Letters

DELAYED GRATIFICATION

To the Editor: I am a nanotech industry analyst with Venture Analytics here in the San Francisco Bay area. Your editorial, "The Nano Pot at Rainbow's End," (June) was excellent. Having spent time helping entrepreneurs raise cash during the "dot bomb" era, I found your points about the search for a quick buck by both entrepreneurs and investors, and the analogies between the early days of the Internet and nanotech today to be compelling.

Interestingly, many of the same things occurred during the dawn of the PC era during the 1980s, and in the early days of mainframe applications in the 1970s. I guess people's burning desire for fast cash will always overshadow the lessons that are relearned at the bottom of every technical curve.

In any case, nanotech is one of the most intellectually exciting places to be, as it is becoming a convergence point for high-tech and biotech. Your statement that "whether it makes anyone a quick buck is beside the point" is right on the mark.

Jon Buchwald

Sausalito, Calif.

GENES AND NUMBERS

To the Editor: John Falcioni's February editorial states that ability in math "certainly isn't tied to some special gender gene that makes one sex smarter at some things than others. It is attitudes that push social behaviors."

I thought that as engineers we were supposed to base our opinions on facts and scientific inquiry. I do not maintain that there is such a gender gene, yet there are many characteristics, among them chemical and hormonal ones, that are related to a person's sex, and which may affect development of various parts of the brain. Indeed, there are differences in the male and female brains.

Therefore, absent actual evidence, we should refrain from making what are simply politically correct statements. We should instead take the approach advocated by Myron Kayton in his letter to the editor (also in the February issue), and encourage all capable people to become engineers.

Owen R. Greulich

Redwood City, Calif

JAUNDICED EYES

To the Editor: I'm afraid that I can't see eye to eye with the automobile industry on the use of the term "designer" ("Seeing Eye to Eye," Mechanical Engineering Design, March 2002). In the aerospace and electronics industries, a designer is an engineer responsible for the functional configuration of a product. We would refer to a person concerned with the aesthetics of a product's appearance as a stylist, as did the automobile industry until recently.

This distinction might not be considered worth fighting for unless you hark back to the period when engineers were struggling for professional recognition and objecting to steam locomotive drivers and operators of stationary steam engines as engineers.

Marvin A. Moss

North Hills, Calif

To the Editor: It's disappointing to find that the perceived divide between 11 engineers" and "designers" is being fueled by your journal, allegedly devoted to "mechanical engineering design."

Engineers and industrial designers at various levels pursue design as an intellectual activity. At the most general level, engineers tackle the analysis and industrial designers deal with styling and materials. Clearly, engineers are trained to be conservative ("If in doubt, make it stout; use only materials you know about.") That is why aeroplanes continue to fly and buildings and bridges don't fall down.

The industrial designer is better trained in the visual arts than the engineer. Yet these differences do not make either of them (engineers or industrial designers) any less or more creative.

Design requires considerable planning as well as substantial attention to the needs of consumers (users of products). In its "best practice" form, the process is a joint effort among several groups of people (marketing, manufacturing, and production, as well as industrial and engineering designers), without ascendancy of one group over the other.

It is even more disappointing that the article genuflects to some vaguely described procedure from Carnegie Mellon University, that is, in essence, encapsulated in a well-known and developed procedure known as "Quality Function Deployment," or the "House of Quality."

The House of Quality was developed by Don Clausing, a very creative engineering professor at MIT.

Andrew Samuel and John Weir

University of Melbourne

Australia

Editor's note: Andrew Samuel and John Weir are the authors of Introduction to Engineering Design.

A CLASH OF ANIMAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS

To the Editor: I question your judgment in printing the letter from Richard J. Peppin, PE., ASME Fellow, in your May issue. Peppin cavalierly compared the slaughter of chickens to the mass executions of the Jews in Nazi Germany 50 years ago, the only difference being the species.

Peppin goes on to accuse engineers of blindly performing the job assigned, without questioning the consequences of their actions. I am offended by these accusations.

Most balanced, free-thinking individuals are capable of distinguishing between a chicken and a human being. I'm sure that engineers working on the referenced chicken project have thought about this and can make this distinction. I would suggest to Peppin that he do some thinking of his own and place more value on human life.

Michael Doerr

Riverside, Calif.

To the Editor: This letter, friends, concerns the one in the May issue by Richard Peppin ("Engineering Cruelty"). What is his point? Is he an animal rights advocate? Does he oppose all killing of animals, whether for human consumption or otherwise?

Regardless of his intent, attempts to compare the age-old practice of killing chickens for human consumption with the mass murdering of Jews and others for ethnic cleansing are ludicrous. Our society condones the killing of animals for human consumption, and in recent decades has required that the food produced be fit for human consumption. Engineers do not violate any ethics when they introduce efficiency into the process.

William S. Roorda, P.E.

Harrisville, Mich.

CAD BEFORE THE PRO

To the Editor: The March article "CAD Jockey or Engineer?" notes the revolution that has taken place in design engineering as the boundary between design creation and drawing generation has effectively disappeared. Although CAD is cited as the cause for this, the situation is paralleled throughout American business, as the leaning of workforces has decimated the legions of support personnel that once populated our offices.

I believe that the old traditional team of engineer, experienced designer, and drafter is the most efficient and expedient route toward design completion; however, I haven't seen that sort of collaboration used for a decade.

Another CAD-related phenomenon, which I have never seen discussed in print, is the categorization by employers of experienced design engineers, according to which CAD system they have used. In the days of manual drafting, a prospective employer might be interested in whether an engineer was comfortable with board work. However, it didn't matter whether you had been using a Vemco or a K&E drafting machine. Today's employment ads typically cite experience with a specific CAD software as a "must. " (This from the very first "Positions Open" ad in the March issue.)

I personally have had a major corporate employer tell me that I would not be allowed to interview for a project engineer position, for which my credentials were impeccable, because I had never used his CAD software. This mindset, as much as anything, has turned engineers into CAD jockeys. Ron Foltz

Charlotte, N.C.

`POOR THOMAS EDISON'

To the Editor: Am I the only one bothered by a frequent ad in ME (and other periodicals) that uses a picture of Thomas Edison? Clearly, it is not like drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa. But if it isn't a grim example of electronic vandalism, it is, in my opinion, exceptionally poor taste.

If I were a descendant of Edison, I'd be offended if not outright horrified. Although this photo may be in the public domain, I wonder how they feel about this, if they know. I would have hoped your advertising department had more discretion and editorial power. But then again, maybe I am the only one.

Gerald Cabak, P.E.

Santa Cruz, Calif.

[Sidebar]

Letters to the Editor

[Sidebar]

Mechanical Engineering welcomes comments from our readers. Letters can be typewritten or e-mailed, and must include the author's full name, address, and daytime telephone number.

Address your submission to:

Letters to the Editor

Mechanical Engineering

Three Park Avenue

New York, NY 10016-5990

fax (212) 591-7841

e-mail: memag@asme.org

The editors reserve the right to edit letters for clarity, style, and length, We regret that unpublished letters cannot be acknowledged or returned.