letters.

SUPPLY, DEMAND, AND H-1B

To the Editor: I read with interest the letter from Vincent Pei-wen Seah in the May issue regarding the H-lB visa bill. I believe that he inadvertently proved the point for the other side of this debate.

Perhaps the reason so many engineering students do not want to go into engineering is that they are able to earn more money in other segments of the economy. More students would become practicing engineers if the demand were such that the rewards made it more attractive. What the H-1B visa bill does is to increase the supply of engineers (perhaps at a lower compensation) and to help satisfy the demand.

The decreased demand, in turn, then acts only to decrease the rewards. Would it not seem logical that if the rewards for engineers were comparable or greater than those of other segments of industry, there would not be such a shortage of engineers.

The H-1B visa bill addresses only the supply side of the equation by providing industry with more engineers. In the short term, this may be good for industry; however, I believe it is not in the best long-term interest of the engineering profession.

Let industry provide compensation commensurate with the true demand, and, in the long term, there should not be a shortage of engineers.

Urey R. Miller

Houston

REFLECTIONS ON WATER

To the Editor: The need for noncombustible hydraulic systems is uncontroversial, but Peggy Chalmers oversimplifies in "Drip, Drip..., (May).

North of someplace around latitude 25 north there is a thing called freezing, which occurs during many months of the year from autumn to late spring. This condition will eliminate the use of a straight water hydraulic system except in controlled environments. For example, large, unheated industrial sites (steel mills, foundries, etc.) are not viable sites. A laboratory can be.

For many years, industrial applications where there is a potential fire hazard (in the event of a blown hose or other leakage) have used a water/ glycol mixture.

Water/glycol is a miserable material. It works well enough in a cooling system (in a car radiator, for example), but in order to maintain proper hydraulic operations, the fluid must be checked frequently and properly adjusted for liquid losses of either water or glycol, buildup of eroded materials, etc.; pH, turbidity, and viscosity must be maintained by frequent adjustment.

Using the water/glycol mixture is not cheap. Special pumps, valves, and lines must be used. Special seals must be used. Special training for the maintenance staff in how to check the fluids for viscosity, clarity, density, etc., is necessary. On top of all that, the normal mixture is not totally freeze-proof A liquid made for -20[degrees]F operation will freeze at -21[degrees]F, if it is idle for a period of time.

We have seen a number of instances where ease of operation using oil trumped water/glycol use near metal melting furnaces in aluminum and steel operations. Safe-not; easy-yep!

Charles A. Licht, P.E.

Life Member ASME

Olympia Fields, Ill.

Editor's note: Peggy Chalmers reports on the latest development in Purdue University's continuing study of water hydraulics, a refitted lawn mower, in News and Notes on page 10.

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

To the Editor: A few months ago, a letter discussed advertisements for Web engineers, IT support engineers, etc. Another letter discussed professional certifications with "engineer" in the title. The problem is that these positions and certifications don't require an engineering degree.

No other profession allows this. They don't allow you to obtain the status of "doctor" or "lawyer" simply because you have worked in the field for so many years. They also require passing various tests for competency.

To maintain the quality of the profession and the competency of the people themselves, we need standards like other professions. The minimum standard is the four-year degree. Certifications are the secondary standard. However, the P.E. needs to offer more specialized versions. Perhaps the P.E. should be taken over by engineering organizations such as ASME.

Certifications by other professional organizations such as ASQ are more specialized and require ongoing education to maintain them. They also don't need to be retaken when moving from state to state.

By looking at other professions, we can determine that we need a basic degree requirement: flexible, specialized certifications, and continuing education. The standards should be the same everywhere in the country and, perhaps, the entire world. International organizations like ASME are best positioned to accomplish this.

Darrick A. Dean

New Castle, Pa.

CONSISTENCY VS. PRACTICE

To the Editor: As an older, semi-retired mechanical engineer, I would like to offer the following comments on the article "Standard Measure" (April). I agree with the author's comment on page 72 stating, "Most people, once they understand it, like SI for its logic, consistency, and lack of conversion factors." I am one who likes the SI system. However, as the author also stated, there are inconsistencies in its use.

In the 1970s, I was a member of the national ASME Metric Study Committee. Our purpose was to evaluate various versions of the metric system, with the objective of making recommendations to the membership at large. Our primary focus was on the SI system. The presumption at that time was that the United States would adopt the metric system sooner, rather than later.

What I found then, as an engineer working in industry, was that there seemed to be various metric systems in use, with none of them being the true SI version. For example, German engineers used the kg/[mm.sub.2] as the unit for pressure, the kilogram, of course, being the unit for mass rather than force. The French had some distinct units of their own, which I cannot recall.

A universal system of units is not worth much unless it is universally used. So my question for the author is: What is the current usage of the metric system around the world? Is Europe currently using an unadulterated SI system? How about the Far East?

Answers to these questions would enlighten us as to how close the world is to a truly universal system of units.

C.M. Pyron, Jr., P.E.

Birmingham, Ala.

Editor's note: Stan Jakuba, who wrote the article "Standard Measure," responds: "Schoolchildren everywhere in the world are taught S.I. (except in the United States). How close is the world to a truly universal system? The world has been there already. Millions are using it according to its 'dictionary'; millions are using it with some 'misspellings,' and millions are using words no longer in the dictionary. They all will get the proper usage eventually."

GLOBAL WARMING DETAILS

To the Editor: Some researchers say that they know all the effects that the increased solar flux has on the atmosphere and have included this in their models. Then there are other scientists with different theories on the effects of increased flux that present different scenarios for atmospheric reactions, such as the geomagnetic fields and changes, etc.

Scientists should be very cautious about assuming that the global warming effect is due solely to greenhouse gases. Also, it should be noted that recent satellite data has shown that the upper atmosphere is actually cooling. Some researchers say that their theory and modeling show that this cooling should occur, while others show differing effects. I see that there is still no complete agreement on the causes and, especially, the effects of global warming.

The issue of temperature collection has not been properly resolved. Temperatures are taken in cities that have the heat island effect. I have seen several different approaches to handling and correcting these heat effects, but these approaches vary and also give various results.

Then there is the issue of thermometer calibration. I have observed where some thermometers for city temperatures were not calibrated properly at the required intervals, and sometimes not calibrated at all. How can we trust the temperature data if there are these variations in the instruments?

It is not wise to make international policies on theories that are not agreed upon by the scientists who have been studying these causes and effects. Some scientists have published their works, but have not been given the publicity that the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research has received.

Catherine French-Sidoti

Los Alamos, N.M.

Article Details

Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:	Mechanical Engineering-CIME
Date:	Dec 1, 2001
Words:	1389
Previous Article:	The waiting game. (editorial).
Next Article:	Mowing with water. (news & notes).