To the Editor: I enjoyed John Varrasi's article, "The Computer Assist," in the October 2005 issue. He points out, correctly, that the full impact of computers in engineering did not take place until the introduction of the PC in the 1980s.

My personal experience with computers in engineering goes back to the early '50s, when I was a vibrations engineer at the Piasecki Helicopter Co. (now Boeing Vertol). We were solving rotor blade and fuselage vibrations using the Myklested method and mechanical desk calculators. IBM had just introduced the Card Programmed Calculator into the service bureau. Using the CPC, we were able to complete the Myklested calculations about 30 times faster.

Later on in the '50s, working at the AAI Corp., we purchased a Burroughs Corp. computer that had to be programmed in machine language and an IBM computer programmed by punched tape. Neither of these machines had internal memory, but we used them to do many types of calculations. The advent of the stored program computer and the development of programming languages changed everything.

Varrasi's article goes on to discuss computer-based structural analysis programs and credits some of the early pioneers in the development of the finite element method. It may not be well-known, but some of the pioneering work was also done at the Martin Co. (now Lockheed Martin) in Baltimore in the '60s. I was assistant technical director there at the time and some of my friends and colleagues were engaged in that work—specifically, Thomas Butler, William Case, and Stanley Kaufman.

Later, Tom Butler and Bill Case moved on to NASA and were involved in the development of Nastran. Butler was the program manager of that effort and the follow-on contracts that led to the commercial version, MSC.Nastran. He also was an ASME member, a member of the Applied Mechanics Division, and an active member of the Baltimore section, serving on our Executive Committee for several years.

Editor's note: Richard Hirsch is a member of the Mechanical Engineering Editorial Advisory Board.

Will Train for Work
Peter Miserendino
Darien, Ill.

To the Editor: I would like to take exception to a letter in the November 2005 issue about engineers who are trying to find work and those lucky enough to have jobs.

I have been in mechanical engineering for almost 10 years and I was just recently laid off. I'm glad some of us have "had no trouble finding work" in some areas of the country. In the Chicago area, where you would think jobs are plentiful, all it takes is a quick look in the papers to see that mechanical engineering jobs are in short supply.

What's more, those of us who are out of work and searching are finding out that employers want the exact experience that's listed in their ads. If you are missing one component, no matter how small or trainable, you're not even considered. If you have too much experience, you aren't considered because then you're also considered close to retirement. I was just recently rejected from a position that was 50 miles away (and how many of us are willing to spend two-plus hours just traveling to our jobs, and away from family and friends?) on the sole basis that I didn't have enough experience in a modeling program that I haven't used in over six years. The interview lasted all of 15 minutes.

I'm an engineer; I was brought up to learn what was put in front of me and to continue to learn new things and not be afraid of the future. I am more than willing to relearn something I haven't used in a long time, especially a computer program, but companies nowadays don't want to train anymore. They want engineers out of the box that know it all and need no training.

If you have a job, great. I hope you never experience unemployment. It is no fun. But don't preach to the rest of us that it's easy to find employment—you just have to expand your horizons. If my horizons became any more expanded, I'd be viewing the aurora borealis from my bedroom window in the summer.

To the Editor: I respect the concerned reader's response to the picture of the woman posing in front of the car at the beginning of the June 2005 article, "Where the Engineers Are." Women are clearly demeaned in countless insensitive ways all over the world. We would all benefit from having more young women enter our profession.

However, young women, as well as men, entering engineering have more to worry about than sexism. Outsourcing is the theme of the article in the June 2005 issue; the woman posing in front of the car is simply part of yet another inane marketing plan.

The advertised car would probably have simply been shown, sans model, in China's version of Monument Valley, if it hadn't been flooded by the construction of the Three Gorges Dam. If we as engineers (male and female) continue to concern ourselves with trivialities like scantily clad women, then the trend of shipping our jobs overseas to the East will continue at an ever-increasing rate.

India and China don't care about who is male or female. Instead, they concentrate on educating engineers who are aggressively approaching their professions. Perhaps India and China graduate and produce more jobs for engineers because they don't care about the model; they worry about the car.

To the Editor: The cover on the October issue is kind of scary and based on my experience in the oil and gas business neither of the people shown would be working in this industry very long.

One has his sleeves rolled up, no eyewear, no hearing protection, no fire retardant clothing, and nothing to protect himself from the fumes of the fire in the background as the other person has. The second person is looking much better, even gloves, but where is the hard hat?

The October cover featured an AP photo taken in Kuwait in 1991 during the first Gulf War.

Finally, they are both breaking a cardinal rule on dealing with lifts. Both appear to be giving the crane operator a signal, and not the same signal, so what is the crane operator doing?

I have to say that over the past 25 years the emphasis on safety in the oil and gas business has really attempted to have zero injuries. If you have to trade off anything, it won't be safety.

I think these people need to get to a safe area, sit down, prepare a safe plan of action—pretask assessment or whatever your company calls it—and then and only then, get back to work.

To the Editor: For an ME who was technologically obsolescent within six months of graduation, your magazine has been, over the years, a welcome fount of currency and updating. I thank you.

Jean Thilmany's extraordinary "Ephemeral Warehouse" in the September 2005 issue is just another example. To say the subject is arcane is to say not enough. To say that she writes it well is an understatement.

I left home when Cobol and Fortran were hip and haven't been back. Without e-mail or the Internet, I am the despair of my brighter friends. But I soldier on.

Thilmany's article accompanied photographs of the USAF's B-52. The older airplane is carrying the North American S-15, breaker—and perhaps still holder—of serious aviation records. That machine reached 354,200 feet in August of 1963 and, just four years later, set a speed record of Mach 6.72 (4,534 mph).

Keep me flying—technologically, that is. Keep up the good work.

To the Editor: After receiving the January issue, I wish to extend my best wishes to Mohamad S. Qatu, ASME Fellow.

His accomplishments and degrees are without question very impressive.

What stands out is that he has continued to teach and serve the engineering community.

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

© 2006 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers