To the Editor: I appreciate the many energy-related articles in Mechanical Engineering, including the April issue.

Mechanical engineers can take a leading role in resolving many energy issues, especially carbon loading of our atmosphere and the greenhouse effect. For example, use of commercial-grade carbon fibers can reduce the weight of automobile bodies, frames, and driveshafts, and reduce the needed power and weight of engines, leading to better fuel economy for hybrid, battery-operated, or fuel cell cars.

Sequestration of atmospheric carbon in new forests would provide constantly needed building materials, perhaps at less cost than underground storage.

A greater distinction needs to be made between use of mined fossil fuels that add carbon to the atmosphere and the use of biomass that recycles carbon.

Flexible photovoltaic cells will soon be available to shingle countless buildings and produce carbon-free energy to power the grid, charge local storage batteries, or produce hydrogen for fuel cells.

Reducing our use of fossil fuels through redesign or conservation will only drop the price, and others will rush in to buy it up with no overall improvement in global warming. Only energy that is cheaper and more convenient will displace fossil fuels.

Warming to a Topic
Frederic A. Lyman, P.E. Syracuse, N.Y.

To the Editor: Unlike Merwin Jones, who wrote [Letters, June] to express his disappointment with the articles on global warming in the April issue, I'm grateful to Mechanical Engineering, and especially to Associate Editor Jeffrey Winters, for trying to keep us informed on this issue. My disappointment is that ASME has not taken a position on what may be the greatest threat to future generations.

Mr. Jones urges us to understand both sides of the issue, but mentions only the Web sites of people who deny that the emissions from stationary power plants and mobile sources are largely responsible for global warming and climate change. Most of the objections of the skeptics have already been answered by climate scientists. The scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change published in refereed journals through 2005 was recently reviewed by a large number of experts and summarized in the extensive 2007 report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Mr. Jones thinks that we engineers should examine the evidence and draw conclusions for ourselves, and I agree. But the processes responsible for Earth's climate are so complex that engineers without expertise in the science of climate change may find it difficult to absorb and evaluate the data on which scientists have based their conclusions. Much of this data came from measurements, often indirect, of subtle and small changes over a long period of time.

Highly qualified scientists, many of whom are by nature skeptical, have argued over the data and its interpretation, but virtually all of them agree that global warming exists and that its potentially disastrous effects can be mitigated only if action is taken to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 2007 IPCC report is very cautious and reticent on action, however. Some scientists believe that it did not go far enough to warn us about how quickly climate change can occur.

To the Editor: I suggest, as did Merwin Jones in his letter [June], that [you] not assume that CO₂ is the culprit for global warming. Many peer-reviewed studies by John Christy, Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Arthur Robinson, Fred Singer, and others have proven that CO₂ has little to do with the Earth's temperature.

Earth's temperature has varied about 4°C for thousands of years. One of the high temperature periods permitted the Vikings to grow crops in Greenland, and was interrupted by the Little Ice Age about 300 years ago. The Earth has been warming by fits and starts since that time, long before the major carbon dioxide increases since World War II. The Earth's temperature now is about average.

The only proven effect of the increase in CO₂ is a 15 to 20 percent increase in the rate of growth of vegetation. There are 279 peer-reviewed studies confirming this. There are 12 cycles affecting the energy the Earth receives from the sun-sunspots, solar flares, magnetic energy, etc. Many of these are not well understood. Over time these cycles support each other and at other times, they work against each other, which is the primary cause of the Earth's temperature variation.

Warmers' computer models, attempting to prove carbon dioxide is causing global warming, have many unknown variables. How can they predict temperature levels years in advance? We have trouble predicting this for next week.

The dire circumstances predicted by the Warmers today did not occur during past maximum temperature cycles of the Earth.

To the Editor: The article dealing with Asian business people, "Are Your People Firefighters," (July, page 28) seems to lack understanding of the Eastern Asian cultural background of Confucianism and Buddhism/Hinduism. Unlike Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, there is no concept of omnipotent beings.

Therefore, it is firmly believed that with infinite amounts of effort, human beings can reach the stage of God. People are expected to do their best to their death. Karoushi, death due to overwork, has virtually become English terminology adopted by the International Labor Organization.

"To err is human, to forgive divine" is the kind of idea that doesn't work, sometimes even in the relationship of a family.

The Toyota method known as Kanban features "right-on-time delivery" and zero defects.

One of the harshest things is vendor control. Toyota's procurement policy is a 2.5-vendor system; that means two prime contractors plus one spare candidate. If one failed in either quality or delivery, it will instantaneously lose its contract and face a penalty. Then the spare will be promoted to a prime contractor.

Thus, Toyota has become number one in the world.

To the Editor: I read the recent letter you published [May] about the perceived differences one man observed between boys and girls and their relation to his view of engineering. Following are my thoughts on the matter.

The differences in boys' and girls' interests attributed to predisposition I believe are not really all that different. For example, many girls are given Barbie dolls while boys are given G.I. Joe dolls with which to play. How they play with them is often a learned behavior from the marketing of the product and from society's expectations of how a boy or a girl should act. Also, I have observed both boys and girls enjoying building with Legos and blocks.

However, engineering is not just about building things. It is about solving problems utilizing technology, math, and science. It is about helping people and making life better in so many ways. Just think of the different kinds of engineering: civil, mechanical, chemical, computer, environmental, electrical, aerospace, biomedical, industrial, nuclear, materials, fire protection, and biochemical. From this list, it's obvious that engineers impact nearly everything we utilize in our day-to-day lives in addition to giving us the tools to explore the universe.

I believe girls and women are helpful by nature and will thrive as engineers, especially when they can see the direct connection to how they are helping people. Given the encouragement and the tools, many more women will enter the field of engineering and will help to make our world an even better place in which to live.

Editor's note: The writer is engineering coordinator in the School of Applied Information and Technology at the Community College of Baltimore County.

To the Editor: "Keep the Sub Shop Going" [News & Notes, June] reports on a Rand Corp. study for the U.S. Navy—but is accompanied by a photo of a submarine that, unless I'm badly mistaken, is not a U.S. Navy submarine.

It would seem the photo ought to be relevant to the Navy actually being discussed.

Editor's note: The author is chief scientist at the Office of Naval Research Global regional office in London.

Several readers of our July Input Output feature, "Morale Fiber," have pointed out that 4x8-ft. armor panels at 2.2 pounds per square inch would weigh about 5 tons. The panels, to reinforce military tents, weigh 2.2 to 4 pounds per square foot, or about 70 to 128 pounds.

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

© 2007 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers