A FRIEND REMEMBERED

To the Editor: Bill Begell was indeed a great friend of the Heat Transfer community (Editorial, August). Not only did he publish a large number of journals, books, and conference proceedings in the area of heat transfer, he was always present, with his ready wit and interesting observations, to encourage all of us.

He probably knew more about heat transfer literature than anyone else and, of course, he knew all the giants in the field personally and could talk about their idiosyncrasies at length. We will all miss him at our conferences, particularly at exotic locations like Marrakech and Cesme, that he loved to attend.

I personally had a long association with him, going back to the early ’80s, and learned a lot about books and publications from him. He was a good friend and a tremendous human being.

YOGESH JALURIA
PISCATAWAY, N.J.

Editor’s note: The author is chairman of the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Rutgers University. William Begell, founder of Begell House Inc., the science and technology publishing company, and a long-time advisor to Mechanical Engineering magazine, died in July at the age of 82.

NETWORKERS VS. GATEKEEPERS

To the Editor: First, let me say that I have enjoyed your editorials for a long time, as an ASME member for over 25 years. Thank you for your interesting insights.

Your news from Manpower Inc. [that engineer is the hardest job to fill, Editorial, July] is interesting, indeed, as I have been in search of a new position since February, my third since 2000 after being with the same company for over 20 years. Each of my two successful searches, which took months, ended through networking which placed me in a different industry where I had no previous experience but could draw on my skills and my other experience.

During each search, similar ads would be repeated for weeks or months for positions which I could fill except for lack of experience in a specific field. Based on comments from fellow networkers, my experience is a common one.

This is the difficulty: Human resources and recruiters have difficulty in making the intellectual leap to understand the concept of transferable skills and experience. Once it is possible to talk with the hiring manager, that conceptual gap can be bridged.

That is why networking works and is the method by which an estimated 75 percent of positions are filled. That is why engineering positions appear to be so difficult to fill. Unless one’s résumé is a perfect match to the position as the HR person, the gatekeeper, understands it, it is rejected.

In a growing field, such as medical devices, the pool of experienced candidates becomes exhausted and companies are reduced to raiding each other, while candidates who have the required skills and transferable experience are rejected. This process is illogical and very frustrating to most engineers. After all, very few of us graduated with a degree plus five years of experience; we all had to learn to practice our profession somewhere.

ASME does a great service to its members by providing networking opportunities through the local sections and other meetings. If a more systematic way of satisfying the gatekeepers and reaching the hiring managers could be devised, that would be an even greater service.

CHARLES INNIS
PAXTON, MASS.

THE HEAT’S ON

To the Editor: “Plowing New Ground” in the May issue had encouraging news about gas turbine power plant performance. It cited 45 percent thermal efficiency for a gas turbine and 60 percent efficiency for a combined-cycle plant.

The article, however, did not state whether the cited efficiencies were based on lower heating value (LHV, vapor water in products) or higher heating value (HHV, liquid water in products). Traditionally, efficiency of internal combustion engines such as gas turbines has been based on LHV, while that of steam power plants has been based on HHV. When one discusses a power plant gas turbine, particularly in a combined cycle, tradition is not a reliable guide.

This is particularly important because the power plants discussed are fueled with methane, with LHV only 90 percent of HHV. If the cited 45 percent and 60 percent efficiencies are based on LHV they are equivalent to 41 percent and 54 percent based on HHV, a significant difference.

ME is a magazine for engineers, and precise terminology is appropriate.

AL KORNHAUSER
BLACKSBURG, VA.

Editor’s note: Asked for comment, Lee Langston, the author of the article, sent this reply: “The letter writer raises a good point. All of the thermal efficiency values listed in the article (and in the companion online article, “Efficiency by the Numbers”) are LHV. I have followed the convention in the gas turbine power community of quoting LHV (e.g., see Gas Turbine World 2009 Handbook). It follows that the same LHV convention applies to the steam cycle part of a combined cycle plant, since the only fuel burned is in the gas turbine itself.”

IB INSTEAD OF V

To the Editor: Great job on the Apollo article! (July) The Apollo program is a fractal. No matter what level of detail you examine it in, there are still levels beyond what you see.

On page 31 the rocket being assembled is the first stage of a Saturn IB, not a Saturn V. The Saturn IB’s first stage was made up of multiple fuel and oxidizer tanks from Jupiter and Thor missiles, bundled together, and the parallel tanks are visible in the photo. The Saturn V first stage had one liquid oxygen tank and one fuel tank (kerosene or something close to it). I don’t know what sort of rocket is in the foreground of the photo.

The second and third stages of the Saturn V were liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen fueled. They developed an explosion-forming technology for the bulkhead between the liquid and oxygen and liquid hydrogen tanks that was never used before (or since).

RONALD CORRADIN
ST. PAUL, MINN.

BEST OF BREED

To the Editor: I would really like to see Mechanical Engineering magazine take a cue from the recent letter to the editor written by H. Douglas Lightfoot. In it, he discusses the potential of the fast breeder reactor to provide all our energy needs well into the future by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. This is the ultimate in recycling in that it produces vast amounts of clean energy while significantly reducing the volume and half-life of already existing spent nuclear fuel (yielding a huge bonus in disposal cost savings).

The French, who produce over 70 percent of their electricity with nuclear power, had the Super Phenix fast reactor. We in the U.S. have developed a better technology, the integral fast reactor (IFR), and will not implement it.

We need to build and operate a commercial-scale IFR demonstration facility as we should have done fifteen years ago when the process proved viable at the 20 MW pilot scale.

My question to you is this: How can we, as engineers, allow the hopeless hand-wringing about energy to go on when we know there are answers? Our job should be to enlighten the public about solutions in terms they can understand—not in “engineering speak.”

BOB BALHISER
HELENA, MONT.

HYDROGEN REACTIONS

To the Editor: In my senior year of college, in 1967, I took an elective course called “Direct Energy Conversion” where fuel cells were featured. After graduation in early 1968, I went to work for Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, who was making fuel cells for the Apollo command module. In the same lab was a small stainless steel sleeper trailer powered by a fuel cell as a research project for the Gas Research Institute.

Over 40 years later, I read in the May issue that fuel cells are the power source of the future (“Hydrogen Horizon”).

The problem with fuel cells now is the same as it was 40 years ago. They cost too much, and require exotic and potentially dangerous resources to operate.

More important, as long as petroleum is relatively cheap and readily available, alternative energy sources will not advance past the research stage.

EDWARD AUERBACH
JERSEY CITY, N.J.