The workshop is an explosion-proof one; experts suggested that the valve stems should be oiled to prevent static electricity

The valve connections are anti-static, and the valve stem is greased; this is done both for maintenance purposes and to prevent the generation of sparks from collisions. But you can still avoid this by using copper alloy wrenches!

There’s really nothing to do about it; it’s frustrating. If it is an oxygen valve, it must not be oiled – doing so is a serious mistake. Most of the relevant inspection departments these days are made up of complete outsiders with no expertise in the field. When an inspection is ordered by higher authorities, ‘experts’ are sought from large state-owned enterprises in the jurisdiction. Companies in the metallurgical industry provide guidance to those in the chemical industry; it’s reasonable when the relevant standards vary, but in many cases it’s the old, unrealistic traditional concepts of these companies that are used as criteria for evaluation. Those with the courage should ask for the relevant standard documents (for purchase;P) and see how he explains them;P I tried it once, but it ended up with nothing, and his attitude changed – I even became an ‘expert’;P It was only after asking around that I found out that the oversight agencies have authority but no technical expertise, so they bring in experts to bring the companies under inspection to compliance, while the actual criteria are ignored. So one must be bold and rely on evidence. Otherwise, just follow orders as things naturally unfold. But principle issues must be upheld. For reference.

This post was last edited by lovelife1997 on 2020-6-10 at 16:21. In your eyes, such “experts” are generally those who hold senior engineer titles or higher, have published papers in relevant professional journals, enjoy a certain level of recognition in a specific field or industry, and are employed as authorities in those fields. At least most people in our forum still haven’t reached that “amateur” level.

Disdain experts? One must first become an expert recognized by the world at large and by authoritative institutions before they can look down on existing experts; otherwise, it’s like an illiterate person looking down on academicians. . . . .

This post was last edited by CHANGBAISHI on 2020-6-11 08:29. True experts are those with genuine expertise; when identifying problems, they point them out based on solid evidence and provide proper guidance for correction. Their purpose is to supervise and guide, ensuring that enterprises operate in a safe and stable manner. Otherwise, there are those who deceive those in authority and others, and who just pretend to be competent. Recently, there have also been some instances of arbitrary guidance without any standards on forums. However, this chaos will not persist for long, as society is progressing and various systems are constantly being improved. “The phenomenon of holding positions without contributing will become increasingly rare. Oh, it should be noted that as a supervisor, one must first establish their own proper role. It arises from the role of those who operate and maintain a machine to ensure its operation in a safe and stable environment. Nor can it stand above this supreme principle. It is not advisable to create obstacles for those who control and those who provide services.

I’m not sure whether this view represents your company or you personally. But I have to criticize this nannyish mindset. Which standard or regulation requires foreign experts to list the basis for each issue identified during the inspection and provide explanations to prove that their findings are correct? Whether it’s experts invited by **or those invited by your company, their professional competence has certainly been assessed by relevant institutions. Do you, as an employee, think you’re more outstanding than the people from those institutions? Regardless of whether the questions raised by the experts are correct or not, if the legal representative of the company disagrees, they may file complaints with the **relevant authoritative oversight agencies in accordance with the law, at each appropriate level. If the workers themselves are confused or don’t understand something, they can ask for guidance on the spot; there’s no need to slander or defame those people afterwards.

Whether the poster is the owner of a company or an employee in one of its departments, when acting or making decisions, they should not use their own standards or opinions to judge the behavior of others. Those who become experts are usually quite old by then. Their brains aren’t like computers; it’s impossible for them to keep the names and details of standards in mind at all times. Can you do that? It seems that when going out to inspect various businesses, one usually visits several of them on the same day. The time spent on on-site inspections and issuing invoices is quite tight, usually not exceeding 30 minutes. How many words can be written on such a small piece of paper? How many industrial and commercial enterprises are there in each city, and how many so-called experts? You can’t expect them to take their time to prepare lessons specifically for your company, just as they would do in a classroom setting at a school, citing various sources and explaining everything in detail – that’s not feasible, unless your company enters into a consulting contract with them. Otherwise, they will only come to point out problems and specify the acceptance criteria; as for why and how to do it, you’ll have to figure that out yourself. (Otherwise, would your company hire you just to sit around doing nothing?) I think experts can help companies identify and point out potential problems that the companies themselves cannot detect, and that is already a benefit for the companies. As for why they do this, if one doesn’t understand, they should ask questions right away, rather than criticizing behind their backs; or they should go and clarify things directly, instead of criticizing again in secret. . . Actually, I don’t understand why so many workers in enterprises always hold a hostile attitude toward the safety supervision agencies and the advisory experts hired by them; I’m not sure what the reason is. It has no connection with businesses or workers. They just don’t show up, but workers still have to work – are you going to stay idle? They’ve arrived, and you’re still doing your regular job? I don’t know where hatred comes from The funds and resources needed for the improvements come from the business owner, and you are someone hired by that owner to carry out the work. If you want to relax, wouldn’t it be even more relaxing to quit your job and stay at home? Regarding the corrective actions mentioned in the post, when the company’s higher authorities assign those tasks to you, how much of your leisure time, as well as physical and mental energy, will it take up? I really don’t know where the “complaints and resentment” toward experts or the safety supervision agency come from.

The system is constantly being improved, and traffic police enforcement has been very successful; it would be worth taking that as an example. There are established rules and laws to follow; as society develops, those impractical and outdated elements will be phased out, and new things will be introduced to improve things. Reduce or avoid the poster from asking questions that are essentially unsolvable. For reference.