PHILOSOPHICAL INCLINATION
To the Editor: I read “Natural Design With Constructal Theory” in September.
Great article! But, how can we change our “make-sell-scrap-buy-another” culture when our entire commercial and social philosophy says, “more, bigger, more, easier, more, smaller, more, better, more, your neighbor has one”?
We need political leadership, which is non-existent at this time.
ROYDON S. MARGOLIES, P.E.
MOUNTAINSIDE, N.J.
C FOR ENGINEERS
To the Editor: The author (Harry H. Cheng, “C for the Course,” September) does the profession a service in moving the programming language to C. A move that should have been done in the mid-’70s.
I am not sure that such a simple solution will hold in the future. The choice of a language can be complicated by the tools that are available to its practitioners.
If I look back at the computer languages that I had to learn during my career, which started in the days when computing was forbidden to engineers, I see the following trail:
Machine Language, Ferranti Autocode, Fortran II, IV, APL, PL1, C, Smalltalk, Lisp, C++, Python.
From this I conclude that others starting now will also have to adapt. Hopefully with less pain.
PEDRO MARCAL, ASME FELLOW
SAN DIEGO
ONE OR MANY?
To the Editor: Great issue (January) in general. Just received it and I am digging through the articles. I first read the “Satisfaction” article by Lisa Frehill.
The editors need to decide if “data” is a singular or plural word. It is treated as both in the Frehill article. Examples of plural include many instances of “…the data show….” Examples of singular include “This data…” and “The data here is broken out….”
I prefer treating “data” as plural, but I know The New York Times often treats the word as singular. But I think you should make a decision and stick with it.
EDWARD M. CLARK, P.E.
WEST ORANGE, N.J.
SYSTEMS IN GEAR
To the Editor: I have followed the discussion of finding an icon for mechanical engineers with great interest and I appreciate Mechanical Engineering bringing the discussion to the readers. I have a concern with the voting result of the gear as the ME icon, and I feel compelled to share my concern with other engineers.
In the October issue on page 4 one reader was quoted, “The robot, while definitely mechanical engineering, is too closely related to electrical engineering.” I not only agree with this statement, but I feel that the same concept behind the statement applies to all of the top five choices for ME icons. For instance, the gear represents not only a mechanical part but also materials selection and processing. The gear is one of the best examples for application of carburizing. Look in any undergraduate materials science textbook that covers carburizing and there is a good chance a gear will be used in an example problem.
Therefore, as an icon, the gear stretches beyond mechanical and into metallurgical engineering and materials science in the same manner that the robot stretches into electrical engineering. On the other hand, a series of gears that appear as if in motion draws attention to movement and energy transfer rather than to a single component.
It is not the nuts and bolts or even the gears that make MEs different. Instead, it is how the ME applies these components to make something larger that works for the betterment of our societies. Any icon for the ME should carry this message of effort and energy.
JARED TEAGUE
ROLLA, MO.
CONTINUING DEBATES
To the Editor: Your December 2009 edition has renewed my confidence in the technical knowledge and common sense of Mechanical Engineering and engineers in general. I was ready to resign from both the magazine and my elevated opinion of engineer’s wisdom. But after reading reactions to the “CO2 Debate” article from readers and seeing the inclusion of the two articles “S Marks the Spot” and “Facts & Fission,” my confidence has been renewed.
Theodore Rockwell’s article was very informative, insightful, and drawn from a lifetime of deep involvement in engineering nuclear power. His conclusions came from careful, thorough analysis using peer-reviewed and well referenced facts.
In contrast, the article “S Marks the Spot” draws from the work of a business school professor who uses a theoretical model to predict outcomes. The article did not mention peer-review of her facts and theory, and the only reference specifically mentioned was to her own paper. These articles in juxtaposition highlight the tension between hard science and poorly substantiated theory present in the current man-made global warming debate.
ROBERT DAVIS
JACKSON, MICH.
To the Editor: As Mr. Ritchie requested in his letter (December, 2009, Letters), I checked out the Cornwall Alliance, www.cornwall-alliance.org. The group says it is a “coalition of clergy, theologians, religious leaders, scientists, academics, and policy experts.”
I recommend their Web site to any engineer who wants a better understanding of the religious opposition to global warming. They believe in the Bible, and in their interpretation of the Bible. Science is only believable if scientific results support their established beliefs. Anyone who disagrees with their thinking is an enemy of God.
Engineers need to be aware of this “belief first, evidence second” philosophy. It is quite foreign to what we think of as science.
JIM NEWMAN
LURAY, VA.
To the Editor: This e-mail is in response to the letter to the editor in the September 2009 magazine, “Every Breath You Take,” by Doug Culy.
While I don’t expect any editor to censor opinions, I expect every editor to only accept reasoned responses, and any competent mechanical engineer should know that Mr. Culy’s reasoning is fundamentally flawed.
Mr. Culy and, by association, you, the editor, seem to have somehow forgotten that food is a renewable resource. Yes, a certain amount of petrochemicals and petroleum-based fuel is used to grow food crops and raise livestock, but for the most part, agriculture is part of a closed carbon cycle. The carbon dioxide produced by humans is roughly offset by the food we grow and the feed and grass consumed by livestock. As can be plainly seen in the EPA graph on page 10 that accompanies the letter, even in a country with highly mechanized agriculture such as the U.S., only about 8 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions are associated with agriculture and livestock. Furthermore, in less-developed nations, a much smaller amount of petrochemicals are used to produce the same amount of food.
How such an obvious omission would get by the editor of an otherwise well written and edited magazine is beyond me, but I felt obligated to point out Mr. Culy’s fallacious argument.
PETER BOSMA
SECANE, PA.
DIGITAL FADING
To the editor: Your December 2009 article on the death of the filing cabinets reflects well the new era of computerized designs and correspondences. Document management can make good use of the ever greater capacities of electronic memories.
There is one important factor to be taken into account, which is the fading of electronic memories. This would require a planned re-recording of files, especially applicable to archives, since electronic records rot faster than paper.
GEORGE J. VAGO
WEST ORANGE, N.J.
|
