His advocacy of more nuclear power tells me that he is obviously employed in some capacity in that industry. His objections to such things as efficient automotive fuel economy requirements, minimal water usage for flushing toilets, and insulation thickness lead me to guess some other things about his lifestyle: (1) he probably drives an old Lincoln Town Car or Chevy Suburban (or both), (2) his septic tank and leaching field are at the end of their life span, and (3) his old air conditioners leak Freon like crazy and need perpetual servicing.

As a mechanical engineer, I inherently know there is a finite limit on resources and that the production of energy always increases entropy (a state of disorder). Therefore, it is my duty as a fellow human being to minimize my use of resources and energy. It is my duty as an engineer to devise the means so others can do the same.

Presumably, Kovnat feels his duty is to get all he can while he can, and the hell with anyone else. It is unfortunate that his fear of governmental regulatory tyranny is leading him to spitefully advocate lifestyles that infringe on the rest of us.

At that time, the consensus was that any physical problem could be solved if you just applied enough power. Back then, almost no one was concerned about impact on environment; it was as if we human beings possessed a special immunity to atmospheric, marine, and soil pollution. We've learned better since; at least most of us have. As for having to lower our standard of living because compliance with environmental regulations results in more expensive but ineffective appliances, what better challenge is there for engineers than to eliminate such defects?

It indeed would be beneficial if there were mobility in pensions and if the tax laws did not assume that an employee would work for one employer during an entire career. Even if, as in my case, employees have not had a company pension plan for most of their careers, the IRS assumes that they were under such a plan and does not allow them to make a pretax contribution to a retirement plan. The new Roth IRA plan does have tax-free benefits for new employees, but it does nothing for those who have already invested in tax-deferred IRAs. The rollover from a tax-deferred IRA to a Roth IRA creates a 28 to 31 percent tax liability.

An employee does not know when there will be a downsizing, a retrenchment, a recession, or a medical disability that will result in the loss of future retirement benefits. Tax law is politically selective and intended for those who can pay for political favors—the very rich and the poor, but not for the middle class, which pays the primary taxes. I do hope the various technical societies such as ASME and SAE can lobby to create tax laws that allow pension mobility for future retirement.

In the future, please spend a few more pages and some illustrations to back up the articles. After all, we are all engineers and used to seeing drawings, diagrams, and graphs.

Drafting is a fundamental of engineering, and therefore I was quite surprised that the editors would allow such a detailed engineering analysis without providing even one technical sketch. For many engineers, including myself, after all design considerations have been evaluated and analyses have been performed, the final engineering product is a drawing. Regarding similar articles in the future, I would hope that the editors remember the old adage "a picture is worth a thousand words."

For starters, this article was nearly useless to those who did not have the blueprints of the ship with them. The descriptions in the text could (and should have) have been marvelously complemented with schematics that allowed the reader to visualize certain components (main hull girder) and where some of the locations of the ship that were being discussed were, such as the expansion joints, "two main traverse bulkheads" and the "inner bottom between the forward end of Boiler Room number 1 ... "

Second, the inclusion of some of the FEA graphics would add to the appreciation of this work, and the comprehension of the magnitude of stresses and corresponding analysis. If this information could not have been included because of copyright issues with the professional paper it was taken from, then that should have been mentioned to retain your credibility.

Your magazine has been good in the past, but I felt that this article fell short.

The tear was in the front of the ship, so by stopping, one would believe, they were able to slow down the in-rush of water. Carrying this further, if they had backed up, could they have stayed afloat long enough to make port? I would be extremely interested in an answer.

home | features | weekly news | marketplace | departments | about ME | back issues | ASME | site search

© 1998 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers