To the Editor: An article appeared on the front page of the August 15 edition of The Wall Street Journal under the headline "Student Plagiarism Stirs Controversy at Ohio University." This was not the typical article about plagiarism involving undergraduate term papers, but one about the problems over several years with graduate-degree theses.

Sadly, this particular incident involved the mechanical engineering department at Ohio University. But my suspicion is that the problem is not unique to Ohio University, but more prevalent across engineering academia. I expect this revelation of problems might result in other universities reviewing their own policies and procedures for thesis review and the hiring of academic advisors and professors.

But the issue ought to be of concern to all members of the engineering profession, across its various industries, including people who are hiring new engineers.

Light Math
David P. Fleming, P.E.,
North Olmsted, Ohio

To the Editor: The letters concerning daytime running lights by Bill Robba (January) and Matt L. Davis (April) both use misleading mathematics.

Robba inflates the apparent cost of daytime running lights by assuming that every vehicle has them and, moreover, that they are in use all the time. The facts are that many vehicles do not have the feature, and those that do are actually used only a few hours per day.

Davis asserts that the figure of merit is the cost to the individual user. The total cost, claimed to be $888,000 per hour, is apparently meaningless.

I assume that we as a society are willing to spend some amount of money to make transportation safer. Then the real question, which neither writer posed, is whether the funds spent on daytime running lights by society in the aggregate is the best use of the money, or whether it could be spent more effectively in some other way.

Unfortunately, we seldom try to answer that question. Pet ideas are adopted, with little data on their effectiveness, and with the cost borne by the individual (so it appears small), without comparison to alternate means of reaching the same goal.

To the Editor: Thanks for your editorial comments regarding Bill Begell in the June issue.

Having had the pleasure of working with Bill as a member of ASME's Publications Committee, I came to realize that he is indeed an outstanding individual who is fully dedicated to the success of ASME.

Through his corporate experience with Begell House, Bill brought a unique perspective to the committee: He was a volunteer member with direct professional experience in publishing. Bill could not only speak as a technical writer who had sought to have his work published, but also as a business person who selected works for publication. His contributions to the committee were invaluable.

Although I regarded him as a good friend and colleague, I never knew of his background until I read your editorial. He has learned to appreciate life in a way that few of us have experienced—or would care to do.

During a recent, but all too short trip to Eastern Europe, I was reminded of the hardships that those in that area had endured, first under the Nazi regime and, more recently, under the Communists. Bill exemplifies the finest attributes of those who have overcome hardship to better the lives of those around them.

Editor's note: The writer is a past member of ASME's Board of Governors.

To the Editor: Current FAA regulations do not require two pilots on all civilian jet aircraft.

The aircraft and pilot do need a special certification to be flown with a single pilot.

The Cessna Citation, mentioned in the article "Jets Go Light Indeed," (News & Notes, August), is one such aircraft that is single-pilot certified.

To the Editor: I read this morning an article on very light jets in your August issue. In this article, it stated that there are only two-pilot civilian jet aircraft certified by the FAA. This is in error, as many of the VLJs are slated for single-pilot certification.

I'd like to know how the civilian aircraft, the BD 5, featured in the opening scene of the James Bond film Octopussy (http://www.bd5.com/), can be operated by two pilots in the cockpit. I've sat inside one myself, and I can say that the BD 5 is indeed a single-pilot civilian jet.

Editor's note: We thank the writers for pointing out our error. The story omitted a qualifying phrase: Civilian jets currently must have two pilots for commercial use, as in an air-taxi service.

To the Editor: I only skimmed Ahmed Noor's article "Disruptions of Progress" in the November 2005 issue. I much prefer to read about real achievements that offer practical lessons to help me now. So I was pleased by the next article, Jean Thilmany's "A Short Stroll."

But I was struck by the irony. Noor claims, "As the trends of distributed collaboration and large-scale integration of computing resources continue, a fundamental paradigm shift will occur towards virtual product creation." Yet Thilmany points out that at Boeing, "The engineering department was a few miles from the factory ... When e-mails bounced back and forth, much was lost in transla- tion." And "Boeing solved that problem by moving manufacturers and engineers into the same hangar space."

It seems to me that this real, old-fashioned solution was much more effective than all the latest virtual reality programs. Let us hear more about real, present-day solutions to real, present-day problems.

To the Editor: I see that Gayle Ehrenman's nostalgic article about slide rules ("Slides Rule," December 2005) is still reverberating in the Letters column. I can't resist adding a comment or two.

Samples from the collection of Mike Korshak, who operates sliderulemuseum.com.

It was a poignant indicator of our time that, when I first showed a slide rule to my son, he thought that it was really cool because you didn't have to put batteries in it. Beyond that, I have a picture-framed box on my wall containing my old slide rules (four of them) with a label reading, "In Case of Power Failure Break Glass."

Editor's note: Robert O. Woods is the author of a feature in this issue.

To the Editor: As usual, I found ME magazine's June '06 article on magnetic levitation inspiring. What seemed to be missing in regard to the mixer device discussion seems somewhat fundamental to why it is such a novel concept.

Many moons ago, I worked in a metallurgical lab for Honda Motorcycle in Ohio, and we mixed our etchants with a magnetic mixer featured on a small heater (for beakers, etc.). Used it all the time.

Terentiev's design does one thing above this: levitate the mixer element that otherwise would drag along the beaker's bottom. Without that single feature, this device is nothing revolutionary.

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

© 2006 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers