To the Editor: I was most interested to read your article in the December 2005 issue about the committee now assembling bioprocessing equipment standards.

However, you did not include in your historic sketch information that this effort began over 30 years ago with the ASME Food, Drug, and Beverage Equipment Committee. This committee was made up of representatives from equipment manufacturers, equipment users (food processors), and regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, USDA, and the Dairy 3-A Committee.

The one thing that was missing was support from the Codes and Standards staff leadership of the day. I wonder where we would be today if support from them, such as the present committee is receiving, had been forthcoming back then.

Nukes to the Rescue
Stan Jakuba
West Hartford, Conn.

To the Editor: This is concerning Jaak Saame's letter in the April issue.

I believe that no one would disagree with former Secretary of State George Shultz and former CIA director James Woolsey when they express concern about the impact of the imported oil supply disruption.

In addition, I believe that it is a bad policy to burn our own oil precisely for the political stability reason stated.

For 50 years, the U.S. has had an alternative for producing heat and electricity without dependence on foreign oil, and also without generating air pollution and CO₂ that our coal would necessitate: nuclear energy. It can supply us with heat and electricity indefinitely, not just 300 years. It is truly a renewable energy source.

Other renewable sources—dams, windmills, solar heaters, photovoltaic panels, and biomass—are not going to make an appreciable difference on the scale of mankind's present and projected energy usage.

The commitments to alternative, sustainable, or clean energy are nothing new. President Jimmy Carter committed the United States to derive 20 percent of its total energy from renewable sources by the year 2000. The proportion of "clean" energy production today, five years after that deadline and almost 30 years from inception, is still at about 6 percent, very much the same as during Carter's presidency.

After 30 years and billions of dollars worth of spending and subsidies, the increase in clean energy has been negligible. Let's be realistic and learn from history. The only clean energy that would make any difference in the energy thirst of today's society is the electricity derived from nuclear power stations.

To the Editor: I found the article entitled "Green Coal" in the News & Notes section (April) disturbing. It seems since the president is promoting the use of green fuels, these new ethanol plants are needed. Many will run on coal, adding more greenhouse gases and depleting more of our natural resources.

The entire alternative and green energy debate is a farce. The public is being misled. Most of the general public probably assumes that if everyone drove electric cars today, many of our pollution problems would go away and fossil fuel consumption would decrease drastically. What is not told is the number of new diesel- or coal-fired electrical plants that would need to come on line when everyone plugs in their cars at night.

Solar, wind, hydroelectric, or other alternative power sources are not going to solve our problems.

Most of the Earth's energy comes from two main sources: solar (which is really nuclear) and thermal (which is difficult to harness). Coal and oil are just densely stored solar power. Corn, solar, wind, etc., are not concentrated forms of energy, but pack only the power from the sun at the moment. So these forms of energy take up large areas of space to gain the necessary production required.

The only answer is nuclear. It is the only alternative to fossil fuels that packs the necessary density to meet our future demands. I figure public opinion against nuclear fuels will turn when gasoline reaches about $6 a gallon. But let's not waste tons of money on building these ethanol plants when we should be building nuclear plants.

To the Editor: I thoroughly enjoyed your article on single crystal turbine blades (February). It's a real skill to cogently present scientific material without watering it down.

That article is exactly why I read your magazine: It gave me a good sense of the depth of engineering and science that goes into a design, yet required only a basic undergraduate education to understand. Keep up the good work.

To the Editor: Our unsustainable trade deficit is a result of our political obsession with the concept of "free trade." Trade is dictionary-defined as "to give and receive equivalent things." Thus, government actions should be based on achieving "equal and fair trade" with a trading partner as measured by a recognized medium of exchange.

A dynamic and automatic procedure to eliminate currency exchange imbalances calculates a variable tariff that is applied uniformly to all components, finished products, and services that originate with a specific trading partner. The tariff is unique to that partner and reduces to zero automatically when currency exchange is balanced. This concept is very helpful to those countries that import more products than they export. These are typically countries that are hurt by unfair product subsidies.

It will be argued that the trade equalization technique will increase prices paid by U.S. customers for imports. It should be pointed out, however, that the procedure results in an increase in revenue to the U.S. Treasury. The magnitude of the increase can be accurately calculated for a specific tax year and used to reduce income taxes for the next year, and thus compensate exactly for increased prices paid for products made in these countries.

To the Editor: In reading the article on slide rules (December 2005), it brought back many memories of my relationship with slide rules in my youth, high school, college, and beyond.

My first slide rule encounter was with my fourth grade teacher. She demanded that my father take the slide rule away from me as I was using it for homework and was not learning my tables. This slide rule was a 20-inch K & E, one-sided with a reversible slide. I later used this rule as a backup for college exams.

These rules belong to collector Mike Konshak.

In high school, our math instructor used one of the 7-foot models to try to cover the principles and teach slide rule use. He was not very successful with most of the class, but several of us caught on and represented our high school in district and regional interscholastic slide rule competition.

I did well locally, but placed only third in the regional events. The hardest part of this competition was decimal placement in somewhat complicated problems.

In college, I progressed to a 10-inch Dietzgen Log Duplex DeciTrig. I still used the 20-inch K & E as a backup, as in warmer months in Texas, hand sweat would sometimes freeze up the slide (in 1960, there was no air conditioning in most of the engineering classrooms), and without a second rule, you might not complete the exam.

After college, most of my slide rule use was on a 5-inch Post Versalog. As calculators and computers came into daily use, the slide rule went into the bottom desk drawer, to be shown only when explaining how the old folks solved their engineering problems.

My most recent slide rule use has been to explain to our daughter-in-law how to use a circular 4-inch Concise. She was amazed that it worked. I still have two of these with the Caterpillar logo.

Yes, "Slide rules have earned a permanent place in the hearts and minds of engineers." Especially this one.

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

© 2006 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers