The algebra teacher I had in high school left a lot to be desired. He struggled to explain basic concepts in class, and those of us stuck with him as an instructor always had the impression he was just one chapter ahead of us in the algebra book. He was a nice guy, but he had no business teaching math.

I suspect most MACHINE DESIGN readers can recall similar experiences with less-than-competent teachers. This is good to keep in mind as you review the results of the Trends in International Math and Science Study. TIMSS is a measure of how U.S. students stack up in math and science proficiency against their counterparts in other countries.

Generally speaking, U.S. students just don’t look good on these evaluations. Eighth graders, for example, score well behind kids in Singapore, Taiwan, Russia, Hong Kong, and 11 other countries. And the poor scoring is nothing new. As far back as the 1960s, the U.S. has done poorly compared with other developed nations. Although U.S. test scores have improved a bit over the years, those of other advanced nations have improved more.

The hand-wringing over U.S. academic performance has gone on for decades. In 1983, a “widespread public perception that something is seriously remiss in our educational system” gave rise to a widely noted report called A Nation at Risk, The Imperative for Educational Reform. Produced by a presidential commission, it called for a wide range of educational reforms.

One of those reforms was to pay teachers for performance and to devise a mechanism that would weed out incompetents. But the Wikipedia page on Nation at Risk notes that “stunningly few” of its recommendations were ever implemented. For an idea why, consider the comments of Terry Moe, a professor of political science at Stanford University, and John Chubb, founder of EdisonLearning Inc. They blame the lack of reform on teachers’ unions that are “extraordinarily powerful.” They quote a study of state-level politics that found teachers’ unions to be the single-most-powerful interest group in the entire country throughout the 1990s. This lets unions block reforms, like pay for performance and the firing of incompetents, which are not in the interest of their members.

Moe and Chubb also point out that a simple way to boost teacher quality would be to test veteran teachers for competence in the subjects they teach. This almost certainly would have exposed the shortcomings of my algebra teacher. But unions have opposed these sorts of tests. They claim that all teachers with formal certification are competent to teach.

Well, my algebra teacher was certified, as were all the teachers in my school system even back then. At least to me, the suggestion that certification is a proxy for competence is nonsensical.

It is ironic that the United Auto Workers union has taken so much heat for contributing to the economic woes of U.S. manufacturing. One might argue teachers’ unions should get a bigger part of the blame simply because they’ve put their members’ interests ahead of enhancing the nation’s cognitive skills. And there is a direct connection between cognitive skills and economic growth. Moe and Chubb put it this way: Had the U.S. spent the last decade boosting its educational performance to that of international educational leaders, its gross domestic product by 2015 would be 4.5% higher than otherwise. That’s something to remember as you read the latest unemployment figures.

—Leland Teschler, Editor

10 YEARS AGO — 2002
Segway’s secret: cleverly wound servos: The Human Transporter from inventor Dean Kamen gets its power from special brushless servo technology. The Rockford, Ill.-based Pacific Scientific Div. of Danaher Motion created a new sensor design for the Segway that allows feedback to the motor-drive electronics without an encoder or resolver. A patented hemispherically wound stator features redundant windings. which effectively realizes two functioning motors in one shell. If one set of windings fails, the motor continues to operate. An added benefit of this technology — a smaller motor. Pacific Scientific also devised a proprietary process to injection mold key motor components and encapsulate windings in one step. The motor is said to have 40% more torque than comparable motors.

30 YEARS AGO — 1982
Sled to prove M-X missile system: A rocket sled being developed will subject the guidance system of the M-X missile to the inertial loads it will encounter during launch and ascent. At the Air Force’s Arnold Engineering Development Center, a 5%-scale model of the sled was studied at five Mach numbers ranging from 1.5 to 2 to obtain aerodynamic data needed in the design of the full-scale vehicle. The model was mounted in close proximity to a ground plane simulating the dual-rail, high-speed test track at Holloman AFB, where the complex M-X guidance and control system will be tested.

50 YEARS AGO — 1962
A gas-turbine prototype, the Rover T4 is designed “with the possibility of future production in mind.” The Rover Co. Ltd., which has been researching gas-turbine engines for over 15 years, says that considerable technical advances have been made, particularly in improved fuel consumption and throttle response to provide fast acceleration. In addition to its unconventional powerplant, the four-passenger T4 has all-round independent suspension and disc brakes.

© 2012 Penton Media, Inc.

The economic recession has abated somewhat, and hiring is on the upswing. Now you’re more likely to read about the travails of those interviewing for employment rather than people downsized out of jobs.

In that regard, it looks as though the new trend in job interviews is to ask brain-teaser-type questions. The practice seems to have been popularized by hiring managers at Google. According to William Poundstone, author of a book called, Are you smart enough to work at Google?, that company relies on such off-beat interview questions as a way of sifting out people who won’t fit into its culture.

You might wonder what kind of culture a company has if it hires people based on how they answer a question like, “You are shrunk to the height of a nickel and thrown into a blender. Your mass is reduced so that your density is the same as usual. The blades start moving in 60 seconds. What do you do?”

Apparently Googlites are looking for inventive answers. (One of the best is supposedly to recognize that small creatures are stronger in proportion to their weight and that you can probably just jump out of the blender.) Another company that apparently buys into brain-teaser interview questions is Tesla Motors. Tesla interviewees reporting on the Glassdoor.com site say the EV maker mixes brain-teasers with queries about fundamental physics, including: Why do letters in mirrors reverse horizontally and not vertically? You’re in a row boat, which is in a large tank filled with water. You have an anchor on board and throw it overboard. (The chain is long enough so the anchor rests completely on the bottom of the tank). Does the water level in the tank rise or fall?

Though riddlelike interview questions get a lot of attention, the more important part of a hiring process is probably the questions applicants answer that resemble the work they’ll eventually perform. People applying for programming positions at Google, for example, must write code during their interviews. But at any engineering company, sometimes even work-related questions can seem a bit off the wall.

A friend of mine describes an incident during one such interview at a control-systems engineering firm: “I extolled my past experience and credentials, but I could tell the guy doing the interview wasn’t convinced. All of a sudden he eyes me suspiciously and says, ‘What’s the integral of 1 over x?’ To my extreme surprise I seemed to recall it was log(x), and though unsure I blurted out my answer. He brightened measurably and said, ‘That’s the question I use to separate out the real engineers!’ I got the job, even though I could not have worked a control-theory integral problem to save my soul.”

The fallacy with questions that demand mental gymnastics is that they don’t say much about how the applicant will perform day-to-day work. “What you see is not always what you get,” says Dean Stamoulis, head of the Global Executive Assessment Practice for Russell Reynolds Associates in New York City. He also notes that some of the best candidates don’t make good first impressions, and it’s important to look deeper than an initial perception. Finally, he advises that sometimes what is not said in an interview is important as well. “If an interviewee doesn’t mention others he or she led and name key contributors to past successes, that might indicate he or she is taking credit for others’ work and ideas.”

— Leland Teschler, Editor

© 2012 Penton Media, Inc.

It sometimes seems that professions and workers represented by unions do better than those without them. Examples include school teachers, autoworkers, airline pilots, state-employed doctors and dentists, and a host of others. So why haven’t more engineers jumped on the union bandwagon?

Traditionally, engineers have a reputation for individualism and shy away from unions. They seem to believe they can negotiate the pay and benefits they deserve. And if they don’t like the compensation or working conditions, they can always get another job with better benefits. Or at least that’s what they tell themselves.

To get an idea of what unions are doing for engineers, I talked to a few members of the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA), a union which represents 24,000 engineers working for Boeing and related companies. Some of the major benefits of union membership, according to members I spoke with, are better pay and benefits. They claim that while managers and other unrepresented workers have had to take pay cuts and give back benefits, sometimes on short notice, SPEEA engineers have always gotten raises, both for seniority and merit, as per their contract.

The union engineers and technicians say they also appreciate the security and peace of mind of a contract with well-defined policies governing pensions, hiring and layoffs, vacation, sick leave, and even overtime. And they say the union, along with its lawyers, will see to it that management meets its contractual obligations. This means management can’t fire union members on a whim or without just cause.
As one SPEEA member put it, “Many engineers say they are professionals and the company must treat them as such. But you’re still labor and they can treat you as they see fit. There’s nothing you can do about it except quit. And in this economy, that’s not always a good option, especially if you’re over 40. Heaven help you if you’re over 50 or 60.”

It’s true that if you accept an engineering position at Boeing or one of its related companies, you will be forced to join a union. “But the $40 a month it costs in dues is less than the benefits the union has negotiated,” says one 25-year Boeing worker. “And although I’ve seen several engineers who were a little grumpy at being lumped in with a union, they changed their tune when they ran into a problem with medical leave for taking care of a parent or spouse, or had a beef with a manager, and the union stepped in to resolve the problem.”

The same Boeing engineer noted that outside IT people and other engineering consultants who work at Boeing often confess to being jealous of the union’s benefits and contract package. “They also wouldn’t mind having a say about company policies and projects similar to what we enjoy.”

