Mathematical majority
- Miguel Fernández
- Jul 3
- 3 min read
The company operated a reasonably sized potable water supply system.
Perhaps because of a simplistic cost reduction (lower salaries), a short time before, it had changed the technical director, with Eng. Pessôa leaving and Eng. Calis coming in.
After about six months in the position, and having implemented some novelties, Eng. Calis called the company’s technical consultant, Eng. Fernando, for a meeting and to show the improvements he had made in the system and, with this, to make meeting minutes supporting the investments in these changes before the rest of the board of directors.
On the scheduled date, Eng. Fernando traveled to that city. The meeting began around 9:30 a.m., Eng. Calis at the head of the table, presenting his team of some six to eight engineers, apparently all new to the operator. It was not clear what experience each one had in the field. One of them, Kaká, Fernando already knew by sight, but working at another operator. He then learned that Kaká was there on his first day of work at the company and in that system.
The main topic was the pumps of the potable water distribution system in the region. Calis began by explaining that, since the input of electric energy was one of the main expenses of the operation, he had implemented “frequency inverters” in the drive of the pump motors, so that the pumps could operate at variable speed. With this, energy would be saved, as advised by the supplier of the speed variation systems, but, apparently, it was still not reflecting in the electric energy bills, which remained high, “perhaps because the price of energy had gone up”.
When it was possible to understand what had been done, Fernando asked on what Calis and his team had based themselves to think that energy would be saved with speed variation in the pumps, knowing that the pumps were all closed-impeller centrifugal pumps, fixed blades, fixed casings, and almost all pumping stations with 3+1 pumps, that is, already being able to operate with intermediate flow rates.
Then they presented him with the supplier’s proposal, where that calculation was made in a generic way and did not apply to the cases of that system.
Very carefully, so as not to offend the colleague and client, Fernando began to disagree with Calis, showing that, if the “work” (mass x displacement = J) was the same, the energy consumption would be the same, except for friction and efficiencies, which could still worsen or have effects not considerable enough to justify that investment.
An impasse was created. No one counterargued and, in the air, there was a feeling that the eight professionals of the operator’s team were not understanding the principles of physics and engineering invoked by the consultant. And Fernando was “walking on eggshells” so as not to upset Calis and his team but, at the same time, needing to fulfill his role as a technical specialist and defend the shareholder who, in the final analysis, paid his fees.
After a long silence, Calis found himself obliged to say something, and said:
_ since I see that we have not reached a consensus, let us put it to a vote: those who understand that these speed variators will save energy, remain as they are, and those who understand that this effort is of no use, raise your arm.
Mathematical democracy had been created, the algorithm that was missing!
Fernando still could not believe what he had just heard and still did not know how to react without getting upset. At that moment, the newcomer to the team, but already with some experience and certainly the only one who understood what was being discussed, Eng. Kaká, wisely, and to everyone’s relief, stood up and said:
_ coffee break!
It was Sep 2008, they all went to lunch together, remained friends, and the subject was never brought up again.
Within two years Kaká was already a director of the company. The others? No one knows.
Comments