SUPER ICON

To the Editor: The proposal to find an icon for mechanical engineering is well intended (May Input Output, “An Icon for the MEs” by S.K. Gupta). Mechanical engineering is the leading engineering discipline, and if an icon is to be applied to the mechanical engineer, that icon should be “The Super Engineer.”

This designation is supported by MIT’s description of mechanical engineering, which can be found at http://engineering.mit.edu/education/undergraduate/meche.php, and is reprinted below:
“Mechanical engineering is one of the broadest and most versatile of the engineering professions.... Today, our faculty are involved in projects ranging from the use of nanoengineering to develop thermoelectric energy converters to the use of active control for efficient combustion; from the design of miniature robots for extraterrestrial exploration to the creation of needle-free drug injectors; from the design of low-cost radio-frequency identification chips to the development of advanced numerical simulation techniques; from the development of unmanned underwater vehicles to the invention of cost-effective photovoltaic cells; from the desalination of seawater to the fabrication of 3-D nanostructures out of 2-D substrates.

“…MechE gives students the broad skills set they need to pursue their goals—whether that means working as an engineer, founding a company, continuing on to graduate study and research, or going to a professional school to study medicine, business, or law. We foster independent learning through hands-on laboratory and design projects, and we help our students grow as creative thinkers, leaders, and collaborators.”

IBRAHIM A. ASHIE
CONWAY S. C.

To the Editor: Supporting my vote for the gear as an icon of mechanical engineering, it is interesting to point out that the image of a gear is used as a header graphic for the ME magazine Web site.

The gear will make an excellent ME logo, as will the wheel. However, I recommend the gear become the icon symbolic of the mechanical engineer.

The final version of the icon should give a feeling of being forward looking. The ME is a solutions provider/problem solver, found everywhere engineers are needed. Both the wheel and the gear give us a feeling of fundamental power/motion concepts. The gear, however, gives the extra impression of being progressive.

ALLEN KACHADURIAN
FRESNO, CALIF.

To the Editor: I think the wheel, nut and bolt, and gear icons are missing a critical element of what mechanical engineering is about: systems. A non-engineer will see these icons by themselves and think we’re machinists or mechanics.

The robot is a system, has elements from other engineering disciplines, and uses many kinds
of materials. Maybe that’s perfect since that is our reality as mechanical engineers.

CAROL J. NIKOLAUS, P.E.
PORT WASHINGTON, WIS.

To the Editor: Most societies try to get away from an icon. ASCE does not like to be fenced in by bridges (even though it has an annual bridge calendar); AIAA wants to be recognized more broadly than an airplane icon; SAE does not even like to be represented by a car.

I personally believe that an icon for an organization with a broad membership base which has a heterogeneous set of products and services would be unintentionally circumscribing itself from a marketing perspective with an icon of the type described in the magazine.

If ASME must have an icon (and I certainly do not know why that would ever be) it need only to turn to its own corporate seal for a hint. Archimedes beat Jeffrey Winters to the punch.

DAVID BELDEN
NEW YORK

Editor’s Note: David L. Belden is a former executive director of ASME.

To the Editor: I think the wheel is the most appropriate. It represents the beginning for wagons, cars, railroads, engines, robots, etc. If it wasn’t for the basic wheel principle, these devices would not exist.

I worked for several years in the jet engine industry. Wheels (discs) were fundamental. Then, I worked for 30-plus years in the space industry. Rotating wheels and gizmos are a must for some of our most critical satellites.

LES MILLER
GLENDALE, ARIZ.

To the Editor: Referring to the article about icons, I am submitting another idea for an icon that may be too late, but I think it is worth a look. With all due respect, I don’t think that the submissions shown in the article convey the significant impact that engineers have had on our civilization.

My submission attempts to show a connection to mechanized food production, which is becoming increasingly important as the world population increases. This same theme could also be applied to water or energy. Food, water, and energy are the three legs of the stool that represents civilization. If we neglect any of the three, we are at peril. As engineers, we must address all three.

JOHN F. MUNRO, P.E. (RET.)
WALNUT CREEK, CALIF.

To the Editor: S. K. Gupta requested suggestions for an icon representing mechanical engineering. Several highly mechanical areas are often attributed to other refined branches of engineering such as ships (marine engineers and architects), transportation (automotive engineers and aeronautical engineers), or power plants (nuclear engineers).

The typical contributions of mechanical engineers should not be lost regarding the public. I believe that a good icon might consist of a three-part representation of a car (everyone can relate to that). The front third would be almost a photo, the middle third a clay scaled model, and the rear third a finite element analysis grid properly melded with the caption, “Moving Forward.”

A similar representation might be applied to any other end product selected as the icon (ship, plane, power plant, etc.).

ALBERT WINROTH
SARATOGA SPRINGS, N.Y.

WHO CALLS THE ORBIT?

To the Editor: I enjoyed your 40th anniversary Apollo moon landing article (“The Most Hazardous and Dangerous and Greatest Adventure…” July) and would like to add my own bit of engineering history.
The first American orbital mission was John Glenn’s Mercury flight in 1962. President Kennedy held a press conference at the Cape Canaveral launch site shortly afterward.

Attending with Kennedy were his science advisor, Jerome Wiesner, and NASA officials Bob Gilruth and James Webb. During the live TV conference, Wiesner got into a heated argument with Gilruth and Webb, which didn’t end until Kennedy personally intervened.

I always wondered what that argument was about, so I asked Wiesner about it when I met him at an engineering conference in Boston a few years later, when he was the MIT provost. It turned out that the argument concerned the two alternative Apollo mission options, lunar orbit rendezvous versus Earth orbit rendezvous. Wiesner said the lunar orbit rendezvous was the more dangerous option.

Wiesner told me he persisted in fighting for the Earth orbit option until Kennedy took him aside and said, “Jerry, they’re the guys who have to do the job, so let them do it their way.”

JOE LANCE
SPRINGDALE, PA.