DESIGN FOR LEADERSHIP

To the Editor: The last two paragraphs of Jeremy J. Michalek’s article “Design for Market Systems” (November) discussed how engineers can help solve societal problems in regard to policy-making at the highest level.

An article by E. William Beans, in the “The Bent” of Tau Beta Pi Inc., spring 1995,  described the “Characteristics of the Engineer” as: Loving and acquiring the knowledge of mathematics, considering everything as a system, loving science, using science to make things work, and solving problems or designing systems that work.

Doctor Beans stated: “It is time for us to use our talents to solve non-technical problems. After all, isn’t the economy just a large system?”

Policies are made by the executives of organizations. To really get involved in the highest level of policy-making, engineers should add on to their technical training the same courses taken in college by the current policy-makers. The principal courses are economics up to the intermediate level, accounting up to the intermediate level, auditing, financial management, and business lawСthe Uniform Commercial Code. The other courses needed for human resource management and organizational liaison are ethics, psychology, sociology, history, and anthropology. These courses can be read without attending formal classes.

IBRAHIM A. ASHIE
CONWAY, S.C.

SUN, WIND, AND EFFECTS

To the Editor: I found the recent article on the Austra solar power system very interesting. Along with the other renewable energy source, wind power, I keep wondering if anyone has done any environmental studies on the impact on surrounding areas by large-scale solar or wind farms.

After all, nothing is for free. Large wind farms remove energy from the atmosphere and large solar farms prevent solar energy from being absorbed by the ground (and being released to the atmosphere at night). What does this mean to weather patterns 25, 50, or even 150 miles away? If these studies have not yet been performed, I think that they should be, before we make the commitment to these power supplies.

TOM PARRISH
TULLAHOMA, TENN.

To the Editor: In regarding the capacity calculations of wind-generated electricity, your readers seem to believe that the cost per unit output is the only pertinent issue, and completely disregard the fact that the wind generated product will yield zero hazardous byproducts. Think about the true and total costs to society in the long run. After all, it is your children that will have to pay for, and figure out what to do with, the rotting de-commissioned 35-year-old reactors.

BRIAN BOYARKO
LITTLETON, COLO.

To the Editor: I am disappointed in the article by Mr. Winters being included in an ASME journal.

Reading the article one would assume solar power will begin to immediately assume a major portion of the world energy supply. Citation of the compatible land area being 60,000 square miles is laughable. Even if that number was 1,000 square miles or 100 square miles, does anyone think that government regulatory agencies would allow a development of that size? We can’t even get permission to use a few hundred acres in Alaska to develop a true energy source in crude oil drilling.

Has anyone investigated the ramifications of shading multiple thousand square miles of the surface of the earth?

We have abundant supplies of real energy; petroleum, oil shales, coal, and of course our world-leading nuclear technology. Time wasted promoting the virtues of solar, wind, and ethanol as major alternatives or the totally laughable electrical and hydrogen economies borders on criminal. Admittedly, each has a niche for specific applications, but none is a viable long-term, primary energy source.

JEFF JONES, P.E.
BAKERSFIELD, CALIF.

EDITORIAL ADDITIONS

To the Editor: The January 2009 issue was better than usual. Each article was well presented and truly interesting. Environmental practices, micromanufacturing, 3-D printing, and even the famous James Skakoon—quite a collection.

However, the editorial remark about Al Gore on page 6 was unfortunate and unhelpful. He is a good person and deserves our respect. Yes, he may be wrong, but nobody really knows what is going to happen, and many climate scientists think the issues he raises are worthy of discussion.

DUDLEY M. JONES
PRINCETON, N.J.

To the Editor: Nuclear power? Your lengthy editorial (January) misses nuclear power! The editorial concludes with: “we cannot let politics stand in the way.” Yet, politics is standing in the way of America taking advantage of nuclear power. The presidential candidates both mentioned nuclear power although in differing degrees. Yet, Mechanical Engineering magazine fails to include nuclear power in the list of technology expectations from the incoming administration. Clean coal, yes. Advanced biofuels, yes, Plug-in hybrids, yes. Digital electric grid, yes. The touted Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund should not overlook nuclear power and not let politics stand in the way.

DAVID L. BELDEN
ALEXANDRIA, VA.

To the Editor: I have always (for as long as I can recall) enjoyed reading your editorials. I am writing this message to you now to express my sincere, enduring thanks for your editorial in the January issue of ME magazine. I believe you have effectively and accurately articulated the thoughts and beliefs of all engineers throughout this nation through your observation that, “Never has it been more clear that engineering plays an integral part in geopolitics.” Bravo to you!

HARRY ARMEN
GLEN COVE, N.Y.

Editor’s note: David Belden is a retired executive director of ASME. Harry Armen is a former president and governor of ASME and a member of the editorial board of Mechanical Engineering magazine.

CHINA, ASIA, OR WHAT?

To the Editor: I was disappointed by a couple of editorial choices in your “What Part of ‘Yes’ Don’t You Understand?” article (November 2008).

You quote an unnamed Chinese engineer describing his thought process. Normally, when a speaker is quoted, it’s customary to fix minor grammatical errors that they make, so as not to embarrass them or show them in an unflattering light. However, your quote from this engineer contained a number of grammatical errors typical of Chinese speakers of English, which distracted significantly from his point. Could you not at least have corrected “fake to understand” to “fake understanding”?

In many places in the article you refer to “Asian culture” and “the Asian ‘yes.’” Yet all of your examples are drawn specifically from Chinese culture, and at one point you mention as an aside that Japanese culture is completely different and Japanese speakers reflexively answer “no” rather than “yes.”

Besides furthering the unfortunate and damaging Western cultural stereotype that Asians are all alike, this leaves me very unclear as to which Asians the article actually applies to. Certainly it doesn’t apply to the Japanese, but what about Koreans and Singaporeans and Malaysians? Is the information in this article relevant to most of Asia outside Japan, or is it just specific to China?

From an article intended to break down cultural walls and promote understanding, I would have hoped for better.

BROOKS MOSES
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIF.