SOUND OF AN ELECTRIC CAR
To the Editor: Electric cars too quiet? I have the solution.
A sound system should be installed to mimic engine sounds. It could be controlled to a certain extent by the driver.
On sporty cars, the system might be coupled to the engine computer and give the impression of gear changing and increase of rpm when accelerating.
The driver could also have a choice to dial Formula 1, Daytona, or muscle car. Those different sounds could be sold on the Internet. New market!
Safe for pedestrians and desirable for car buffs. It would be an extra incentive for prospective buyers.
I should patent this idea.
GEORGE ROXTON
FRANKFORT, ILL.
GETTING BEYOND WORDS
To the Editor: About February’s editorial:
Wow! Lots of impressive words. I think that’s one of the problems we as a nation face. The politicians and we engineers and educated types like to hear ourselves talk and expound while using “bigger” words than the last person. Because, unfortunately when we get down to trying to do something about it we end up with F=ma, E=1/2(mv2) and no amount of high-brow scholarly type wording or politicking is going to change it.
So, “use raw materials to manufacture liquid and gaseous fuels; build and deploy generating capacity to supply reliable electric service; and provide a long-term commitment to energy research,” probably means mining and refining radioactive ores to power nuclear power stations, or mining coal for coal-powered power stations to make hydrogen, or maybe acetylene gases for cars and mobile equipment while trying to develop fusion power for the future.
Unfortunately if you say it that way you end up offending people because now they understand what you’re saying. Saying it with simple unambiguous words takes the magic wand away and you end up having to tell people, “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.”
“Ultimately, the seriousness of the energy challenge merits aggressive individual action.” Let’s you and me vote for a three-dollar or more tax on gasoline and see how many people start conserving gasoline again. Use the tax money to research fusion power or clean coal or clean fission. Or maybe that’s too much aggression?
QUENTIN HILPERT
DUNCAN, ARIZ.
NATIONAL DISTINCTIONS
To the Editor: I just received my June copy of ME magazine, and wish to correct something on page 12. The article entitled “Robot Scientist” begins with “Scientists from two English universities....” The article then proceeds to identify one of these schools as “Aberystwyth University in Wales.”
Aberystwyth University is not an English university. It is a Welsh university. This is similar to saying “Scientists from two American universities...” and then identifying one of them as being in Ontario.
To be correct, you might have begun your article by saying “Scientists from two British universities...” or you might have said “Scientists from a Welsh university and an English university....”
My Welsh colleagues will be quite insulted to be identified as being English. Perhaps you will issue a correction next month.
JACK MAHANEY, P.E.
MACON, GA.
Editor’s note: The author is chairman of the department of mechanical engineering at Mercer University.
FAR APART AND MUCH ALIKE
To the Editor: I write to congratulate you on publishing such a wonderful magazine. It is amazing that, although we live so far apart, we share the same problems and our jobs as engineers consist mainly in trying to look for answers with the best tools available.
At our office, we have been receiving your publication, and I must admit that I consider it to be a great investment for the future to have a wider perspective of our profession. The variety of topics covered and the interesting pictures attached contribute to raising my curiosity. The article in April’s issue about Jay Leno’s steam machine was really fantastic, for example.
I strongly encourage your work, which will inspire current and future generations.
FELIPE ÁLVAREZ MUELAS
MADRID, SPAIN
VEHICLE MASS REVISITED
To the Editor: G. Fred Liebkemann (“Safe Mass,” Letters, May) is correct that you hardly need a degree in engineering to understand the concept that vehicle mass = vehicle safety, or as stated in our industry, “mass rules.” Apparently, though, Mr. Liebkemann does need a refresher in statistics and research.
Very few of the collisions on our roadways occur between passenger vehicles and commercial vehicles. The overwhelming majority occur at intersections, where Mr. Leibkemann’s GMC Yukon is the equivalent of Thor’s war hammer to someone in a lighter vehicle such as a Prius.
If ASME’s encouragement of the Obama administration does result in expedited implementation of CAFE mandates on U.S. automobile manufacturers, it is likely to have the opposite effect of Mr. Liebkemann’s dire predictions—fewer, rather than more, deaths on the roadway. Lighter-weight vehicles lead to perceived greater insecurity, thus greater care by drivers on the roadway. Additionally, if the vehicles are of a more similar weight and size, there will be better match-up, leading to greater protection of the occupants and less injury.
DANIEL W. VOMHOF III
LA MESA, CALIF.
Editor’s note: The writer is a certified accident reconstruction specialist with Expert Witness Services Inc. in La Mesa, Calif.
To the Editor: Fred Liebkemann’s justification of his right to drive a large American passenger vehicle in the guise of public safety is fallacious. In his example of an impact from a tractor-semi, once the weight ratio of the semi to the passenger vehicle exceeds about 10:1, the semi approximates a moving barrier with infinite mass. Interestingly, in frontal impact tests performed by NHTSA, the head impact criteria (dimensionless brain injury scale that correlates positively with head acceleration) for the front occupants (Hybrid III crash test dummies) were actually lower for a Prius than those for a Suburban in both 25 mph and 35 mph crash tests against an immovable barrier (NHTSA tests 6072, 4437, 5587, and 4567.)
The real safety advantage for the Suburban comes when it collides with a lighter vehicle such as the Prius. In that case, the Suburban having twice the mass of the Prius, sustains half the ∆v, thus providing improved safety for the occupants of the Suburban at the expense of those in the Prius.
If Mr. Liebkemann is interested in government policies that will help reduce highway deaths, the solution is to narrow the allowed weight range of passenger vehicles. Given the current economic status and energy supply constraints, the only rational strategy to accomplish this goal would be to bias passenger cars towards lighter, more energy-efficient models, as this will reduce the number of deaths of people in smaller cars.
No practical increase in weight will provide a passenger vehicle with the mass required for a fair match with a tractor-trailer rig.
As for Mr. Liebkemann’s suggestion to create separate roadways for vehicles transporting freight, an invention involving two parallel steel rails has been in use for over 100 years that accomplishes that task. Increased use of rail for transport of both freight and passengers will help reduce the number of highway fatalities and save energy at the same time.
JACK C. DEBES
SOLANA BEACH, CALIF. |
