To the Editor: In 1949 I graduated with a B.S. in mechanical engineering, and could only get a job in a test and service department. It was a fun job testing and installing systems on Navy ships. It was a valuable experience in relating to the real world.

What no one seems to realize is that when we outsource work to other countries, we are also outsourcing entry-level engineering/technician jobs. What is worse, innovation in manufacturing occurs where the product is being manufactured. Innovation in design also occurs where the product is made.

In short, mindless outsourcing is a recipe for disaster. It is "eating your seed corn."

Fellows on Paper
Nicholas E. Berkholtz, P.E.
Minnetonka, Minn.

To the Editor: Thank you for including "The 2004–2005 ASME Fellows" in the November 2005 issue.

It was a joy to see the additions to the highest ASME membership grade of distinction in print, with photographs and citations. I have had the opportunity to meet several of the new Fellows in person.

It is very useful to be able to read of their accomplishments, their affiliations, and participation in ASME.

I know that ASME wants to put all of its information on the Internet. For those of us who do not have a high-speed broadband connection, access to the Internet is a problem. My interruptible slow dial-up modem connection is not very useful for such things.

To the Editor: This is a rebuttal to the letter from Thomas Ask (January).

Technology will be the answer to New Orleans' prayers. While technology cannot thwart Mother Nature in her every challenge, it can and will provide substantial insurance against her and permit the rebuilding of a stronger, more resilient city.

Please consider covering engineering aspects of New Orleans' restoration from Hurricane Katrina in upcoming issues.

To the Editor: I was pleasantly surprised to see the article on slide rules at Purdue University (December 2005).

As a recent graduate (M.S., 2005), I always paused at the slide rule display each time I passed by on my way to the engineering library. I have two pocket rules and two "full-size" rules, which I still know how to use.

It would be a shame to see such tools slide away into oblivion, particularly in these computerized, automated, right-now times. The display at Purdue caused me to dig out my old rules and put them prominently in sight.

The look on some people's faces when they ask, "What's that?" makes it all worthwhile.

Thanks for the look back.

To the Editor: President Bush says we're addicted to foreign oil and he wants to fund research to find a substitute. I have a suggestion: Use wind energy to create hydrogen.

Wind energy provides relatively clean power, but it suffers the disadvantage of being unavailable when the wind stops. Using dc power from wind to electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen would provide an effective method of storing energy. Creating and using dc power on-site would eliminate a large part of the power conditioning required to produce utility-acceptable 60 Hz power. It also would eliminate the need to connect the turbines to high-voltage transmission lines.

A market for hydrogen and oxygen exists, so it wouldn't be necessary to immediately develop the infrastructure necessary to distribute the products. Liquefied gases can be transported in insulated tankers. Liquefaction of these gases is energy intensive, but wind could provide the energy for that, too.

Eventually, a hydrogen distribution system could be developed to use hydrogen gas as a heating fuel like natural gas, or as an automotive fuel in either liquid or compressed gas form or as an advanced hydride.

Wind-generated hydrogen may not immediately be cost-competitive with conventional fossil fuels, but it would be self-sufficient.

To the Editor: The problem described by Kirk Teska in "Does 4 Include 3?" (January), regarding the disconnect between word and object in formulating descriptions set forth in patent applications, is akin to that encountered with product specifications used for defining the end product in contracts used in weapon-system development programs.

In both cases, hardware must be defined precisely in words that may be subject to litigious interpretation. While differences of opinion cannot be avoided in every situation, the central issue of what a word in a patent application really means could very often be defused by adopting a practice I followed in writing product specifications more than half a century ago.

Gillette's Mach 3 lost out to a four-bladed rival.

I compiled a list of definitions of possibly misunderstood words and phrases commonly used in such documents, and incorporated a section in the specification that included relevant definitions. The heading of that section stipulated that each definition listed was to be considered as the governing definition, for the purposes of the specification, even if the definition differed from common usage or dictionary definitions. Drawing from the description of the multi-bladed razor controversy in the article, the definition list for patent applications should include "and/or."

Another useful practice might be to follow the advice frequently given by attorneys to people they intend to call as witnesses in a trial: Answer every question as briefly and directly as possible, and never volunteer any information not specifically requested.

Yet another bit of advice, this one offered by a patent attorney in a lecture to engineers, is to begin with the broadest conceivable claims, narrowing them only as compelled to by Patent Office examiners. Had the framer of the Gillette application begun with a description of the subject device as a razor with three or more blades, controversy might have been avoided.

To the Editor: Comments on patent language in January's article by Kirk Teska may reflect some differences in opinions as well as some disagreement between lawyers and engineers.

Most engineers I have known agree with the court that a razor with three blades arranged as Gillette's patent claim specifies infringes that patent regardless of how many extra blades it has.

They likewise agree that patent claims lack validity when clear evidence of anticipation appears. Most engineers seem aware that argument to broaden a claim's construed scope increases the size of related prior art.

To a good many engineers, patent claims cover some pretty thin soup. United States law seems to define patentable subject matter poorly. Engineers understand novelty and usefulness requirements, but find trouble with obviousness.

Sometime around the middle of the last century the requirement "unobvious to one with reasonable skill in the art" became the patent law attempt to parallel "the wise and prudent person." It fails.

Use of this criterion requires patent attorneys, patent office examiners, and judges to imagine persons with reasonable skill in an art, and then speculate as to what might have been obvious to them at the time that an applicant filed his patent application. In consequence, patents sometimes issue covering trivial subject matter not entitled to any grant of monopoly.

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

© 2006 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers