Subject: Re: WARNING to all NON-LICENSED ENGINEERS
From: peter gryc
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 13:29:30 -0500
Hi!
A person who practises engineering as a consultant shoul, in my
opinion, be registered as Professional Engineer. This should
ensure that such person has adequate technical education (academic
credentials), and adequate training. A person who just graduated from a
technical university, although having proper credentials, is
not able to act as P.Eng., i.e. provide advice to the public due to lack
of experience.
There is a need for a licencing body, i.e. provincial or state
Associations to administer a policy that would ensure that only fully
qualified persons practice engineering.Hence the use of P.E. or P.Eng.
should be restricted to registered engineers only.
I'm not that sure about restricting the use of the term 'engineer' as
such for the non-registered engineers. If they are not registered, they
cannot approve plans and other documents, or perform certain duties
because such plans would not be accepted by local Authorities having
jurisdiction.
****************************************
* Peter Gryc P. Eng *
* The Conserver Group Inc. *
* Consulting Engineers *
* Supreme Commander and Absolute Ruler *
* over all that is in my office *
****************************************
Subject: Software failures (was Re: WARNING to all NON-LICENSED ENGINEERS)
From: rongraham1@aol.com (RonGraham1)
Date: 25 Oct 1996 15:04:28 -0400
In article <32705D81.167E@dik.maschinenbau.th-darmstadt.de>,
Dean Taylor writes:
>Yan Seiner, PE wrote:
>> Software to my knowledge has never been the direct cause of a
>>fatality.
>I believe that a software bug in a CAT scanner caused a number of
>fatalities. I have heard this indirectly, and haven't been able to
>confirm it, so it may be an "urban myth".
You are thinking of the Therac-25 disaster. It's recorded, among
other places, in Casey, _Set Phasers on Stun_.
Boy, I wish there were some way to get people to actually *look
at* a FAQ before saying the wrong thing. It's in there. See
http://www.greypilgrim.com/sciengr/failure1.html.
Dr. Ron Graham
Project Engineer for Robotics, GreyPilgrim LLC, Washington DC
founder of sci.engr, editor of sci.engr.* FAQ on Failures
EMMA Robotic Manipulator online -- http://www.greypilgrim.com/
Blankschaen's Second Theorem: there are no electrical failures.
Subject: Re: Aluminum finish
From: Roncrain@concentric.net (Ron Crain)
Date: 25 Oct 1996 20:35:25 GMT
In article <327120D2.6612@pi.net>, From Etienne van Ballegooijen
, the following was written:
> In the production versions of the products the aluminum parts are
> anodized or passivated, but for the prototypes this is too expensive
> (small quantities) or there's no time to have it done by an external
> company.
In the past, I had an "Alodine" solution that I would put my parts in
myself. This can be a gold alodine solution which would result in a
light gold tint to the aluminum. Perhaps your local plater could
provide you with the solution for small fee. All you have to do is soak
the parts in the solution.
--
| Ron Crain, Arken Designs
| Posted 10/25/96 at 13:36
| Roncrain@concentric.net or
| 73437.3155@compuserve.com
Subject: Re: Software failures (was Re: WARNING to all NON-LICENSED ENGINEERS)
From: pete-hughes@slb.com (Pete Hughes)
Date: 25 Oct 1996 21:22:55 GMT
>>Yan Seiner, PE wrote:
>
>>> Software to my knowledge has never been the direct cause of a
>>>fatality.
>
To gain more knowledge, please consult comp.risks. The full
compendium maintained by Peter G. Neumann ranks known software
failures by economic impact, and number of fatalities if any.
Neumann's defines 'software' broadly: people's mistakes induced
y misleading software, and accidents due to "correctly written"
software that did the wrong thing, are included as well as
flat out coding errors like the Therac-25. _Set Phasers on Stun_
is a good book about induced errors in general.
-Pete Hughes
Subject: Re: WARNING to all NON-LICENSED ENGINEERS
From: Steve Baker
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:56:22 -0700
D. Stephen Metz 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.
>
> In the few manufacturing companies in this area (Portland, OR) with
> which I am familiar, the common practice seems to be to have about one
> PE for every 20-25 engineers (all of whom have degrees, mostly MEs).
> None of the engineers I've spoken to about this have any plans to pursue
> the PE certification. Do I understand that the vast majority of these
> folks would suddenly cease to be engineers, at least in the proper
> sense? I understand the irritation toward titles like Sanitation
> Engineer or Maintenence Engineer or even Flight Engineer, but this seems
> a little extreme.
>
> D. Stephen Metz
> Portland, OR
> (Wondering whether or not I'll be an engineer once I get my degree.)
I reply:
If you are ever unemployeed you will want the designation
Document all work experience now.
You will need it 4 years after graduation from an
ABET accredited school to get P.E.
A job shopper, is a CONSULTANT and must be
licensed. Working in industry or not
Steve Baker
power@startext.net
Subject: Re: WARNING to all NON-LICENSED ENGINEERS
From: Steve Baker
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:26:20 -0700
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".
>
> >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.
I inject: This is a good reason to end industry exemption.
> 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?
I inject again: In Texas and most other states the license is reviewed by
Licensed Professional Engineers, not just in staff but also individual
board members. (I know my wife the engineer {a Texas Board Member} has
reviewed well over 7,000 applications in the past 5 years)
>
> >This defense also includes not looking the
> >other way at those professionals who engage in "Plan Stamping" or
> >unethical, unprofessional or unlawful behavior.
When discovered the Board pursues with all legal authority
> 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.
I inject: Passing the exam does not prevent unethical behavior. The authority
of the Licensing Laws (Boards) enforce the law. All it takes is a complaint.
>
> >Donald J. Winston, PE
> >Mechanical Solutions,
> >Great Neck, NY
>
> ---Steve Baker
power@startext.net
Subject: Re: WARNING to all NON-LICENSED ENGINEERS
From: Steve Baker
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 08:55:51 -0700
Ron Bean wrote:
>
> cliff (cliffgw@enter.net) 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.
> [...]
> >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 believe the original intent (of the current law, not the new one) was
> that the person who approves the design would be registered, but what do
> you call everyone else who works on the project? A case could be made for
> requiring independant consultants to be registered, but what about
> contract employees (who don't approve the final design)?
I reply: inject to the above paragraph:
Contract employees are "practicing engineering" They are working for PAY
and as such MUST be licensed. (Texas Engineering Practice Act and many
other states)
>
> This might be seen as a way to extract registration fees from a lot of
> people who aren't paying them now (if this is not the intent, then surely
> they have suggested an alternative title?).
I inject: Engineer in Training
Texas State Legislature sets the License Fee, not the Board of Registration
State gets the money not the board
The bottom line is: how many
> companies are being victimized because they hired employees who were
> incompetent?
I inject: The above is a fallacy of an industry exemption
Steve Baker
power@startext.net
Subject: Re: WARNING to all NON-LICENSED ENGINEERS
From: Steve Baker
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:11:28 -0700
jatzeck@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
>
> John S. Novak, III (Jsn@cris.com) wrote:
> : In <54evop$7s8@news.sas.ab.ca> jatzeck@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () writes:
>
> : >John S. Novak, III (Jsn@cris.com) wrote:
>
> : >: I generally snort at the idea of uniform methods of evaluating
> : >: engineering experience, knowledge, or ability.
>
> : >Why?
>
> : Because I haven't seen a uniform test administered to large numbers of
> : people of varying backgrounds and locations capable of measuring
> : anything accurately, much less something as esoteric as engineering
> : ability.
>
> : I take a very dim view of standardized tests.
>
> In Alberta, one is now required to not only provide proof of academic
> qualifications, but also a suitable length of relevant experience (now
> being raised to 4 years). Then one has to sit an exam on provincial
> legislation and association by-laws.
>
> Every applicant has to write the same exam. I guess that qualifies as
> uniform up here.
>
> --
> *******************************************************************************
> * *
> * Bernhard Michael Jatzeck email: jatzeck@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca *
I reply:
In North America the National Council of Examiners of Engineers and
Surveyors administers standardized examinations. Through US state
boards.
There is input from NSPE as well as from the states (California has
a special section due to earthquake hazard).
NAFTA is being coordinated to include Canada and Mexico as part
of the licensing and recognization of licensing of each country.
Get involved with your national society (Canada has one also) and
stay up to date.
Steve Baker
power@startext.net
Subject: Re: WARNING to all NON-LICENSED ENGINEERS
From: Steve Baker
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:35:52 -0700
D. R. Hampton wrote:
>
> In article <326832E2.732A@gold.tc.umn.edu>,
> Dick Lambert wrote:
> >
> >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.
>
> Just what job title would you suggest for those who do engineering work, but
> whose jobs do not require registration? When someone asks what I do for a
> living, what should my answer be?
>
> Randy Hampton
> http://web.InfoAve.net/~RHampton
I reply:
TECHNICAN
someone who applies scientific principals
Steve Baker
power@startext.net
Subject: Re: WARNING to all NON-LICENSED ENGINEERS
From: Steve Baker
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 09:53:34 -0700
KMullen wrote:
>
> What a lively discussion! I'd like to add my own two bits. I am an
> industrial hygienist married to an environmental engineer (EIT). As one
> article mentioned earlier, the profession of industrial hygiene is
> undergoing a similar title protection debate, but, from what I've seen,
> either all IH's agree with title protection, or they're too busy to
> complain. Here are three major drawbacks, as I see them:
>
> 1-Although most of you would be unaffected by this, title protection is
> *very* discriminatory against young professionals. I suppose from your
> perspective, this is the point and even the goal of title protection. As
> I see it, even after investing years at college and internships, I won't
> be "qualified" to run a sampling pump because I'm not a CIH; and the only
> way I'll ever be a CIH is to get 5 years of professional experience; but
> I'll have a *tough* time getting 5 years of experience because companies
> want to hire only certified industrial hygienists!! Didn't folks in your
> generation call this a catch 22? I won't pretend that I have the
> expertise of someone with years of experience and a CIH. But one of the
> reasons I chose industrial hygiene over medical school was that I
> wouldn't have to wait to turn 30 before I could work professionally. Any
> company who hires an industrial hygienist or an engineer should check
> credentials. Buyer beware!
>
> 2-Many of these laws require liscensing in *each state*. What will this
> do to consultants? If a consultant wanted to think about accepting jobs
> in any given state some day, he would have to maintain that state's
> certification. Small consulting firms that service several states would
> quickly be driven out of business because of the cost of holding down
> redundant titles in several states. My father is a pharmacist and sees
> this as a major problem in his profession.
>
> 3-Many employers don't understand anyway. I've seen several ads for IH's
> that state "One year of experience *and* certification required." You
> can't get certified with only one year of experience. I don't think this
> ignorance will change with the passage of title protection. You can tell
> which ads are placed by companies with no idea what they really need.
> And if some idiot lies about being certified to one of these companies,
> who is going to know? Title protection laws don't educate these
> companies on what level of expertise is necessary to perform certain
> tasks.
>
> This is all just my opinion. To all of you who are certified in your
> respective professions, I admire the work that went into obtaining and
> maintaining that certification. I recognize your expertise. But I'm not
> useless just because I'm only 24. I am responsible for the health and
> safety of around 2500 people and I'm smart enough to ask for help from
> more experienced people when I need it. Weren't you able to get a
> professional position out of college? Why change the rules now?
>
> --Kris (the opinions expressed here are strictly my own and do not
> necessarily reflect my company's position)
I reply:
Kris has several good comments.
Most schools offer exams in the Junior year.
Take the exam and then you EARN the designation EIT
4 years later after passing another exam and gaining experience
you may qualify for P.E. depending on YOUR documented experience.
License fees, applications to various states.
That is just part of the cost of doing business.
My wife (the engineer of the family also) is a federal
employee who is licensed in Texas, Louisiana and Florida
does not get reimbursement or license fee paid by YOUR
tax dollars. It all comes out of her pocket.
Regardless of what you or others may have heard about federal
exemptions to licensing or sealing of plans, that is a misnomer.
State license laws require P.E. to seal their drawings wether
working for industry, government etc. If you are licensed
YOU must seal your work.
Steve Baker
power@startext.net
Subject: Re: Public need for PE verus need for MD, atty, CPA, etc... (was: WARNING to all NON-LICENSED ENGINEERS)
From: Steve Baker
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 10:10:58 -0700
Thomas S. Blue wrote:
>
> This discussion has appeared under a slightly different heading twice
> in the past two (2) years on these sci.* newsgroups. The conclusion
> then was:
>
> If you deal directly with the public (many civil, environmental,
> agricultural, and structural engineers) then having a PE requirement
> may be a good thing - individual engineer responsible for public
> safety and all that...
>
> If you work for a large corporation (many electrical, computer,
> mechanical, nuclear, and industrial engineers) then having a PE
> requirement may not be needed - corporation responsible for public
> safety and all that...
>
> ...on a slightly different note however (one that deals with money,
> job security, societal respect, and other instincts of survival -
> unfortunately - in our modern world), we might consider the role of
> TIME in our profession - particuarly the PE's out there...
>
> SITUATION:
>
> 1) A land developer is constructing a golf course oriented subdivision
> for land for single family homes. Sanitary sewer collection is not
> available for the site (no municipal/regional system to tie into).
> The soils on the site are poor and an alternative on site treatment
> and disposal system must be implemented. Even though the state
> government reviews the plans, it will be years before the system
> performance is known (due to the nature of natural treatment systems).
> If the system fails, the land owners end up with a big problem, but
> since the state government had to review the plans, isn't that enough?
> (Could it be that the state governments want PE lisencing to assist
> them with liability issues? - I say yes).
>
> 2) The same developer needs to handle the storm water runoff on the
> same site. Storm water runoff increases in land developments over time
> due to the increased impervious surface (roads, driveways, roofs). No
> regulations relating to storm water runoff control exist in the area
> of the development. After years of development, the increased storm
> water runoff has begun to cause damage to real property. The developer
> may be liable, but he's also likely gone. Would a PE have made a
> difference here? Would a PE have done a better job than the average
> contractor or non-PE engineer? Keep in mind that land developers
> almost always go the absolute cheapest route possible (~99.9% of the
> time).
>
> ...do these situations show that market forces alone would create:
>
> A) more lawsuits
> B) more legislation
> C) more respect for engineers
> D) more demand for good engineers
> E) more demand for PE's
>
> I would be interested in your repsonses...
>
> By the way: the time issue goes like this...
>
> Fear of death makes you get the best doctor you can afford, fear of
> jail makes you get the best lawyer you can afford, but since most
> engineering failures are a delayed scenerio (and most people have
> terribly short term memories), engineers don't tap into the fear of
> death and/or jail market...
>
> +
> Thomas S. Blue - tsblue@longleaf.com - www.longleaf.com
> Environmental Consulting and Engineering
> PhD student - Civil Engineering & Soil Science
> +I reply:
My wife (the engineer) is making a presentation tomorrow on ethics and
professionalism for the Dallas Environmental Law section
of the Dallas Bar Association.
She encounters these questions on a fairly regular basis
and better yet TALKS about them.
Texas Tech University has the Murdough Center for Engineering
Ethics. They are always a good resource for these types
of questions/issues.
Steve Baker
power@startext.net
Subject: European Equipment? We Have Low Cost Repl. Parts.
From: rpm@ultranet.com (Rod Murphy)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 17:18:35 GMT
For those of you who need replacement parts for European equipment,
PARTSOURCE INTERNATIONAL provides parts and components for any,
repeat any machine or piece of equipment made in any country in Europe.
And we do it for less money and usually faster than the OEM!
We have offices in Europe and our technical people speak all the
languages. All we need is model numbers, serial numbers, etc. to give
a no charge quote.
Rod Murphy
PARTSOURCE INTERNATIONAL INC.
Southbridge, MA USA
1-508-765-0045
rpm@hey.net
Subject: Re: Public need for PE verus need for MD, atty, CPA, etc... (was: WARNING to all NON-LICENSED ENGINEERS)
From: Dick Lambert
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 18:47:14 -0700
Thomas S. Blue wrote:
>
> This discussion has appeared under a slightly different heading twice
> in the past two (2) years on these sci.* newsgroups. The conclusion
> then was:
>
> If you deal directly with the public (many civil, environmental,
> agricultural, and structural engineers) then having a PE requirement
> may be a good thing - individual engineer responsible for public
> safety and all that...
>
> If you work for a large corporation (many electrical, computer,
> mechanical, nuclear, and industrial engineers) then having a PE
> requirement may not be needed - corporation responsible for public
> safety and all that...
>
I agree and I think this is what most registered PEs would agree with.
> Fear of death makes you get the best doctor you can afford, fear of
> jail makes you get the best lawyer you can afford, but since most
> engineering failures are a delayed scenerio (and most people have
> terribly short term memories), engineers don't tap into the fear of
> death and/or jail market...
>
You've hit it on the head Thomas. I feel that this is the main reason
engineers don't get the respect or remuneration that the "Fear
Professionals" do. When you go to a lawyer your afraid of losing money
or your freedom. When you go to a doctor your afraid of losing your
health or dying. When you go to a CPA your afraid that someone is going
to take your money. It's awfully rare for someone to go to an engineer
out of fear.
So even though engineers have at least as hard an educational course to
follow as the "Fear Professional" (and I suspect harder than some), we
never will get the respect and pay they do. I wonder what the
comparative salaries of engineers and the fear professionals were back
in the days when people were afraid of electricity and those new fangled
machines?
Dick 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
Subject: Re: Public need for PE verus need for MD, atty, CPA, etc... (was: WARNING to all NON-LICENSED ENGINEERS)
From: Jon Juhlin
Date: 26 Oct 1996 02:50:29 GMT
I can't quite see what the need for the new regualation would serve.
Licensed Professional Engineers already have a title that distinguishes
them from non-licensed engineers. States already regulate when a PE's
stamp is required, and if there really is a danger to the unsuspecting
public, those regulations could be expanded. A non-licensed engineer
cannot legally hire themselves out as an independent consultant (I
presume that this is true in all states).
The harm that all-inclusive legislation would cause includes:
Engineers that have been working for years in specialized areas of
expertice would be basically thrown out of work for no particular reason.
They really pose no hazard to the public, because their specialization
has made their skills non-portable. For instance, I work in the heavy
mobile equipment industry, and I would no doubt have a difficult time
convincing a manufacturer of high tech medical equipment to hire me.
There are MANY engineers out in industry with degrees in engineering
that for one reason or another never bothered to become licensed.
Generally, I would suspect that most of these engineers chose not to
bother because they would not earn a dime more at their current job, and
had no plans on becoming a private consutant. It is probably safe to
say that many could not pass the PE license test on short notice
because it had been years since they needed some of the skills that
fall outside their area of expertice. I for one would be hard pressed
to do the thermodynamics portion of the test. If all of their positions
had to be filled by PE's, it would be devastating to industry in general,
although quite lucrative to PE's in the short term (which I suspect is
one of the primary reasons that it looks so attractive to PE's).
I am unaware of any legislation pending in my home state of Oregon, but
if it were proposed, I hope that our legislators would have the wisdom to
take these factors into account in the form of some kind of grandfather
clause or similar exceptions. I certainly would have pursued a PE
license, if I had known when I was in school, that it would be required
later.
Jon Juhlin
Subject: Re: Math formulas
From: mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark W. Goodman)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 22:56:59 -0500
> Brad wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
I believe that there are formulas for the solution of quadratic, cubic,
and quartic equations, but NOT for quintic or higher. I believe that this
result is attributed to Fermat. I recommend checking an advanced algebra
text or a handbook of mathematical formulas.
--
Mark W. Goodman
mwgoodman@igc.apc.prg
Subject: Re: WARNING to all NON-LICENSED ENGINEERS
From: Bob Falkiner
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 23:51:02 -0400
This one is the definitive answer IMHO. This thread closed in my books.
GOOD NOTE!
N.R.H. Black wrote:
>
> Yes. You touch on the important distinction between academic
> qualification (degrees) and vocational qualification (registration).
> The mission of the academics is to advance and disseminate knowledge
> of the art, the mission of the registrants is to practise the art in
> a sound and beneficial manner. Perhaps I should have written
> "the mission IMHO should be..." instead of "the mission is...".
>
> You can do research and teaching and obtain degrees without being
> registered. And, in California at least, you can become registered
> without a degree (17 years documented on the job experience working
> for an Engineer will do in lieu of an Engineering degree). It will
> surprise no-one that most undegreed registered Engineers are elderly!
>
> Its a case of horses for courses, but I do think the Universities
> would serve society better if they were to do more to encourage
> Engineering students and faculty to prepare for and seek registration.
> California used to offer an E-I-T waiver for Engineering faculty,
> however this complicated comity negotiations.
>
> Henry Black P.E. (Calif.)
