To the Editor: I got a laugh from your "Creative Impulse" article's (September) unintentionally hilarious com- mingling of an emphasis on cultivation of a "warm, inviting atmosphere" with morale-destroying prejudices, such as, "With A students what they know is important, and what everyone else knows is not." Why would one who is fundamentally a good learner automatically, as a result of that capability, be unable to develop communication and leadership skills? The only reason I can see is that the consultants won't let them be heard.

The same issue of Mechanical Engineering magazine has an article about Patrick Hanratty and Ivan Sutherland, the developers of computer-assisted design. I'd be interested to hear how Dr. Hanratty and Dr. Sutherland were able to succeed despite the harm inflicted by the A's they earned en route to getting their doctorate degrees.

William G. Ovens Lady Lake, Fla.

To the Editor: I refer to the recent article ("Creative Impulse," September) by Alan Brown, which stated that Chris Barlow advises companies never to hire a 4.0 student. I am not sure that a good value engineer would ever make such a dogmatic statement. He would ask the question about how to use the obviously superior intellectual horsepower of the 4.0 student to best advantage for the company.

(My qualification to make such an assertion is that I taught, practiced, and published papers in value engineering for many years.)

When I was consulting with IBM, they did a survey of GPA vs. success in the company. The high-GPA types were more successful in the research and creative kinds of jobs. The lower ones were more successful in the kinds of jobs that required technical skills combined with good people skills, such as field work, sales, and the like. It simply means that there is a good place for both, and the smart HR department assigns new hires accordingly.

There is also the old story about the college president who advised the faculty to be kind to the A students because they might come back some day and teach classes here. But, be kinder to your C students because some day they might give us a building.

To the Editor: In "Creative Impulse," Alan Brown enlightens us with Chris Barlow's advice not to hire 4.0 students. While I agree that C students should never be dismissed and that they may turn out to be good engineers, it is reckless and irresponsible to advise against hiring 4.0 students.

I don't know if Barlow's conclusion is based on a scientific study, but I can give you my observations based on 53 years of teaching and evaluating thousands of students. 4.0 students tend to have good understanding of fundamentals, are creative, well organized, highly motivated, and less likely to make mistakes. The notion that C students are superior to A students brings to memory Vice President Dan Quayle's defense of his C average by declaring that C graduates run the world. Perhaps this is why the world is in such a mess. ASME should not give a platform to such flawed philosophy.

To the Editor: I agree with Messrs. West and Kreith ("The Road Not Yet Taken," April) on the advisability of rapidly developing alternative transportation energy resources. However, they seem confused about the connection between its achievement under our constitution and free economy and President Bush's goals for his administration.

Economically speaking, the U.S. government contributes a small fraction to the gross domestic product, and the executive branch much less. Only Congress can enact and fund incentives for research.

Historically, "carrot and stick" incentives by governments have had unexpected, unintended, and often disastrous consequences—particularly in free economies. Such tools are often heavy-handed compared to normally subtle market forces.

There is no greater power to make change than the free market, yet it defies the ability of most economists to predict long-term behavior. Economists cannot agree on what should be the best economic stimulus toward change, and West and Kreith risk tainting otherwise good research by proposing a single, deeply consequential, unstudied research development method without considering alternatives.

To the Editor: I would like to take this moment to enhance the clarity of some articles within Mechanical Engineering magazine.

Regarding "Right on Track" from June 2007, on page 28 the author states, "According to Strang, a 5 mm crack can degrade a joint bar as much as 80 percent."

A few paragraphs later, the author states, "According to Kesler, the camera's resolution permits the discovery of cracks less than a tenth of an inch long."

Many engineers know that 0.1 inch equals 2.54 millimeters, but some still need exposure to such facts.

If the latter statement was converted, then the reader could clearly see that such a camera resolution will observe the 5 mm crack aforementioned.

Regarding "Dream Machine" from June, on page 37 the author states, "The contest, known as the Ansari X Prize, raised money to provide a $10 million purse to be awarded to the first team to build a vehicle capable of lifting two passengers to an altitude of 60 miles twice in two weeks."

Sixty miles (96.6 km) would have resulted in failure since the Ansari X Prize required an altitude of 100 km.

I understand that not all technical fields in the USA use SI units, but I do know which direction we are heading.

The only question is: How much kicking and screaming will there be?

Please note that all ASME Codes and Standards writers have free access to IEEE/ASME SI 10 as a metric system reference; and Codes and Standards Policy 60 states that codes and standards published after June 2008 shall be expressed in terms of SI units unless determined otherwise as a result of consideration of industry, government, or public needs.

To the Editor: Below is an excerpt that I "Googled" regarding Colonel John Stevens's contribution to steamboats. Frank Wicks neglected to mention anything about Col. Stevens in his article ("Pressure's On," October). This is an ironic oversight, considering that the first president of ASME was Professor Robert H. Thurston of the Stevens Institute of Technology.

John Stevens and Steamboats.

"Robert Fulton's Clermont was undoubtedly the pioneer of practicable steamboats. But the Phoenix, built by John Stevens, followed close on the Clermont. And its engines were built in America, while those of the Clermont had been imported from England. John Stevens had, in 1804, built a successful screw steam vessel; and his paddle steamer of 1807, the Phoenix, was very possibly a better piece of engineering than the Clermont.

"Moreover, in June, 1808, the Phoenix stood to sea, and made the first ocean voyage in the history of steam navigation. Because of a monopoly of the Hudson, which the New York Legislature had granted to Livingston and Robert Fulton, John Stevens was compelled to send his ship to the Delaware."

Editor's note: The quoted matter is taken from a biography of John Stevens by Mary Bellis published on the About.com Web site.

To the Editor: It is finally becoming apparent that nuclear power must assume an ever-larger role in our country's energy future if we hope to sustain our lifestyle and preserve/ improve our environment. Yet, it is a little known fact that only 2 percent of the available energy is extracted from nuclear fuel before it becomes waste called spent nuclear fuel. It is then destined for (possible) disposal in the highly contentious Yucca Mountain repository at an astronomical cost to U.S. taxpayers and nuclear power ratepayers.

France produces about 78 percent of its electricity in nuclear plants. It also recycles its spent nuclear fuel, albeit in a high-cost, inefficient manner.

The three main points to make here are: 1) France is far less dependent than is the U.S. on unstable and unfriendly foreign energy suppliers; 2) France has far less air pollution from electricity generation than the U.S., and 3) France, at least, recognizes the sensibility of recycling its nuclear fuel.

To convey the scale of recycling's potential, one must understand that the energy remaining in spent fuel is adequate to meet our country's energy needs for the next 500 years. So, here is my question: Why, for the sake of our children and the future of our country, are we not doing everything within our power to quickly and safely develop and exploit this most promising waste-to-energy resource?

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

© 2007 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers