Newsgroup sci.engr.mech 27599

John P. Becker (jbecker@e-arts.com) wrote:
: Can anybody provide me with some generalizations regarding number of fea
: elements vs. computational time?
: In other words; if I have a model with 100,000 elements and the same
: model with 1,000,000 elements (same d.o.f. at each node), how much
: longer will the 1,000,000
: element model run?  Assume linear, static analysis.
: Is it a linear or an exponential relationship?
It has nothing (well almost) nothing to do with the number of elements.
The number of elements only comes into play when assembling element matrices,
so the time devoted to that function is linear with the number of elements.
What the problem is heavily dependent upon is the number of degrees of freedom.
So you need to see how many nodes are in the 100,000 element model and in the
1,000,000 element model.  From there I forget if it's a squared or cubed 
relationship for decomposition time (I want to say cubed).  My gut feel for
a fully populated matrix would be cubed.  However, other things come into
play, such as sparsity, bandedness, the algorithm used to solve, etc.  Time
goes up if the matrix is unsymmetric.
James
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
James P. Smith
NASA/JSC, Mail Code ES2
Houston, Texas 77058
smithj@es2linux.jsc.nasa.gov

I need to purchase a number of flow sensors to fit the following spec:
- Pressure rated for up to 1000 psi
- for insertion into 6" to 12" steel pipe via existing 2" welded on nipple
- typical flow rates up to 600 USGPM
- either a pulse output to connect dirctly to PLC (preferred)
    or 4-20 ma O/P
- bidirectional
- for use in clean water
- absoltue accuracy is not critical, durability is essential
- reasonably price / availability
- no local display needed (on unit)
- does NOT need to be inserted while under pressure.
I am also looking for flow direction switches to meet the same spec
Thanks in advance
Mitch Thornton
Blackcomb Skiing Ent. (Electrical Dept.)
mrthornton@intrawest.com     or    mtn-cw@whistler.net
ph (604) 938-7221     fax     (604) 938-7532

In article <549043$jcp@news.enter.net>, cliff  wrote:
>Registered Professional Engineers through their professional organization
>are trying, and have suceeded in some states to have laws passed stating 
>no one can use the title of engineer, unless they are licensed engineers 
>by the state.
>
>There are many engineering societies that offer specialty certification.
>
>This means that anyone who is certified by a professional society will 
>not be permitted to use the title of engineer on business cards, 
>letterheads, etc.
>
Leaving aside the boiler and steam engineers, anyone who hands out a business 
card that has PE after their name ought to be one. 
I do alarm system engineering. Am I an engineer? No. Do I call myself one? No. 
I am "certified" as having knowledge in the fire alarm field by NICET and use 
those initials after my name. Electrical PE's come to me for assistance 
in systems design and engineering because that is my specialty and they may 
not have specific knowledge in that particular area. Some PE's now have their 
degrees and certification in our field and are FPE's or PE's with specialties 
in that field. NICET offers certification in many "engineering" specialties 
but in no way does that make me or any other technologist or technician an 
"engineer." Do I object to people calling themselves "systems engineer" in my 
field? You bet I do because without the registration they present themselves 
as something they are not. 

I was up at Oshkosh a couple of years ago and a gent from Germany
was showing his small aircraft diesel engine their.  It's either a 
two or four cylinder radial, rated similarly in power to weight and
price to the other engines.  It was really a nifty little engine, there
were a few floor models in his tent.
He said that it would run on anything _but_ avgas.  It seems that
avgas runs a little hot.
The company is Zoche Aero-diesels.  Address is buried somewhere
in my file drawer if anybody is curious.