>
> Bill Sprague (bsprague@redrose.net) wrote:
> : >snip..snip<
> : I think the reason for the lack of emphasis on the EIT is that most University
> : professors of engineering are PHD's not PE's. If they were practicing
> : engineers they'd know to encourage their students to take the EIT in their
> : senior year. I'm a PE and PLS with a masters in CE but I cannot qualify to
> : teach engineering anywhere. Conversely, a BCSE can in four years qualify to
> : perform the structural engineering necessary to keep the roof from falling in
> : on the university's engineering building. Did you ever ask if universities
> : design their own building? They don't....thay want experience and
> : the responsibility ( read - liability) of a PE not a PHD.
Subject: Re: WARNING to all NON-LICENSED ENGINEERS
From: Bob Falkiner
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 23:46:26 -0400
Kent D. Johnson wrote:
>
snip
>
> It is ridiculous to try and regulate the use of a generic title such as > "engineer" or "accountant". I, as a consumer, have the responsibility > (and the right) to determine the level of service I purchase (or don't > purchase). You can protect the designation (M.D., P.E., C.S.P., etc.) > because it is a trademark of the issuing organization. The issuing > organization can thus control who has the right to display the > designation. But by restricting the use of a very descriptive word like > "engi
neer", you force non-"Professional" engineers to redefine > themselves in less concise terminology, such as "guy/gal who designs > things" (oops, the Professional Designers might object to that title).
>
Lets be very clear here. Engineer and Accountant are NOT generic terms.
These are and have been legal definitions in most jurisdictions for some
time, when services are offered to the public using the term.
> I personally go to an M.D. for medical treatment rather than a D.O.,
> because **I** choose to, even though an M.D.'s costs are generally
> higher. If I'm letting bids for the design of a new office building,
> I'll hire a P.E.. However, that doesn't mean that a P.E., and their
> generally higher costs, are required for every situation.
>
> > 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.
>
> No. You don't. In order to present youself as a "Professional
> Engineer", or P.E., you need to take the exam provided by the state to
> prove you have the knowledge to warrant the title. Don't forget, the
> state of Michigan recognizes that Dr. Kevorkian has the knowledge to
> warrant the title of M.D.
>
> Don't get me wrong, title (P.E., M.D., etc) protection is fine. Let's
> just make sure we don't paint with too broad (or is that fine) a brush.
> After the title of "Engineer" is completely protected, the next step
> will be to say that only "engineers" can perform "engineering" work.
>
> We've got enough government meddling in the freedoms of individuals the
> way it is. Let's not let a bunch of insecure crybabies who are afraid
> of losing their $100,000 plus salaries to some qualified (albeit
> non-certified) competition convince our legislators that they need
> special protection from the government.
>
> Kent D. Johnson
> Safety Professional (not certified)
> Web Engineer (not certified)
> Republican (registered)
> kentdj@revealed.net
> QC-Impact Web Design
>
> Jesus is Alive...Elvis Isn't!
Subject: Re: WARNING to all NON-LICENSED ENGINEERS
From: jatzeck@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
Date: 26 Oct 1996 05:21:55 GMT
Organization: Edmonton FreeNet, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Distribution:
Steve Baker (power@startext.net) wrote:
: In North America the National Council of Examiners of Engineers and
: Surveyors administers standardized examinations. Through US state
: boards.
: There is input from NSPE as well as from the states (California has
: a special section due to earthquake hazard).
: NAFTA is being coordinated to include Canada and Mexico as part
: of the licensing and recognization of licensing of each country.
: Get involved with your national society (Canada has one also) and
: stay up to date.
We don't have a national body which governs the *legal* aspects of
professional engineering, and I don't think the Canadian Council of
Professional Engineers does that sort of thing, either.
We do, however, have provincial associations which have been established
by legislation and which administer it, It has the authority to decide
who can practice as well as handle any discipline cases.
--
*******************************************************************************
* *
* Bernhard Michael Jatzeck email: jatzeck@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca *
* *
*******************************************************************************
Subject: Re: Gas Powered Refigerators
From: wmcbride@mail.newcastle.edu.au (Bill McBride)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 17:04:16 +1000
In article <3270CDBE.3F0@cfer.ualberta.ca>, Paul Skoczylas
wrote:
> Could this be done without a compressor, and therefore without the
> significant impact on fuel economy that present air conditioners have?
>
> The problem, I think, is that the powers-that-be probably wouldn't allow
> an ammonia based system to be placed in the front of a car.
>
Thats the whole idea, not to use a compressor and thus increase the total
thermal effeciency of the system (use some waste heat for a good
purpose). I felt that the quantity of ammonia or lithium bromide would be
not more than the current R12/R?? refrigerents and no naster? The thing
that sat a little heavy on my mind was the need for fairly high operating
pressures. I cannot remember them at this point maybe someone else can
recall them.
And anyway we the Engineers should be telling the powers that be what they
should and shouldn't allow.
Bill
Subject: Re: Math formulas
From: shiekh@ictp.trieste.it (Andy Shiekh)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 10:17:41 +0200
In article ,
mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark W. Goodman) wrote:
> > Brad wrote:
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> I believe that there are formulas for the solution of quadratic, cubic,
> and quartic equations, but NOT for quintic or higher. I believe that this
> result is attributed to Fermat. I recommend checking an advanced algebra
> text or a handbook of mathematical formulas.
>
> --
> Mark W. Goodman
> mwgoodman@igc.apc.prg
The Mathematica people have done something
on the quintic
Subject: Re: Aluminum finish
From: leebrown@jagunet.com (Lee E. Brown)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:46:10 GMT
Roncrain@concentric.net (Ron Crain) wrote:
>In article <327120D2.6612@pi.net>, From Etienne van Ballegooijen
>, the following was written:
>> In the production versions of the products the aluminum parts are
>> anodized or passivated, but for the prototypes this is too expensive
>> (small quantities) or there's no time to have it done by an external
>> company.
>In the past, I had an "Alodine" solution that I would put my parts in
>myself. This can be a gold alodine solution which would result in a
>light gold tint to the aluminum. Perhaps your local plater could
>provide you with the solution for small fee. All you have to do is soak
>the parts in the solution.
Alodine is also known as Iridite. It is essentially a water-born
lacquer finish that imparts moderate corrosion resistance, but
its abrasion resistance is low, and the coloration is somewhat
inconsistent from batch to batch.
So, if the part needs some abrasion resistance, or cosmetics are
important, I'd continue using anodization.
The Alodine/Iridite process is covered by the military
specification MIL-C-5541 "Chemical Film Coating." It is
relatively easy to apply, needs only three tanks, and the
chemistry is water-soluble.
-- Best Regards, --
Lee E. Brown
Subject: Re: Fun questions
From: Doug Milliken
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 05:49:27 GMT
On 24 Oct 1996, george wrote:
> :Mark's Standard Handbook for ME's, 8th ed., states that the coefficient
> :of friction will get larger as the temperature falls and cites data from
> :Bowden for brass on ice which shows that as temperature falls from 0 deg
> :C to -60 deg C, friction coeff. goes from 0.025 to 0.14. This would
> :explain the reason why it is easier to drive on ice when it's really
> :cold.
>
> I have to cringe at the use of "coefficient of friction" applied
> to ice.. You'd get very different numbers if you
> looked at an ice skate, vs looking at a plate with a large
> area. Actually, I expect the numbers should be vastly different
> near 0C and converge as you lower the temp..
At -40, car tires on ice have about the same effective "coefficient of
friction" as on normal pavement at room temperature. Years ago, a number
of driving experiments were carried out on (very) frozen lakes, before the
car companies had the large paved "skid pads" that the test tracks now
have...
Subject: Re: WANTED:Implicit Engineering Relationship.
From: rizzo@hogpb.ho.att.com (-A.RIZZO)
Date: 23 Oct 1996 01:28:00 GMT
: I'm searching for a mathematical relationship used in
:engineering that can be described as an IMPLICIT RELATIONSHIP. One
:example that I already know: The wall thickness of a pressure vesselfor
:example, should be proportional to it's surface area, and should remain
:so even as its size changes.
I'm not clear on your interpretation of the word implicit. However,
your pressure vessel example leads me to believe that any non dimensional
grouping fits the bill. These include the Reynolds Number, the Froude
Number, the Luis Number (which for some reason was always unity), the
Nusselt Number, and just about any other number that you care to identify
by using the Buckinghan Pi theorem and dimensional analysis.
Tony Rizzo (who doesn't understand why it's called "dimensional"
analysis, if the outcome is a dimensionless grouping)