RSS Feeds
Winning Wars With The Environment In Mind Is A Contradiction In Terms
Readers Sound Off
By Design News Staff -- Design News, September 25, 2006
TAKING 'GREEN' TO THE POINT OF INSANITY
I read the article regarding the "Green" army truck (Small, Cool, and Powerful). When I finished, I felt like we, as a society have totally lost our minds. War is, without a doubt, the most resource-wasteful process on Earth. We win wars by destroying resources. So, if we are going to build mechanisms to destroy resources, why are we worrying about being "green" while we do it? The goal should be to make the truck as simple (this one is not), reliable (proportional to simplicity — so, not), and as easy to repair in adverse conditions (definitely not) as possible. Why worry about that fact that we could save a few dollars of fuel while we destroy resources which will eventually take millions of dollars of resources to rebuild? This is taking the "green" mentality to the point of insanity.
Spencer Leiter, P.E.Bloomington, IN
ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY PENCIL
Thank you for your editorial on the command of the mighty pencil in the real world of engineering design (Math Software’s Arch Enemy: The Number 2 Pencil). I agree with you that the learning curve with these programs prevents them from being an engineer's first choice for mathematic calculation. But I do believe you overlooked some critical compounding factors.
First, is the perennial problem of program upgrades. Every year the math platform I originally tried to use would be preempted by a new, better, more complex version of the software. It had been a struggle to free up the capital funds to cover the arm and a leg of my initial purchase. The annual charge for upgrading of a leg for no apparent improvement became untenable. I realize that this is a natural consequence of the computing paradigm, Moore's Law, but nonetheless, this is a problem.
The second problem has to do with porting. Long ago, computer programming chose a text-based source file format. This permitted others to view, review and if needed, edit the source code — even those who didn't have the compiler required to produce the final product! The software package I initially chose generated very pretty hard copies that clearly explained my thought process. But the file itself was a proprietary configuration meant to be read only by the product that generated it. Eventually, locked files of printouts (PDF, JPG and embedded objects) permitted others in my group to view my results. But the only medium that permitted editing by those without the software was paper printouts.
Last is the learning curve. Most of us learned the complex mathematics behind these programs from a teacher writing on a board. We were then required to prove our knowledge using pencil on paper in a fixed period of time.
It is true that unrealistic classroom problems were typically carefully crafted to permit solving with paper and pencil and that occasionally real projects cannot be simplified enough to permit quick, easy hand calculations. But finding the perspective to simplify a complex problem into one solvable by pencil and paper is a hallmark of a good engineer.
All hail the mighty pencil, and the mind that wields it.
Barrett T. ClayUpton, NY
CALCULATORS ARE QUICKER
Interesting article. Here is my view: Engineers are rather spontaneous when working on initial design concepts, or when they want to check out a simple design calculation that can easily be done with three strokes on a hand calculator. I keep my TI 30 X calculator in front of me all the time. Let's face it: If one needs to do a simple math calculation to quickly check an idea or whatever, it is simply faster to do it by use of paper, pencil and hand calculator.
Software has its place but it doesn't replace everything and it usually isn't efficient in doing the simplest things. Software people tend to "oversell" their product.
George C. Schmidt P.E.Port Lavaca, TX
BRAIN OVERLOAD
Enjoyed your article about math software versus the No. 2 Pencil. There is a limit to how many programs an individual can learn. I've seen reluctance even in younger engineers to change the tools they already know. Also, the software is constantly changing. We've been barraged with so much hype over the last 15 years that we've become jaded by the claims made by some of these applications. Just looking at the MathSoft site, it looks like Mathematica, MathLab or MatLab. I prefer writing programs in Visual Basic for my own needs. I can barely fit another thing into my brain.
Karl HansonDesign News Reader
Talkback
DN's Resource Center Get Free Information, Made Easy
-
Quiet Strength Under Load
Groschopp | Case Study
Request Item -
Patient Lift Sound Data
Groschopp | Case Study
Request Item
