Business History Books » Business Consultant » Renaming sci.engr.hvac
Renaming sci.engr.hvac
Question:
In an effort to keep HVAC-interested parties involved with the creation process, I am posting here what discussion has occurred on the name for this group. The net.gods or net.dictators ;^) don’t think HVAC is a science issue, rather it is an industry issue. This is not what I prefer, but they have a point…it’s an engineering application, not a heavy research-oriented type science. Warning:This post is cross-posted to HVAC-relevant groups. If you reply directly, it will be cross-posted, too. Here is a copy of the response to their email I received about 1 week after sending the original RFD: The moderator: (M) >I really don’t see any particular problem with the sci.engr part of >the name, though perhaps the up-and-coming misc.industry hierarchy
[would be more appropriate.] Lynnette: (L) This is an acceptable solution. There are nuances that I respect, and this would be fine.. I will not let my ego get in the way… ;^) But let me tell you about it before we all decide where it should go. Engineers will typically look to the "sci.engr" hierarchy for engineering topics. _Many_ professionally registered engineers deal with HVAC issues — it is an _old_ application of the mechanical engineering, and has evolved to include digital control and networking applications. Perhaps what I am suggesting is in between the hard sciences of sci.* and misc.industry.* I don’t like misc.industry, because newbies will be asking in sci.engr.mech and the rest "Where’s sci.engr.hvac ?" But you’re right, it is something of an industry. I would like to revise the charter if this is where it will go, to *exclude* sales-type junk from the group, where it would be likely to attract those types. Something I’d like to avoid. I would _prefer_ sci.engr.industry.hvac. The mechs and elecs will see it better. Of course, we can always gently re-direct them. (M): > The main reason I held it to discuss, and I’m very >sorry that I have not yet at the time for a more detailed response, > is >with the "hvac" part. I know that term is very well understood within >the industry, but jargon and acronyms are very much frowned upon now >in the namespace because they aren’t very useful to the much larger >audience of people who are not in the business. The name has to be >readily accessible to both audiences, or else you will likely have >problems with people who don’t really want to use your group but >mistake it for something else they would like to talk about.
<snipped name suggestions> (L):Do you really think this is a problem ? *.air-condition is _not_ inclusive of all the topics in the charter… Is there a problem with using it like: misc.industry.heat-vent-ac ? This is the best I can bend and still retain the HVAC intent. I _prefer_ sci.engr.industry.hvac or sci.engr.applications.hvac or misc.industry.hvac I fear that noone will *find* it as misc.industry.heat-vent-ac, because we in the discipline are so used to reading it as *hvac*…. It’s something anyone interested in it would immediately cue into, especially if they were browsing and looking for it. Looking forward to your replies, Lynnette Edrington To the HVAC reader: I would like to hear your opinions on this. Think carefully about the name, and let’s discuss the ramifications. Remember, if we insist on using the hierarchy "sci", we may have trouble defending it as legitimately belonging there. But it’s not impossible. However, it will take longer to get a group, as the charter must be re-written to include a more scientific sounding bent. This would be solely for those who do not understand or care about HVAC, and therefore do not value it in the same light as we do. Thanks. Lynnette Edrington Dallas, Tx P.S. This is separately posted to sci.engr.mech
Response:
: "Where’s sci.engr.hvac ?" Very good question. This should be the name…I don’t think a youg ME graduates without knowing what HVAC means. I know they don’t here at the Univ Missouri Rolla. As to the research issue….HVAC sees a lot of academic activity ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers puts a significant amount of money into academic research, DOE, NIST, and EPRI, among others, put even more money up for research. Woody Delp | HVAC Engineer NOW PhDME !!! |
Response:
> : "Where’s sci.engr.hvac ?" > Very good question. This should be the name…I don’t think > a youg ME graduates without knowing what HVAC means. I know > they don’t here at the Univ Missouri Rolla.
I agree. The door was opened a long time ago with the introduction of the sci.engr group, thus placing the engineering groups squarely within the sci.* hierarchy (for that matter, how much of sci.electronics is science and how much engineering? precious little of the former IMHO). As for the cryptic acronym hvac, which was a mystery to me until I interviewed recently for a position with a supplier to that industry (I start work on Tuesday 
, there are other groups with cryptic names. I see, for example, that my feed carries the groups sci.astro.fits, rec.arts.anime(.*!), bionet.organisms.urodeles, and comp.bbs.waffle. I could not tell you just what the subject matters of the first three groups are (the fourth is not about breakfast), but I could probably make a reasonably close guess based on the hierarchy. And the same is true here. It’s clearly a field of engineering; the curious may subscribe. Just my humble opinion. — Bill Swan o. o. o. o. o. o.o !! .o .o .o o o. o. o. o. o. o. Veni, vidi, vici, vixi! (_)>(_)>(_)<(_)>(_)>(_)>(_)>(_)>(_)>(_)>(_)>(_)>(_)>(_
Response:
> (M): > The main reason I held it to discuss, and I’m very >sorry that I have not yet at the time for a more detailed response, > is >with the "hvac" part. I know that term is very well understood within >the industry, but jargon and acronyms are very much frowned upon now >in the namespace because they aren’t very useful to the much larger >audience of people who are not in the business. The name has to be >readily accessible to both audiences, or else you will likely have >problems with people who don’t really want to use your group but >mistake it for something else they would like to talk about.
…he means like sci.astro.fits and countless other similarly jargon centric names. If the name is familiar only to members of the HVAC industry, I’m all for it. Taking alt.computer.consultants as an example, perhaps 15% of posts in that group are from people looking for help in setting up their computers, not the business of running a computer consultancy, which is the actual theme of the group. I wouldn’t appreciate my newsreader being choked up with "how do I stop my a/c unit making a funny noise" requests… OK, there may be a few poor lost souls wandering into sci.engr.hvac by mistake, big deal… Brendan McFarlane 59075 Hamm, Germany – Home of the World’s Largest Glass Elephant ## CrossPoint v3.0 ##
Response:
Having just returned from an ASHRAE meeting, at which I heard a lot of research presentations and got some good ideas for my own research, I’d strongly support the sci.engr. part of the name. As for the .hvac part, I agree with other posters that anyone who does not recognize HVAC probably should not be subscribing to sci.engr.hvac. Most of the forums to which I subscribe have far too small a signal-to-noise ratio; I applaud anything that would improve it.
Response:
FWIW: Until I had read a few screens of this thread, it never occurred to me that "hvac" might mean anything other than high vacuum.