Richard Gunnoe wrote:
> 
> Sorry, our web site.  I must install the spellcheck for Netscape.
> 
> Richard Gunnoe
It seems that it takes some time, before the posted articles become
visible. Here is yet one more prize estimate for niobium. More can be
found by searching e.g. with Alta Vista.
http://www-c8.lanl.gov/infosys/html/periodic/41.html
Niobium metal (99.5% pure) is priced at about $75/lb. 
-- 
Antti S. Korhonen
Helsinki University of Technology
e-mail: asko@hut.fi
http://www.hut.fi/HUT/Treatment/alku.html

dano@cyberramp.net wrote:
>In <54b0ve$mns@tofu.alt.net>, dwinston@aecnet.com (Donald J. Winston, PE) writes:
>>The NSPE and member state societies are vigorously pursuing those who
>>attempt to mislead the public into believing that they have achieved
>>the same standard of certification that PE's have.
>Does this mean misleading people are calling themselves Professional Engineers,
>or merely Engineers?  Also, what worth is the standard of certification
>that PEs have?  This is not a bait or insult - others here have too wondered
>as to the utility of a PE certification.  And I don't mean "I need it to legally work",
>I mean _utility_ as in "Useful to good engineering practice".
What I am referring to are For-Profit entities who provide
"Certifications" or "Registrations" which could be misleading to the
public. 
I should clarify my position to state that I am *NOT* a proponent of
the repeal of the industrial exemption, nor do I believe that degreed
engineers should be prohibited from using the title "Engineer" since
they ARE engineers.
The utility of the PE license (note the difference between the term
"license" and "Certification") is negligible to the holder, except
that it gives his opinion more weight and allows him to perform
certain certifications. In most industrial settings, it is
unnecessary.
The real utility is to the consumer of the service, in terms of
assignment of liability and "trust" in the recommendations. Again, in
an industrial setting, there is no utility, since the employer retains
the liability.
>>It is important that we all defend the stature of our profession, and
>>become aware of the laws which pertain to unlicensed practice, and
>>unprofessional conduct.  
>In your opinion, are unlicensed practice and unprofessional conduct the same
>thing?  You will have a difficult time convinving Engineers that their technical
>work is somehow lesser than that of a Professional Engineer.  I work for
>an *extremely* high technology company.  Our work requires very high
>confidence.  Yet I know of no Professional Engineers (that I know of) working
>here.  But we are quite excellent, and have rigorous design reviews.
Unlicensed practice and Unprofessional conduct are *VERY* different
things. It is far easier to prosecute a PE for unprofessional conduct
than to prosecute someone for unlicensed practice. That said, I
reiterate that most of the engineering work in industry is NOT
unlicensed practice, since the manufacturer retains liability for the
complete product.
My point in the above quote was that in order for PE's to maintain the
perceived incremental value of the license, it is necessary that they
be aware of the laws, and make other PE's aware of the laws, and if
necessary, refer those PE's for disciplinary action who flout the
laws.
>You will not be able to convince Engineers.  But that doesn't matter - you
>need only convince State legislators who know virtually nothing about
>engineering, Professional or not.  Isn't that grand?
>>This defense also includes not looking the
>>other way at those professionals who engage in "Plan Stamping" or
>>unethical, unprofessional or unlawful behavior. 
>How does requiring Professional Registration prevent that?  I think the things
>which prevent that are your _parents_ in your general rearing and professors
>talking about it in schools.  I don't see how taking the EIT and PE are going
>to prevent unethical behavior.
You're absolutely right that upbringing and education carry far more
weight than registration in controlling ethical behavior. My point was
that there is more damage done to the value of the PE license by
unethical practice by other licensees than by not requiring
registration of engineers in industrial settings.
For example, in New York City, the department of Buildings permits
"Self Certification" by PE's or RA's (registered Architects) of
"Controlled Inspections" of various building components. 
When a proper inspection will take 5 days, and a PE charges $350 for
the inspection, that is unethical, and damages the ability of others
to provide the proper service.
So, we are more in agreement than you might think. The PE must be held
to a higher standard than an engineer in an industrial setting, since
there is no shield of manufacturer's liability between the engineer
and the public.
Licensure is NOT necessary for engineers in industrial settings.
Don Winston 

Ed Harty. (hartye@iol.ie) wrote:
: Hello everyone!
: 	I am wondering if anyone has any information on implementing a 
: truss analysis program on a PC. I am a final year mechanical engineering 
: student in the University of Limerick in Ireland and am developing an
: interactive truss analysis tutorial system as my final year project.
: The aim of this system is to teach truss analysis using the method of 
: joints by allowing the student to construct a truss and showing them 
: how to solve it by drawing free body diagrams etc... I need to implement
: the numerical analysis on the computer so that it can compute the forces 
: in 
: each member of the truss. A more complete description may be found at
: http://skynet.ul.ie/~hartye/truss.html
: I would appreciate any help or comments that I receive. 
: If anyone has an interest in this area please email me at 
: hartye@iol.ie or 9319778@ul.ie
: Ed Harty
: 4th Mechanical Engineering.
: University of Limerick.
: Ireland.
: Email: 9319778@ul.ie or hartye@iol.ie
		 People in our group have worked on this project.
		 You can implement it with Visual C++ and
		 also use Maple for symbolic processing.
		 Both method of section and method of joints
		 can be implemented.
--
India-monsoon and marigold, dung and dust, colors and corpses ,
smoke and ash, snow and endless myth- is a cruel, unrelenting
place of ineffable sweetness. It is the most difficult and most 
rewarding of places to travel.
-James O'Reilly

Isn't everyone forgetting something?
A PE is personally responsible for any errors or omissions in his/her
designs.  That is the real purpose of the license.
The main reason that the state boards and NSPE guard the title
"engineer" is to insure that anyone who uses it has taken the necessary
steps to show that he/she has enough faith in his/her designs to accept
liability.
Otherwise, all we have is a lot of fluff about professional behavior,
ethics, etc.  Without the license requriements, we'll be like a bunch of
politicians.
This is also why large corporations and the US Gov't often do not have a
licensing requirement.  Their insurance effectively shields the
inidvidual.
Also, the non-structural engineers (software, etc.) are relatively
liability free, and thus under little pressure to be licensed by the
state.
Yan Seiner, PE

Please is any one aware of a newsgroup dealing specifically with fluid
handling,piping, pumps, valves, etc. for fuels, oils, and polymers??
Any interest in starting one if this does not exist??
Thanks....Larry

Anyone know of web resources of EMI Shielding education?  My advanced
searches on alta-vista are only turning up suppliers of EMI shielding
products.  Thanks in advance (please email me, I will summarize and
post responses).  -kkellar@bluesky.net

Under different provisions of state and federal law, engineers have
various duties and obligations to the general public, the same as
doctors, dentists, lawyers and other professions that are bound to
uphold the public trust.  The requirements that you refer to are sound
and justified. You would be some pissed off to find out that your doctor
really wasn't one!
Dick Lambert wrote:
> 
> cliff wrote:
> >
> > Registered Professional Engineers through their professional organization
> > are trying, and have suceeded in some states to have laws passed stating
> > no one can use the title of engineer, unless they are licensed engineers
> > by the state.
> >
> > There are many engineering societies that offer specialty certification.
> >
> > This means that anyone who is certified by a professional society will
> > not be permitted to use the title of engineer on business cards,
> > letterheads, etc.
> >
> > Please understand you don't have to offer engineering services to the
> > public to be in violation of their laws, you just simply cannot use the
> > term engineer.
> >
> > I completely agree that offering engieering services to the public
> > without being licensed should be a violation of the law, but this is
> > going too far.
> >
> > I ask everyone certified by a professional society to bring this to the
> > attention of your organization. These crazy ideas must be stopped.
> >
> > Some states have already passed these laws. The bad thing about this is
> > these laws are being passed without our knowledge.
> >
> > Sincerely, Cliff W.
> 
> The laws are reasonable - they prevent the public from being mislead.
> You wouldn't want to have to worry about whether your doctor, lawyer or
> CPA was really a doctor, lawyer or CPS would you?  Same thing applies to
> the engineering profession. In order to present yourself as an
> "Engineer" you need to take the exam provided by the state to prove you
> have the knowledge to warrant the title.
> --
> Richard C. Lambert                      800 Brenner Avenue
> President                               Roseville, Mn 55113-1904
> R.C. Lambert & Associates, Inc.         (612) 483-1492
> Energy Conservation Consulting Engr     lambe015@gold.tc.umn.edu

It is obvious by reading the responses to this posting that allowing only
licensed professional engineers to use the title of engineer is 
controversial.
That is why for an organization and its members, who try to have laws
passed without input from all those affected is so wrong.
What do you do with the non-licensed engineer who has been working as an
engineer in the field for lets say 15 years. Do you give him news one day
saying, either you take immediate steps to become a licensed engineer or
you no longer can work in your field.
Most licensed engineers that you talk with will agree that once your away
from college for a few years it's very difficult to pass the EIT & PE 
exams.
I hope anyone who agrees that allowing only licensed engineers to use
the title of engineer is wrong, will let their voice be heard so the
everyone is reading off of the same page.
Cliff W.

In article <54bsm1$pv0@newsbf02.news.aol.com> TriMech wrote:
>One that's always puzzled me.
>
>In school they taught us that frictional forces are governed by F=uN. 
>Now, u as I was also told in school is a property of the materials
>involved in the sliding.  Now what's thrown me is that there is no mention
>anywhere of surface area, yet intuitively, a sled is going to slide easier
>than a flat sheet of steel.  
>
>Are my intuitions wrong or was I misinformed in school?
On the macroscopic scale, fricitional force is not dependent on surface area. 
 However, on the microscopic scale, as normal force is increased, the actual 
contacting surface area is increased approximately linearly, hence the linear 
F=uN relationship.  There was an excellent article in the last Scientific 
American on this exact topic.
-----------------------------
Will Gardner
gardnerw@gnn.com
-----------------------------

Transparent flamebait. The "news" this troller is posting is roughly 50
years old.
Engineering law, custom and practise vary widely from State to State and 
Nation to Nation. California is going through a very long overdue rewrite
of it's
Engineering laws, most other places are not.
Henry Black P.E. (E13350, California).
On Friday, October 18, 1996, "cliff" wrote...
> Registered Professional Engineers through their professional
organization
> are trying, and have suceeded in some states to have laws passed stating
> no one can use the title of engineer, unless they are licensed engineers
> by the state.

rizzo@hogpb.ho.att.com (-A.RIZZO) wrote:
>First, if my words were offensive to you, then I apologize.  But please
>understand that you are not the kind of engineer of whom I was thinking 
>when I wrote my less-than-flattering comments.  Quite the contrary is
>true.  When I used the phrase, "poor dumb bastard," I had in mind the
>kind of design engineer who doesn't stop to think very much about
>the problem at hand, and who rushes into building a finite element
>model, himself.  As your statements below indicate, you clearly don't
>fit this description.
>
Absolutely no offense inferred.  I should have punctuated my comments 
with a few :-)'s and ;-)'s.  I sometimes forget that body language 
doesn't transmit well over the net.  
In my work with compressed air systems I'm sure I face a lot of the same 
attitudes as you do in your work with FEA.
Whether compressed air surveys, energy surveys, FEA, thermal imaging, 
vibration analysis, oil analysis or whatever specialized service is 
involved, people are looking for magic bullets to fix their particular 
problem.  It's easy to get caught up in the hype.
Anyway, since I know little of FEA I'll back out of this thread.  
Have a good week.
Tom
>snip

In article <545bd8$f6s@tor-nn1-hb0.netcom.ca>, tmazza@netcom.ca(Antonio G Mazza) says:
>
>I am looking at a powder that we want to characterise.  One measurement
>that was proposed was the 'angle of repose'.  However, we cannot find
>information on how to measure this angle.  I was told that a person
>named Carr (or Kerr?) published a paper that outlined a measurement
>method for an angle of repose.  However, I have not had luck in finding
>this 1960's paper.
>
>Could some one help me in finding this paper, and also to guide me in
>the right direction.
>
>Thank you in advance,
>tmazza@netcom.ca
>
Are you talking about a few grams or a few tonnes? In the fertilizer 
industry we measure the angle of repose in several ways. A device 
consisting of a board about three feet long and fitted with a protractor 
and a free-swinging hanging pointer is placed on the surface of a pile 
and the position of the pointer read against the protractor. Accurate to 
within half a degree.  Important to place it on the pile as far up the 
side as one can reach since the slope at the base is less where the coarser 
particles accumulate.
A good way, if time permits, is to photograph the pile from as far away as
convenient (to reduce parallax errors) and then measure the angle of the 
sides above the ground, or by dividing the peak angle in two and 
subtracting it from 90 degrees.  Slopes are always given as degrees above 
the horizontal, of course.
For smaller quantities, a device can be made from two pieces of glass 
separated about 2 inches apart by wood spacers. Pour the material in at one 
side until the slope is formed and measure it from the front of the glass.
Care must be taken to avoid segregation as the larger particles tend to run 
to the bottom of the slope, as it is forming, and for a toe with a lesser 
slope. Not an accurate method but a good, quick indication.
If you only have gram quantities I would argue that any angle measured is 
suspect anyway due to all the other effects having an influence on the 
material as it is poured into a device.

In article <32679B21.3D31@cfer.ualberta.ca>, Paul Skoczylas  says:
>
>I am interested in visualizing the flow through a PC pump (a simple one,
>not multi-lobed).  Does anyone know of some software that can do that. 
>Alternatively, does anyone know a parametric representation for the
>shapes of the rotor and stator, so I can build my own flow model.
>Thanks all!
>-Paul
Think of the rotor in a progressing cavity pump as being a rod formed into
a sine wave with,say, two complete cycles. Now clamp one end and twist 
the other end axially one complete turn. Now you have the rotor.
Do the same with the stator housing and arrange for the rotor to move freely
in any radial direction as it rotates within the stator and you have a pump.

the equation for the quadratic is easy, if you have  a quadratic equation 
of the form 
		aX^2 + bX + c = 0
then to find the roots of this quadratic, the two roots would be
	X1 = {-b + SQRT[b^2 - (4ac)] } / (2a)
	X2 = {-b - SQRT[b^2 - (4ac)] } / (2a)
where SQRT is the square root of the stuff inside the [ ] brackets and X1
is the first root, and X2 is the second root, be careful though, the
equations look the same but there is the plus and minus sign differing in
the equations!
as for higher order polynomials, there is one for third , but i don't know
what it is , try looking in an advanced mathematics book...as for the other
orders of polynomials, numerical methods ( e.g. newton raphson) is your
best bet..
dan
Brad  wrote in article
<546268$dvu@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>...
> Can someone please tell me the formulas to find x in a quadratic
> equation (2), cubic equation (3), quartic equation (4), 5th degree
> equation, and 6th degree equation.
> Thank you very much.
> 
> Please write to me at america2@ix.netcom.com
> 
> 
> 

On 18 Oct 1996, Matthew Hall wrote:
> Actually, there is a formula which will find the roots of a
> quartic. By hand, though, it would take at least days to compute -
> Mathematica will do it in a fraction of a second.
> 
> For higher degrees, there is (provably) no direct way to find the
> root, exactly. However you can get to any desired degree of accuracy
> by using newton's method, with a few caveats. Mathematica will also do
> this via it's FindRoot command, or you can learn research Netwon's
> method yourself with any decent Calculus textbook. If you plan to
> implement this yourself, in your own program, I'd use Newton's method
> all the way, and not deal with quartic and cubic root finding
> formulas.
> 
> -matt
> 
Lovitt shows how to extract the roots of polynomials up to the quartic 
(fourth degree), and offers several methods of solution, including 
numeric and graphic, for higher-degree polynomials.  However, the book's 
an old one, and may no longer be in print:  W. V. Lovitt, Elementary 
Theory of Equations, Prentice-Hall, 1939 (fifth printing: 1948).
I wouldn't dismiss the analytical solutions quite as off-handedly as 
Matt suggests.  Depending on the coefficients, the quartic sometimes 
reduces to a form that's easily handled.
Gene

dano@cyberramp.net wrote:
: But don't be too unconcerned.  Proponents don't have to convince potential
: _employers_ that engineers need registration.  Or other engineers.  They
: need only convince State legislators.  How many State legislators were 
: once practicing engineers?
My hunch is that Engineers are over represented amongst legislators.
is that what you meant??
As I recall Jimmy Carter was a registered Nuclear Engineer, so right
there registered Engineers have been historically over represented
amongst U.S. presidents.  And most Engineers are highly intelligent and
capable people who, at some point go looking for a second career such as 
business administration, law, software or politics.
Anyone have any hard statistics on what percentage of legislators and
what percentage of the public are Engineers or former Engineers?
Henry Black P.E. (California).

Followup-To edited to sci.engr only
Yan Seiner, PE (cardinal@hargray.com) wrote:
: Isn't everyone forgetting something?
: A PE is personally responsible for any errors or omissions in his/her
: designs.  That is the real purpose of the license.
Well said.  Thank you.
I wonder if we can expect the same from Certified Novell Engineers?
And Certified Novell Accountants, and Certified Novell Surgeons,
and Certified Novell Attorneys, and Certified Novell Nurses and
Certified Novell Patent Agents and . . .?
Henry Black P.E. (California)

On Saturday, October 19, 1996, Chris Meimaris wrote...
> Hi,
> 
> Does anyone know of any published data regarding the expected residual
stresses in large (28' or 
> 9m diameter by 6" or 150mm thick) castings made of ductile iron? We have
been told that they are 
> likely to be compressive at the surface and tensile under, but the
magnitudes of the stresses and 
> their distribution are unknown. 
> 
> Thanks 
> 
> Chris Meimaris
> 
  Made a few larger castings (24' x 8' x 2') for vibration test beds, some
of grey and some of white iron. Because the hold-downs were set in a
fairly flat machined surface, warping was a concern. 
    Memory says the theory  is that the entire mass is one big cluster of
"stress-risers", i.e., the castings were one big mass of residual stress
(which in a lay sort of way probably accounts for the tensile-compressive
limit differences of cast iron) and no cyclic modifiers to stress capacity
were required. 
   However, it has been my experience on smaller parts, and this info is
included in some materials texts, that the casting stresses will
age-relieve themselves, warping smaller castings of non-symmetrical shapes
(both geometric and stress symetries).  Thus non-symmetrical parts need to
be cooled slowly enough to anneal, or if the material composition requires
rapid rate cooling, to anneal it at lower temperature after material
composition is fixed. 
   (The big castings were regular and symmetrical and would relieve in a
regular fashion)  
   Making symmetrical castings and stress-relieving or age-relieving those
irregular castings before machining has never failed to give me a reliable
stable part.
  Hope this helps.

I disagree with Greg Jackson. The public should be protected thru 
legislation from people who have not qualified as a Professional 
Engineer by the way of provincial (Canada) laws. People with a Phd and 
umpteen years experience can still make mistakes. The legislation also 
provides a uniform method of evaluating the experience. That evaluation,
along with the educational and character reference will determine if 
that person should be licensed to use the title Professional Engineer 
and practice engineering. 
Lets face it. Engineers build things that can threaten the lives of 
people (cars, bridges, space shuttles etc). That work must be regulated.
Reducing the threat to peoples lives is the everyday work of an engineer
in his practice. This is much the same as the end result of the work of 
a medical doctor. I do believe that the medical profession and the MD 
designation are regulated. 
Boyd

homer@ccinet.ab.ca wrote:
>I disagree with Greg Jackson. The public should be protected thru 
>legislation from people who have not qualified as a Professional 
>Engineer by the way of provincial (Canada) laws. 
snip
>Boyd
Agreed.
I was looking for a job in the paper this weekend, and came across
many many positions advertised as "Sales Engineers". Alright, some of
them were technical jobs that could use the knowledge of engineers,
but most were glorified sales reps.
I don't know about you lot, but I find this deeply insulting.
Software and system engineers I can just about cope with, afterall,
this is also a technical job. However, the problem is where do you
draw the line?
I can see why some of you are upset because it is being legislated too
much. However, I think it is something that does need to be regulated.
  ########## Paul van den Bergen
####       # c/- Materials Eng., Monash University
#  ####    # Clayton VIC 3168 Australia
####  #    # pavan1@student.monash.edu.au
  #   ###### ph.  +613 9905 3597
  #   #      fax. +613 9905 4940
  #####      meow *cough* feathers
I feel it is my duty to warn everyone that there is an
international consortium of powerful people who get   
together and facilitate the distribution of conspiracy
theories in order to keep the minds of the masses off 
the real issues that are affecting the world (whatever
they may be...)

In <302322240058262homer@ccinet.ab.ca> homer@ccinet.ab.ca writes:
>I disagree with Greg Jackson. The public should be protected thru 
>legislation from people who have not qualified as a Professional 
>Engineer by the way of provincial (Canada) laws. People with a Phd and 
>umpteen years experience can still make mistakes.
So can PE's.
There is no way to avoid people making mistakes.
> The legislation also 
>provides a uniform method of evaluating the experience. 
I generally snort at the idea of uniform methods of evaluating
engineering experience, knowledge, or ability.
--
John S. Novak, III           jsn@cris.com
http://cegt201.bradley.edu/~jsn/index.html 
The Humblest Man on the Net

cliff  wrote:
>Registered Professional Engineers through their professional organization
>are trying, and have suceeded in some states to have laws passed stating 
>no one can use the title of engineer, unless they are licensed engineers 
>by the state.
snip
>Sincerely, Cliff W.
Sorry, I didn't realise you guys were talking about some test! (see my
other  post on this matter) I was talking about professional bodies,
and membership thereof.
I can't see much value in a test (any test!) being of value in
determining the worthyness of an individual as a PE.
However, I do feel that the use of the term Engineer does need to be
protected from over use.It should be a badge of pride and
professionalism, and not a general cover-all term.
So maybe I agree with you that the use of legislation to enforce a
test is wrong, I do not think the use of legislation to enforce the
correct use (definition?! By a registered trained engineer who is a
member of a regulated and regulating professional body) of the word
Engineer.
And yes, Novel should be shot for using the term network engineer!
  ########## Paul van den Bergen
####       # c/- Materials Eng., Monash University
#  ####    # Clayton VIC 3168 Australia
####  #    # pavan1@student.monash.edu.au
  #   ###### ph.  +613 9905 3597
  #   #      fax. +613 9905 4940
  #####      meow *cough* feathers
I feel it is my duty to warn everyone that there is an
international consortium of powerful people who get   
together and facilitate the distribution of conspiracy
theories in order to keep the minds of the masses off 
the real issues that are affecting the world (whatever
they may be...)

In <54eb7t$t36@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au> pavan1@student.monash.edu.au (Paul van den Bergen) writes:
>I can't see much value in a test (any test!) being of value in
>determining the worthyness of an individual as a PE.
Sing it, brother.
>However, I do feel that the use of the term Engineer does need to be
>protected from over use.It should be a badge of pride and
>professionalism, and not a general cover-all term.
Emotionally, I agree with you.
I would dearly love to see janitors no longer able to call themselves
"custodial engineers" or whatnot, but on the other hand, even if we
make the requirement something relatively simple like, say, a degree
from an accredited university, we still cut out some people who in my
opinion have every right to call themselves engineers.
As a case in point, my own father, who has no engineering degree, but
has worked in various engineering capacities for the past forty years.
I think the sheer body of knoledge he has accumulated in his field is
as, if not more valuable than a forty year old piece fo paper.
I am an electrical engineer (degrees, employment record, and
professional society membership to prove it) but the old man knows
more about electrical machinery than I do (among other things of a
more mechanical engineering bent), and probably knew more twenty
years ago than I will _ever_ know.
Now, granted, my view on this particular case in point is a bit
jaundiced.  He _is_ my old man, of course.  But I can't for a moment
believe he is unique, nor would I hesitate to extend the same respect
to a coworker who didn't have a degree but had 40 years of practical,
either.
I'd like to hear ideas on how to protect the title of the engineer,
without resrting to silly tests or excluding simple practical
knowledge.
--
John S. Novak, III           jsn@cris.com
http://cegt201.bradley.edu/~jsn/index.html 
The Humblest Man on the Net

cliff (cliffgw@enter.net) wrote:
: It is obvious by reading the responses to this posting that allowing only
: licensed professional engineers to use the title of engineer is 
: controversial.
: That is why for an organization and its members, who try to have laws
: passed without input from all those affected is so wrong.
Does that include the general population?  In many third-party tort 
liability cases, the general population is seen as being affected by an 
engineer's work.  It is that very point that is emphasized in the code of 
ethics of the provincial associations I'm registered with here in Canada.

--
*******************************************************************************
*                                                                             *
* Bernhard Michael Jatzeck         email:  jatzeck@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca *
*                                                                             *
*******************************************************************************

homer@ccinet.ab.ca wrote:
: I disagree with Greg Jackson. The public should be protected thru 
: legislation from people who have not qualified as a Professional 
: Engineer by the way of provincial (Canada) laws. People with a Phd and 
: umpteen years experience can still make mistakes. The legislation also 
: provides a uniform method of evaluating the experience. That evaluation,
: along with the educational and character reference will determine if 
: that person should be licensed to use the title Professional Engineer 
: and practice engineering. 
That's clearly stated in the Engineering, Geological, and Geophysical 
Professions Act, as well as in APEGGA's code of ethics.
: Lets face it. Engineers build things that can threaten the lives of 
: people (cars, bridges, space shuttles etc). That work must be regulated.
: Reducing the threat to peoples lives is the everyday work of an engineer
: in his practice. This is much the same as the end result of the work of 
: a medical doctor. I do believe that the medical profession and the MD 
: designation are regulated. 
--
*******************************************************************************
*                                                                             *
* Bernhard Michael Jatzeck         email:  jatzeck@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca *
*                                                                             *
*******************************************************************************

John S. Novak, III wrote:
> 
> >Paul van den Bergen writes:
> 
> >I can't see much value in a test (any test!) being of value in
> >determining the worthyness of an individual as a PE.
> 
> Sing it, brother.
The only point of the P.E. exam is to determine that the individual
understands the principles of engineering, not to quantify a level of
expertise.  A degree from an
acredited school obviously does not satisfy this minimum threshold, due
to the fact 
that 30-40% of the test takers fail the exam.
> >However, I do feel that the use of the term Engineer does need to be
> >protected from over use.It should be a badge of pride and
> >professionalism, and not a general cover-all term.
> 
> Emotionally, I agree with you.
> 
> I would dearly love to see janitors no longer able to call themselves
> "custodial engineers" or whatnot, but on the other hand, even if we
> make the requirement something relatively simple like, say, a degree
> from an accredited university, we still cut out some people who in my
> opinion have every right to call themselves engineers.
> 
> As a case in point, my own father, who has no engineering degree, but
> has worked in various engineering capacities for the past forty years.
> I think the sheer body of knoledge he has accumulated in his field is
> as, if not more valuable than a forty year old piece fo paper.
Most states will accept experience as a substitute for the exam or the 
exam qualifications.  This is usually a burdensome process, however.
Again, the exam does not qualify a registered engineer as better than
a non-registered engineer.  It simply is a bar exam equivalent.
Which brings up an interesting argument.  Doctors have the AMA (in the
US)
and Lawyers have the Bar.  Wouldn't a registration requirement also
elevate
the engineering profession to a comparable level of professionalism (and
salary?).

>>I disagree with Greg Jackson. The public should be protected thru 
>>legislation from people who have not qualified as a Professional 
>>Engineer by the way of provincial (Canada) laws. People with a Phd and 
>>umpteen years experience can still make mistakes.
>
>So can PE's.
>There is no way to avoid people making mistakes.
  Agreed.  I was not clear about what I meant.  The professional engineer, at least in Canada, has a legal and ethical
 responsibility to the public.  That means he or she accepts legal responsibilty
 for their work.  This is above any contractual obligations to a client.  Thru an 
evaluation of experience and education by the governing body, a person can be 
deemed acceptable to practice engineering.  
>> The legislation also 
>>provides a uniform method of evaluating the experience. 
>
>I generally snort at the idea of uniform methods of evaluating
>engineering experience, knowledge, or ability.
  I guess that engineering degree, society membership etc that you claim to have 
in your other posts mean nothing either...!!!???  If you attended university, or any general PS school, you were subjected to 
a uniform method of evaluation... as was your application for membership to the IEEE or what ever it is
you are a part of...  So what you are really saying is that anyone can do anything no matter what education
experience, knowledge or ability you have.....
You seem to be very good at snorting.
>--
>John S. Novak, III           jsn@cris.com
>http://cegt201.bradley.edu/~jsn/index.html 
>The Humblest Man on the Net