To the Editor: Engineering design projects such as the one described by Benjamin R. Johnson in Letters in the September 2006 issue are excellent for teaching young engineers how to do good engineering design. I congratulate Mr. Johnson on winning first prize. It indicates a job well done.

In his enthusiasm, Mr. Johnson must be careful not to oversell the results of his work. Hydrogen generated by windmills may be useful in very small niche applications.

However, large-scale production of hydrogen—say, enough to power road and air transport worldwide—is out of the question. Why? Wind delivers electricity only about one-third of the time. Therefore, compared to a continuous source of electricity, such as nuclear, wind requires three times the installed generating capacity, three times as many electrolyzers, and far more transmission lines.

Solar is even worse because electricity is delivered only an average of one-fifth to one-quarter of the time.

Being a design engineer carries the responsibility that one must see the world exactly as it is, otherwise the design will fail.

_{Nuclear Reaction} Frederick Willis
Haddonfield, N.J.

To the Editor: Jessica Sarver's September letter claims that energy and economic growth leads to environmental disaster and human welfare must be based on the energy obtained from "renewable," meaning "limited," energy sources.

This view is refuted by reality. Replacing human and animal labor with machines, thus requiring energy production and consumption, has produced cleaner environments and allowed more people to live longer, healthier, and more enjoyable lives. Industrial civilization is the greatest benefit for human welfare in history; primitive societies are the most detrimental.

Ms. Sarver's assertion about limits on growth was irrevocably refuted by Julian Simon, who documented the greatest resource of a society is an individual's free and creative mind that can act as problems develop.

The renewable-energy, limit-dominated society that Ms. Sarver advocates existed. It was the Middle Ages.

To the Editor: The September letters section contains two items relating to nuclear power. In the first, Jessica Sarver admonishes against turning to nuclear energy as a possible solution to the energy dilemma. She tosses out phrases like "social responsibility," "technologies that promote irresponsible growth," "potentially disastrous consequences," and "surviving on renewable energy sources."

Without the necessary energy to sustain technologies and economies in a post-oil environment, we can expect a worsening of the human condition (increased hunger, exposure, disease, and poor land use). Ms. Sarver is a case of those who promote bad ideas in a good cause. Her object is to act responsibly (i.e., don't be one of those nasty planet despoilers). If we follow not just her admonition to act responsibly but also her strict formulary for what constitutes responsibility, we become guilty of taking actions without considering consequences.

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, nukes in the wrong hands, and "The China Syndrome" film generated a lot of phobia regarding nuclear that is part truth and part fiction. The result has been a U.S. frozen for a quarter-century, while the rest of the planet continues nuclear development, despite a record of safety that exceeds other large-scale technologies. Thinking we can put the lid back on Pandora's box is foolish, and we'd do better keeping up with (or ahead of) the pack. The risks from nuclear power generation can never be eliminated, but advancing safeguards and development of smaller generators have gone far in reducing them.

In the second letter, Dan Pangburn correctly identified one limitation as the restraint on recycling nuclear wastes imposed by Carter and seconded by Clinton. Nuclear has been consigned to the "limits" bin through an artificial and politicized restraint to first-pass-only utilization that wastes 99 percent of potential energy.

By defining, a priori, what solutions are prohibited, we condemn mankind to a future that is impoverished long before that need happen and before our creativity has a chance of finding new expression.

To the Editor: In the September letter, "Not Sold on Nukes," Jessica Sarver did not agree with a conclusion that we should turn to nuclear energy. She presented some important concerns and challenged us to be responsible. However, her argument against nuclear energy was—well, I didn't see any argument against nuclear energy. Without any specific physical arguments, the letter implied that opposition to nuclear energy was somehow socially noble and, I believe, it implied that nuclear energy was unnatural.

Nuclear energy is not bad, evil, or even unnatural. It is energy. Oklo in Gabon is a natural nuclear fission reactor. It was natural nuclear energy long before any of us were socially responsible. We have a great example of a natural nuclear energy source that rises every morning in the East. Solar energy is from a nuclear source. That same nuclear source generated the stored energy in organic forms like wood, coal, oil, and biomass.

Geothermal energy is energy from the Earth's core that is heated by the decay of radioactive nuclides.

By 2010, there will be at least a half-dozen new reactors under construction in the U.S. with more to follow. The turn (or return) to nuclear has already been made. Just claiming that you do not like it will not stop it or correct any concerns. And there are some concerns that must be addressed and resolved.

All forms of energy can be dangerous. Commercial nuclear power is no exception. It has real challenges and concerns. Address those concerns.

We need an informed, logical, and scientific search for the proper energy mix. That should be the more responsible path.

To the Editor: The fifth paragraph of Michael Abrams' article "The Teardown Artist" (August 2006, page 38) quotes Dave Meeker as saying that reverse engineering is usually against the law. Quite the opposite.

If the product design you are reverse engineering is simply a trade secret, there is nothing to stop you from picking it apart and commercializing your own knock-off version. The author, Mr. Meeker, and all readers should be aware of the laws that govern trade secrets.

The Uniform Trade Secret Act (last amended in 1985) is a compact to harmonize state laws concerning trade secrets. Most states have entered this compact.

It took until 1996 for Congress to pass the first and only federal law concerning trade secrets, the Economic Espionage Act (18 USC 1831-1839).

Employers are required by these laws to take "reasonable precautions" to safeguard their information, and failure to do so will generally result in such information being denied trade secret status in most courts.

Both laws make explicit exemptions for reverse engineering, and using know-how gained from a previous employer to help a future employer. As long as you don't blatantly hand some- one a formula, design, or process of another, you are 100 percent in the clear.

I had to be aware of these laws because I spent four years as a formulator for a small construction product company that sells products nationwide. These were finely powdered dry cement and gypsum products. Much of my job was to reverse-engineer products of major national brands. I never "stole" anything. I just made the closest knock-off humanly possible, often sending fractionated components to be analyzed using very sophisticated tests by a third-party lab.

Patent infringement is the single biggest concern when you reverse engineer with the intention of commercializing your knock-off.

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

© 2007 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers