To the Editor: The Technology Focus article "Truck Stop" in June describes an electronic stopping device, which could be activated by radio control to prevent a truck from entering a protected area, such as the Capitol building, a nuclear power site, etc.

The device does appear effective in stopping a hijacked truck.

However, the trucks used in the first bombing of the Twin Towers, and the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building were not hijacked, but rather were outfitted with explosives, with sufficient time to bypass this type of safety device.

The cost to the public to implement this device would be $800 per truck for hundreds of thousands of trucks. Yet a terrorist could have this device bypassed for the cost of a few hoses and fittings.

A great emphasis has been placed on the technology of making the device work, but will it really deter a terrorist?

Doubting the Bounce
Leigh Atwood
North Kingstown, R.I.

To the Editor: As a part of the excellent article in the March issue on manufacturing in China ("The China Road"), there is a section entitled "Still Waiting for the Bounce."

If the advertisers in the magazine are appealing to a market expected to grow, then manufacturing in the United States will certainly continue its fall. There are no advertisements for pumps, compressors, engines, steam turbines, heat exchangers, or bearings, and just one page for motors and generators.

Don't wait for a "bounce."

To the Editor: "The End of the M.E.?" in the May issue was an interesting and thought-provoking article. It reflects many issues I have discussed with my students and colleagues over the years. However, as one who has participated directly in this electromechanical revolution (I was director of the Center for Electromechanics at the University of Texas at Austin, where much of the electromagnetic gun technology was and is being developed), I would offer a somewhat different perspective.

The engineering effort required to develop high specific-power electromechanical generators, motors, and actuators is at least as much mechanical in nature as it is electrical. In fact, the limiting factors are as often thermal management and material properties as they are electrical insulation and magnetic flux density. Successful electromechanical devices today are the result of truly interdisciplinary design efforts.

While the future of power generation, transmission, and application may well involve less gearing and shafting, it will certainly offer new challenges for application of our (M.E.) knowledge of system dynamics, modeling, bearings, optimal design, manufacturing, and thermal management. I am one of many examples that you can indeed teach an old (M.E.) dog new (E.M.) tricks.

The sky is not falling.

To the Editor: I believe that unemployed Tom Luther ("Employment Realities," Letters, April 2004), unaware Steven Shultheis ("Staying in Droves," Letters, October 2004), and underemployed Frank Rampersad ("Half of Eighty," Letters, April 2005) have brought our attention to a significant challenge for ASME. Our organization must support members to remain vital, motivated, and employed.

We must also influence factors that affect our opportunity to successfully contribute in our domestic economy. The loss of hard goods production has eliminated the need for engineers in manufacturing and services. Our national intellectual, economic, and defense security are in jeopardy.

Underemployment for engineers is very common. Over the last 12 years, I have been in 10 work situations, two layoffs, and two moves. This included contract, consulting, temporary, sales, and retail. My work now is in an engineering support role. Our people are having difficulty.

To the Editor: I can't believe you published the picture on pages 26-27, in the June issue. I think the article is supposed to be about Chinese cars, but the prominent character in the picture is not the car. Interestingly, the article never addresses who the woman is.

This class of picture (which I assume was obtained as a promotional picture from the car company) continues to build the strong and persistent bias against women in mechanical engineering, and discourages young women from entering the field.

To the Editor: "A Call to Activism" (Letters, May): There are ways to share 40 years of engineering experience. Tutor a child or adult through your school district. Run for elected office, such as on a school board. Sponsor a booth on technology with hands-on items at a school career day.

Volunteer to speak in a high school business class on product liability and patents. Join a service organization, such as the Rotary, and chair the vocational committee. Seek appointment to a state technical board.

With a group of engineers and scientists, sponsor a high school engineering and science education class. ASME and the Experimental Aircraft Association have science teaching aids for high schools where engineers and scientists serve as class mentors.

If you are fortunate to retire early with benefits, obtain your credentials to teach high school math or science. Many states have a program specifically aimed toward early retirement engineers and scientists.

There are always more opportunities than available hours.

To the Editor: Peter Huber and Mark Mills's article, "The End of the M.E.?" in May, cites the example of the General Electric Evolution diesel-electric locomotive as evidence of a shift away from mechanical drives and controls.

The Electro-Motive EMD-103 locomotive is an ASME Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark.

The first diesel-electric locomotive (a diesel engine driving an electrical generator powering traction motors geared to the wheels) was produced in 1922. The locomotive was manufactured by a consortium consisting of the American Locomotive Co., Ingersoll-Rand, and General Electric. The locomotive was first used by the East Erie Commercial Railroad, which is GE's in-house switching railroad serving its Erie, Pa., locomotive plant (where today's Evolution locomotives are assembled).

The first truly mass-produced diesel-electric road freight locomotives were sold in 1939 by GM's Electro-Motive Division, which today is known as Electro-Motive Diesel. (ASME designated an EMD locomotive cab unit from 1939 a Mechanical Engineering Landmark.) EMD and GE remain today as the two primary manufacturers of over-the-road diesel-electric locomotives on North America.

I've seen press releases recently touting the use of diesel-electric drives by specialty truck manufacturers. Other manufacturers are investigating diesel-electric hybrid automobiles. What seems to have been lost in the clouds of history is that locomotives pioneered the diesel-electrical transmission many decades ago.

I understand the authors' point about the shift away from mechanical systems. But the choice of a contemporary Evolution locomotive as a prime example is, well, outdated.

Somehow, while we were handling the photo that we published on page 26 of the July issue, we turned a 1927 Model T into a Packard. We than everyone who pointed out our error.

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

© 2005 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers