Andy;
We all vent our frustrations with family and friends about work. This
forum over the 20+ years has had it share of opinionated discussions. I
feel that this topic may be a tempest in a teapot or a perfect storm
depending upon each readers point of view.
I'm been on both sides of this argument. The best run NMR facilities are
cooperative ventures between both sides. An "old school" spectroscopist is
trained to operate and maintain an NMR. And, without an experienced
electronics department, the spectroscopist cannot actively keep a facility
running 24/7/365.
Like sales and politics, the lobbyist with the deepest pockets and most
influence wins the argument in academia. The academic community bias is to
entrust equipment managememnt to PhD's over engineers. The PhD title
makes grant funding easier to acquire. When attracting new faculty, a
facility run by an PhD with an experience electronics engineer assures
limited down time for their research needs
Whoever runs these facilities, they must see that the mission of the
institution is being met with minimal friction and publicity. Remenber who
the stars are--- the deans, faculty and alumni ---- not the NMR manager or
director.
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: <A.Soper_at_ru.ac.za>
To: <ammrl_at_ammrl.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 11:32 PM
Subject: AMMRL: Operating NMR spectrometers economically in
DifficultFinancial Times
Hi,
I am trained in Electrical engineering and have been responsible for a
400 MHz unit for the past 16 years.
When we acquired our high field (600 MHz) instrument a PhD chemist was
put in complete charge of it. I feel that this was a poor decision
and escalating mainenance cost for the 600 seem to support this view.
I maintain that to operate such instruments ecomomically they must run
24/7/365 with maximum up-time and maximum utilization. This requires
on-site applications support from an experienced NMR-experienced
Chemist and technical support from an nmr-experienced electrical
engineer. This combination massively reduces maintenance cost. In my
years I NEVER had a vendor person on site to perform repairs or
applications support. Sure we had occasional visits from vendor sales
staff and at those times we used their expertise.
I insist that if the engineering person is to maintain the instruments
then that person should be the Primary Administrator of the
instruments so that s/he may maintain intimacy with the soft/hardware.
Naturally close cooperation with the Applications Person will
influence such administration.
What does the community think about this?
Sincerely,
Andy Soper
Rhodes University
Grahamstown
South Africa.
Received on Sat Jan 17 2009 - 09:29:43 MST