that his name brings out the ‘defensive’ in many of you!

I would like to thank Giovanni and his colleagues for their time and effort in producing this report on a fascinating subject. I am sure you will go on and develop the original idea more!

46.00

I am not electrode, nantong, commonarc or anybody else FYI
Parent - - By electrode (***) Date 02-28-2012 09:53 Edited 03-01-2012 23:22
.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 02-28-2012 12:57
My apologies to electrode, 46.00, and others,
Thank you for your participation and the explanation of your position in this thread...I hope you will reconsider and continue to participate in the exchange of welding information here.

Please don't let my reaction to someone, who crapped in the corner and sat back and laughs as others are offended, stop you from participating here. I just need to learn to keep my mouth shut and ignore this guy when he shows up to throw out his stink bombs. It's too bad, as several of you guys have noted, nantong has plenty of knowledge/experience to offer.

Giovanni, my apologies to you for the derailment of your thread.
Parent - By TimGary (****) Date 02-28-2012 14:31
Hey John,

It's good of you to be so magnanimous in offering an apology.
I'm sure I should do the same.
I get so aggravated with people who relentlessly flame others who are trying to utilize the forum for its intent that I wind up doing the same.
That just makes me hypocritical.
I apologize for having done so.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone's post or ideas as that usually makes for a good discussion that everyone learns from.
However, just throwing hand grenades in order to purposely offend others is childish and reprehensible.

My apologies to you Giovanni for disrupting your thread.

Tim Gary
Parent - - By jrw159 (*****) Date 02-28-2012 14:20
46.00,
  There is no "outcry" about disagreeing. The outcry is a direct result of a certain person acting an a**.

It is one thing to disagree with the way things were done, the results, tools used, ect.. However it is another thing entirely to post in the utterly unprofessional manner in which Nantong is famous for.

You make this statement. 

"the general outcry that someone could disagree and have a different opinion on a subject followed by pure name calling"

You might want to read the posts again; Nantong is getting the response he well deserves for his behavior.

As someone else mentioned, when you throw grenades, sometimes you end up catching some shrapnel as well.

jrw159
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 02-28-2012 15:26 Edited 02-28-2012 15:37
There will be no apologies for any of the comments I've posted in this thread.

There is an acceptable way to disagree and there is an unacceptable way to disagree. Several members of the Forum seem to believe unconstructive critique is an acceptable means of conveying an opinion. That is their right, but that doesn't mean the rest of the Forum members have to sit back and say nothing.

As I said in a previous post, those individuals that feel the study was flawed or was inadequate are most welcome to initiate their own studies with the necessary supporting experiments to validate or disprove the conclusions of the study completed by Giovanni, et  al.

I, for one, would welcome more work in this area because it is a point of contention on many projects. Positions are often taken by individuals that have no evidence to support limiting the number of repair cycles permitted. Needless money is spent on limiting the number of repair cycles allowed, or is it prudent to limit the number of repairs based on experimental results? 

No one criticized the technical aspects of the comments made, only the uncouth manner in which they were offered. The same  individual was very defensive, even offended when members "fired back". Do they believe the Forum is a "one way street" where they can say what they like without rebuke? If they are of that mind, they are more than welcome to seek richer fodder elsewhere where their remarks are better received. I'm sure their remarks and comments will be returned in kind at other sites as well.

Personally, I don’t care how intelligent an individual is, a crass person earns little respect from me. I don’t mind a jab now and again provided it is done with a sense of humor. A little humility is a good thing , while arrogance is unbecoming. I believe many of us can recognize the difference. Like many of the members of this Forum I work the front line of many construction sites. That is no excuse to be a complete dullard when commenting on another person’s work.

Reputations are hard earned and easily lost. There are a select few members of this Forum that are working very hard to earn their reputations as educated dullards. From the posts I have been reading I am forced to say their reputations are well deserved. 

Best regards - Al
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / How often can joints be cut and rewelded in low carbon stl?
1 2 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill