To the Editor: It was with great interest that I read John L. Roth's letter to the Editor titled "Motivated—or Jobless?" in the January issue. He raises the pertinent point of availability of engineering jobs for undergraduate and, I would venture, even postgraduate students in the U.S.

I have heard stories from colleagues indicating that sending out several thousand résumés to employers tends to be commonplace. This can prove to be quite frustrating.

Naysayers may suggest that college career fairs exist to help build networks. True, but how many company recruiters visit all eligible schools? Many companies have "preferred" colleges and may tend to overlook others.

Then the question of networking arises. It has been my observation, particularly in industry, that unless one has a contact inside a company, the likelihood of scoring even an interview is quite low.

With some of these issues in mind, I would like to propose a few career management articles for graduates and new industry professionals be published in upcoming journals. The passing on of lessons learned would be quite appreciated not only by new graduates, but also by MEs (like me) with a few years under their belts.

Editor's note: Mechanical Engineering magazine publishes articles on employment issues from time to time, especially in its Engineering Management supplement. Those articles are available on M.E. Magazine Online, www.memagazine.org.

G.W. Brown
Baxter, Tenn.

To the Editor: An article in the Dec. 10, 2004, Oracle, the college newspaper for Tennessee Tech in Cookeville, Tenn., painted a rosy picture for graduates. Starting salary for the average engineer was $50,000. Only accounting was in more demand among employers seeking new professionals. The source of this data was the National Association of Colleges and Employers, Job Outlook 2005.

I have been looking for one of those high-paying jobs for 15 years, since I was downsized in Birmingham, Ala., in 1989. At that time I was topped out at $43,000, $5,000 less than current graduates are receiving.

At age 50, the only employment I can find has been at a processing facility for used clothing at a salary one-quarter of what new graduates now receive. The year prior to my layoff I won a national award for the company for a series of articles. The company management association named me employee of the year, and one of the articles was incorporated into the company supervisory course-book.

During the years following downsizing, I became certified in management through the Institute of Certified Professional Managers, passed the postal exam, became certified in the state directory for children's services and had numerous technical articles published. Even with all these activities and accomplishments, I have not been able to find a job that others without a high school diploma could obtain. Excuses I am given for being passed over have been: there were over a hundred applicants for the job, I'm far too qualified to be challenged by the position, etc.

In closing, I would like to warn all graduates that a successful career can come to a sudden end. Have something to fall back on.

To the Editor: In response to Steve Samenski's letter published in the February issue, I agree that, in theory, hydrogen production need not be polluting. But in practice, there are decades of development required before nonpolluting energy sources will make a dent as sources for production of the amount of hydrogen needed.

Realistically, we would have to resume construction of nuclear power plants nationwide, a well-known technology with well-known problems, to (more or less) cleanly mass produce enough hydrogen to displace gasoline in our children's lifetimes.

Others have claimed that hydrogen can be produced by renewable sources, but I've never seen an explanation, not for the amount of hydrogen we would need. If it were easy, why are we not seeing any of this technology used now to power stationary plants?

I would very much like to see us wean ourselves away from petroleum products and all of their political and environmental baggage, of course, and I think a combination of technologies will make this happen in the long run. But, as engineers, we must maintain objectivity and not insist on ideas and concepts that appeal only at an intellectual level. Engineers have to make things that work. We must leave the strictly intellectual brainstorming to the philosophers.

To the Editor: Your March supplement, Mechanical Engineering Design, had an article on tailoring aircraft to older passengers. It left out an important issue.

The aircraft should have an ultraviolet tube in the air recirculation system, or other means to kill viruses and bacteria. The elderly are more subject to infection than younger people, and some of the elderly take medicines that impair their immune systems.

Lighting, shape, sizes, and handholds are important, but don't affect the health of the passengers.

To the Editor: The article "Split Decision," by Gayle Ehrenman (Technology Focus, December 2004) was interesting and could be used in many test facilities. However, the NASA and Flowserve engineers' idea is not unique. They have rediscovered a valve design.

While I was a facility design engineer in the test lab at Marshall Space Flight Center from 1959 to 1963, three other engineers and I utilized this design that was engineered, designed, and manufactured by Annin Valve, later bought by MasonNeilon. We used these valves in many test stands for launch vehicle components and stages.

By using these valves, the test engineers could change the valve seat and plug configurations for different flow and pressure drop requirements. These also had special operators, called Domotors, by Annin. They were used for high-pressure fuels and cryogenics.

This valve design is not very applicable to most industrial plant usage as very few require frequently revising the valve flow conditions.

Good article and informative.

To the Editor: The article "A Model Mission" (December 2004) implies that Maynard Hill was the first to have a model plane cross the Atlantic. This, however, is not true. In the year 1998 an unmanned aerial vehicle flew nonstop across the Atlantic.

The vehicle, named Laima, had a 9.5-foot wingspan and a 1-hp single-cylinder modified Enya model airplane engine. Takeoff weight was 28.8 pounds. A 70-gram Trimble GPS guidance unit was used and most of the flight was made at 5,520 feet.

It was the fourth attempt.

The flight took 26 hours, 45 minutes and covered 2,031 miles at an average speed of 76 miles per hour. The craft recorded flight location, altitude, and wind during the flight, which experienced rain.

Incidentally, I recall during my model-building days in the mid-30s having witnessed a high-wing model, powered by twin Oldson engines and radio-controlled, being flown on Long Island.

Editor's note: The Laima's flight was a joint effort by the University of Washington and the Insitu Group. A Web search for "Laima" will turn up articles on the university's Web site and elsewhere.

To the Editor: No-fly zones have been declared over Disney World and Disneyland, but Feds refuse to protect the Indian Point nuclear plant from potential air strikes. The potential for crippling a prime economic and heavily populated area is enormous.

Despite the fact that the hijacked planes which hit the World Trade Center flew directly over the Indian Point nuclear plant in September 2001 and Al Qaeda confirmed that U.S. nuclear reactors are terrorist targets, the Homeland Security Department and the Federal Aviation Administration refuse to declare a no-fly zone around the plant.

In the weeks following Sept. 11, 2001, the FAA issued a no-fly zone over all the country's nuclear plants. But now it's legal for planes (both private and commercial) to fly over the plants, including the controversial Indian Point.

Editor's note: The writer is the author of the book Asleep at the Geiger Counter, published by Blue Dolphin Publishing Inc. in 2002. According to the FAA, the no-flight orders over Disney World and Disneyland were mandated by federal legislation.

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

© 2005 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers