Another TV documentary (on Discovery) noted that human civilization has occurred following an ice age and that we are poised to return to the next ice age. Why should we not defend against another ice age? The United States has just experienced the coldest November and December on record! Where is that CO2 when we need it? I think all of the parties above need to have a conference and sort it out.

The area of energy conversion at nanodimensions has other limits. The article illustrates a computer-developed model of a nanogear that appeared to consist of only several hundred molecules. The model suggests that functional nanogears at this size, built to convert torque, may be clamped into place. My thesis is that if our molecular construct is at the level of Brownian motion, we have another dimensional limit, which is a pitfall associated with Maxwell's demon.

James Clerk Maxwell invented Maxwell's demon to illustrate a violation of second-law principles. The demon operates a trap door of microdimensions between two chambers separated by an adiabatic wall. The demon is able to differentiate high-speed clumps of atoms from slow-speed clumps. He uses his trap door to transfer the hot molecular clumps to a chamber, which exhibits an increasing temperature. In effect, the demon transfers heat from the cold chamber to the hot chamber and builds a Carnot engine to perform work. The second law is violated in several ways.

What is the fallacy of the demon concept? If we are at a molecular dimension level, where we can differentiate Brownian motion, then Maxwell's demon is himself subject to the very Brownian motion that he would utilize to make his perpetual motion machine. The trap door, its hinges, and its actuators would all be subject to Brownian motion. One cannot make a microclamp to hold a machine at the level of Brownian motion.

The fact that much of the food supply is grown in the central states argues against diversion of water to supply the increasing coastal populations.

Along with the population growth come industrial and commercial growth, further increasing demands for electricity and water. Also, there are increased needs for facilities to treat septic and solid waste. Many cities and regions continue to treat these needs as separate functions. The result is massive inefficiency in the use of our natural resources and rising costs for the citizenry.

To promote efficient use of our natural resources and, by corollary, reduce environmental pollution, the leaders of our various governmental entities need to consider a systematic approach to meeting the utility needs of the increasing coastal populace. For example, incorporation of combined-cycle power generation and multi-effect distillation desalination has the potential to meet increasing power needs, while simultaneously producing very high-quality water.

This high-quality water can be used to attract industries requiring very pure water, such as electronics and pharmaceutical manufacturing, thus providing well-paying jobs. Alternatively, the high-quality water can be blended with present sources to improve both the quantity and quality of potable water supplies.

Municipal solid waste and sludge from septic sewage treatment can be burned in trash-to-steam incinerators to help meet daily peak power requirements, while simultaneously eliminating the potential of major health hazards associated with landfills. There are a number of such facilities operating and meeting emission restrictions.

Such consolidation of utilities into a system will require governmental action. The investment will not meet the return-on-investment requirements of private ventures. The lack of taxes on government investments and the ability to fund such investments with bonds having lower interest than private loans means lower costs to the citizenry for utility services than would be realized through a private venture. Privatized utilities will remain unsystemized.

The continued push to privatize utilities that are, in effect, necessities of life, will eventually result in further redistribution of wealth from the poorer to the richer, as larger utility providers snap up smaller ones, eventually resulting in private monopolies with little or no constraint on charges.

Having invested considerable personal publishing funds to launch a journal titled Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering about seven years ago, I feel entitled to express some thoughts on the subject provoked by the article. Being an engineer and a member of ASME in good standing gives me an additional impetus to say a few words about the role models proposed.

My initial encounter with women engineers was in undergraduate school. There were two in my class. One told everyone that she felt her engineering degree would land her a good job in some engineering library. The other told her classmates that she felt her attendance in an engineering school would help her in getting married without having a lot of competition. (She was right; she got married by the end of her junior year, to an electrical engineer.)

Women engineers were excused from plant trips because most of the industrial managers in the late 1940s and early '50s felt that the presence of young women in a manufacturing milieu would distract the operating male working force and possibly cause an industrial accident.

These circumstances prevailed while I was growing up as an engineer in this country. I fully agree that we need more women engineers and that we must do everything in our power to attract them to our noble and creative profession.

However, the problem of choosing role models for young women must be done without being swayed by the apparent success of TV shows like ER and The Practice. For one, the choice of Gloria Steinem as a role model for young women in engineering is unrealistic. The idea is right; the choice is utterly wrong. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of women engineers who can be chosen as real-life role models.

In the former Soviet Union there were (and still are) many women engineers. The trend started during World War II, when there was a shortage of men, and women (like our Rosie the Riveter) went to engineering schools. The trend prevailed after the war.

Let us start a tradition. There are too few Nancy Fitzroys. We do need the brains of our women to join us in the ranks.

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

© 2001 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers