MS Excel worksheet for Steam Turbine Calculation
Taftan Data
MS Excel worksheet for Steam Turbine Calculation
using Steam Properties
-----------------------------------------------------
Steam Properties is an MS Windows shareware for energy
consultants. Visit our website for downloading the shareware
version of Steam properties and an Excel worksheet for Steam
Turbine Calculation.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/taftan
Comments are appreciated.
Taftan Data
mailto:Taf...@compuserve.com
Julian Stoev
O-o-o-o! No-o-o-o-o! Please wake me up! MS. Excel in Turbine
calculation! This is too much for me. This is a nightmare.....
There is no FORTRAN, no C, no C++, no Pascal, even no Matlab. If
you want to do heavy number crunching, use Excel!!! Do engineering, be
consultant in M$ way.:-)) Is this the future? Or the past? Or what?
I saw a lot of strange commercials in this group, but this one is
greatest in the past 1 year.
Good luck!
--Julian Stoev
Paul
Julian,
You do need waking up. The world is passing you by. Many people (many ! ! !
!) are using Excel as a front-end for serious calculation; the calculation
engine can be a dll (dynamic link library) written in (yes, really) Fortran
(even Fortran 90 !), C++, Pascal, etc. etc.
I have a transient heterogeneous (vapor, solid at different temperatures)
reactor model that was written in Fortran, compiled as a DLL, and I use Excel
as a quick front-end for this model. Before you jump to any conclusions, I
also use a Silicon Graphics Indigo 2 High Impact with R10000, for CFD
calculations that run for several days on end, and use AVS for
post-processing.
So, you are incorrect in assuming that anything related to Excel is mickey
mouse, reconsider:
what is important is the end result, not the tools that are
used to get there.
Why write Fortran over & over, use hokey interfaces etc., when Excel
interface is easy to use, minimizes programming of result archiving, etc.,
when an Intel machine can do the the job just as well ? Lastly, leading CFD
vendors are starting to sell serious ($25 000 per year) CFD analysis software
written for (yes, it's true) Intel with Windows front end !
Windows has won the battle for the desktop - it's over. Now NT is taking
manufacturing on in leaps and bounds (check out platoforms that Honeywell is
starting to support for a fact-check). Take a walk through refineries and see
what the engineers & operators are using. Windows & Intel are being heavily
used in offline applications.
Paul
Francis Lovering
I think that I agree with the message below.
I can do in minutes in Excel what took an age in Fortran (yes I am that old)
It would be nice to find a library of routines, preferably in the form of
Excel (or 123 etc) spreadsheet formulae. Free on the Net of course!
Paul wrote in message <353ADB71...@mediaone.net>...
>Julian,
>
>You do need waking up. The world is passing you by. Many people (many ! ! !
>!) are using Excel as a front-end for serious calculation; the calculation
>engine can be a dll (dynamic link library) written in (yes, really)
Fortran
>(even Fortran 90 !), C++, Pascal, etc. etc.
>
>I have a transient heterogeneous (vapour, solid at different temperatures)
Pete Psingpy
Indeed I agree as well. We use Excel for quite a lot including dynamic
modeling. It's quite incredible what it can do, yet it is also very
easy to use. Not exactly the same issue, but I bet you'll find that a
large majority of chem engineer's are using as their primary calc
software.
-pete
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 00:51:45 +0100, "Francis Lovering" <f...@mcmail.com>
wrote:
J Hughes
Pete Psingpy wrote:
> Based on the comments published on this topic, I am considering dropping MathCad and concentrating my efforts
on Excel. Any comments regarding MathCad?
John Hughes
yaya...@deltanet.com
John Getsoian
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 06:55:44 -0700, J Hughes wrote:
>I am considering dropping MathCad and concentrating my efforts
>on Excel. Any comments regarding MathCad?
For me they don't really fill the same niche, and in fact can be used
complimentarily. I did a process simulation using Lotus and MathCad
together where Lotus ran the material and energy balance and MathCad
did the linear algebra for the reaction matrix. I couldn't have seen
doing the whole thing with either alone. Plus I find spreadsheets
less than optimal where you have to be able to look back at the
mathemathics after the fact and do revisions - it's just too hard to
piece the total calculation together after the fact, whereas this is
trivially easy with something like MathCad.
regards,
j. getsoian
Eric Lucas
Since you were careless about how you quoted and inserted your text,
it's hard to tell which is your question. I'll assume it's the one
about "any comments regarding MathCad?" My answer: depending on what
you want to do, don't drop it from consideration. It is great at
symbolic manipulation of expressions, including differentiation and
integration. Yes, if you already have a fairly closed set of equations
describing a system, Excel can do number-crunching just as well and is
probably simpler to use. However, Mathcad does have its place,
especially developing and manipulating expressions, in cases where you
don't already have a set of equations describing a system. Excel just
can't do this type of thing easily.
Eric Lucas
J Hughes wrote:
>
> Pete Psingpy wrote:
> > Based on the comments published on this topic, I am considering dropping MathCad and concentrating my efforts
> on Excel. Any comments regarding MathCad?
>
jco...@westpac.com.au
Well why don't you use matlab.
It's easy to set up and now with simulink, it's just a matter of joining the
boxes to for a control strucutre and model. Very easy to use.
Joe
In article <354731...@deltanet.com>,
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
John Popelish
I use Mathcad extensively to do engineering calculations, when many
other packages can handle the computation. Mathcad is superior to all
other software I have used in one important aspect. It produces a very
readable record or you thought processes after you have gotten the
answer. In engineering calculating situations, being able to
understand, reconstruct and defend your computation is at least as
important as getting the answer. The results of mathcad look like they
are ready for publication.
John Popelish
Pete Psingpy
I couldn't agree more. Mathcad and Excel do compliment each other very
well. One thing about Mathcad is that it is very fast to set up a
problem. Also, a year later you can look back and know what you did.
Generally, it's much harder to do that with a complex spreadsheet. I
also know I'm less prone to errors with Mathcad, because of its
display
-Peter
On Wed, 29 Apr 98 15:09:38 +0400, "John Getsoian"
<jget...@nojunk.csi.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 06:55:44 -0700, J Hughes wrote:
>
>>I am considering dropping MathCad and concentrating my efforts
>>on Excel. Any comments regarding MathCad?
>
Ted Edwards
jco...@westpac.com.au wrote:
> > > >I can do in minutes in Excel what took an age in Fortran (yes I am that
> old)
I haven't used Excel but I have used other spreadsheets and Fortran (I
to am that old) but I have found that APL2 gets me from problem to
solution fater than any calculation system (including DERIVE - a
competitor to MATHCAD). Anything that involves arrays is really easy in
APL (matrix inversion requires one character). Just to mention a few, I
have written functions for statically indeterminate beams, columns,
graph plotting, ...
Ted
Michael Dennis Young
In article <35489D...@bc.sympatico.ca>,
I guess for my $0.01 on this subject...
As engineers I feel that we can and should treat our software as
just another set of tools we need to perform our job - rather than
a single solution for all of our computational difficulties.
I feel fortunate that I've had an opportunity to use several approaches,
such as C, FORTRAN, Speadsheets, Mathcad, Matlab... I am far from being
an "expert" in any of these but feel that it has been relatively easy
to learn what their relative strengths and weaknesses are - allowing
me to pick up the right "tool" out of the box when things get rough.
That said, my personal biases are:
Spreadsheets: Great for organizing knowledge and handling bulk data
Mathcad: I really like the interface, but wish it had the mathematical
power of Matlab. I have a hard time performing operations on
huge data sets in Mathcad ... but haven't tried the most recent
release yet.
Matlab: Painful to learn but very powerful. Some strange, frustrating
bugs.
In short, what I suggest is that you become at least somewhat familiar
with every tool you can get your hands on. In the short run, the extra
knowledge may allow you to be more effective. In the long run, it may
help you out if you switch jobs and land in, say, a "Matlab-only" or
"Mathematica-only" company...
Good luck!
Mike
--
"Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes."
(If you can read this, you're overeducated.)
Francisco Mejia
I wonder if anybody of you guys have heard and/or
used TK Solver, I think is one of the
best tools in the market to solve systems of non
linear equations
regards
Francisco
W. R. Smith
Francisco Mejia wrote:
>
> I wonder if anybody of you guys have heard and/or
> used TK Solver, I think is one of the
> best tools in the market to solve systems of non
> linear equations
If I remember correctly (someone pls correct me if I'm wrong), it
started out life in the 1980's as a CPM O/S package. It was
reincarnated somewhere along the way in the early 1990's, when it was
bought by a different company.
Although it has its adherents, I believe that this group is relatively
smal. TKSolver is not considered to be "mainstream" - i.e. in the same
class as Mathematica, Maple, Mathcad; and Matlab.
-- W. R. Smith, PhD, P. Eng., Senior Scientist, Mathtrek Systems --
EMail(replace "_at_" by "@", "_dot_" by "."):
support_at_mathtrek_dot_com
--------------------- http://www.mathtrek.com ---------------------
-Mathtrek Systems - Home of EQS4WIN Chemical Equilibrium Software -
W. R. Smith
Francisco Mejia wrote:
>
> I wonder if anybody of you guys have heard and/or
> used TK Solver, I think is one of the
> best tools in the market to solve systems of non
> linear equations
If I remember correctly (someone pls correct me if I'm wrong), it
started out life in the 1980's as a CPM O/S package. It was
reincarnated somewhere along the way in the early 1990's, when it was
bought by a different company.
Although it has its adherents, I believe that this group is relatively
small. TKSolver is not considered to be "mainstream" - i.e. in the same
charlie sloan
The only chem. engineers using Excel are those who don't have Quattropro.
J Hughes wrote:
> Pete Psingpy wrote:
> > Based on the comments published on this topic, I am considering dropping MathCad and concentrating my efforts
> on Excel. Any comments regarding MathCad?
>
> John Hughes
> yaya...@deltanet.com
>
> > Indeed I agree as well. We use Excel for quite a lot including dynamic
> > modeling. It's quite incredible what it can do, yet it is also very
> > easy to use. Not exactly the same issue, but I bet you'll find that a
> > large majority of chem engineer's are using as their primary calc
> > software.
> > -pete
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 00:51:45 +0100, "Francis Lovering" <f...@mcmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I think that I agree with the message below.
> > >I can do in minutes in Excel what took an age in Fortran (yes I am that old)
Rick Palmer
Quattro Pro has come along way, but it still is limited by its criptic
scripting language. Excel offers a VBA macro language that allows you to
create complex programs that run within Excel (much like how Windows 3.x
runs on top of DOS). This ability to customize and create your own
algorithms/programs far outweighs the abilities of Quattro Pro.
I won't debate that many people still use Quattro Pro, but in my opinion
much more can be accomplished using Excel.
Rick Palmer
charlie sloan wrote in message <354DD475...@sam.neosoft.com>...