All the SPEEA folks I spoke with admit that any union is made up of people with different goals and opinions and that unions can have problems. But they also say those relatively small problems can be ironed out. They also agree that a good union does not want to hurt the company. All SPEEA members I spoke with say they take great pride in Boeing and the planes and equipment the company designs and builds and want the company to survive and thrive.

So why do you think engineers have avoided unions for all these years?

— Stephen J. Mraz

© 2012 Penton Media, Inc.

No training? No R&D? No innovation?
There seems to be a consensus among readers we heard from that the government and big business aren’t providing much in the way of training for science and technology jobs and careers while cutting way back on real R&D, and that innovation has gone into hibernation in this country. But they do like the Patent Office, despite its faults.

Nontraining
Your recent editorial (“Training that Doesn’t Train Anyone,” Nov. 3) struck a spark. I work with young people by taking promising ones into my shop for a few weeks to train them on a variety of shop practices, including gear cutting, lathe and mill operation, grinding, metallurgy, heat treating, welding, CAD, and inspection. My shop is more complete than any college shop I’ve seen. The end result is that after three weeks, the student usually lands a job at $17/hr with full benefits.

One recent “graduate” phoned and told me that after two weeks he’s now manager/foreman over the grinding department in his company. He was a high-school graduate with fairly good grades and had graduated from a diesel-mechanics school, and couldn’t find a job.

It seems I know the skills that companies need but can’t find or won’t train people for. Humility prevents me from saying I must be a genius compared to the people the government has working for them as “educators.” Oh, and I do it for nothing.

Steve Tuttle

At the beginning of your editorial, you mention CAD software vendors offering training on their software to anyone who has fallen victim to an economy that the amazing prodigies in our government are so dedicated to improving. I hope those vendors are also training those people on what makes a good mechanical drawing or 3D part model. I once worked at a company that evidently hired designers and drafters based on the simple fact that they had once double-clicked an AutoCAD icon. Most of them were fired or quit without notice after a brief time. Learning a piece of software and learning a trade may go hand in hand, but one does not equal the other. For example, I am knowledgeable about spreadsheets, but that doesn’t mean you want me doing your bookkeeping.

Joel W Suffridge

Who stole our innovation?
Thanks for your editorial on the hurdles to innovation (“R&D Doesn’t Mean Innovation,” Oct. 6). I agree with you that patent trolls hinder innovation, but the cause is not the patent system, nor is the solution to eliminate it.

The patent system is necessary to sustain long-term R&D efforts. If a company spends millions of dollars developing and marketing a product, they need time to recoup their investment to stay in business as well as fund future R&D projects.

As I see it, patent trolls are the real cause of our stifled innovation, and we should work to eliminate them. One way to get rid of them might be to require that patent holders use the technology in their patent applications in real products that are released to the market. The patent-pending technology should not only be used for production, but also have sales volumes that let manufacturers at least break even, say at the end of the third year. Under such requirements, approval of the patent application would be tied to the benefits the patent offers to the economy. This solution should stop patent trolling and leave the real work to those serious about bringing innovations to society.

Eugene Kim

In the late 80s, I worked at a tool house which won a contract to build a family of dies that were to be used to fabricate heat exchangers for home gas furnaces. I traveled to the plant where the tools would be used to go over requirements. While there, I was given a plant tour, including the “Research Lab.” I was shocked to find that all of the research consisted of dismantling competitors’ furnaces to see if there were any ideas worth stealing. My boss and I had a good laugh about this company’s research.

Fast forward to late 90s with another company and now I was involved with dies to fabricate components for home air conditioners. Again a plant tour included the research lab. This company’s research consisted of studying competitors A/C units looking for ways to improve their own products.

I must conclude that either the two companies I visited were the only two dishonest HVAC firms or the whole industry does nothing more than pirate from competition. There must be a HVAC innovator out there somewhere, but I sure did not see the evidence.

Ralph L. Wirtel

When will we realize as a society that throwing money at a problem doesn’t ensure success? We need not look any further than public education to see that. Many school districts that spend the most per student are among the lowest performers.

More to your point, what I’ve seen over the past 20 years is a steadily growing myopia among decision makers both in industry and government when it comes to innovation and R&D. About two-thirds of my career has been in military-funded R&D and the other third in commercial product development. The Commercial-Off-The-Shelf revolution in government acquisition has much to do with shorter term thinking — it emphasizes evolutionary (development) advances over revolutionary (research) ones. Most government program managers would prefer to modify a commercial device or system to military purposes rather than come up with a truly new idea and product. COTS reduces development time, cost, and, most importantly these days, risk.

Yet, the commercial sector doesn’t seem to fare better. Managers seem to have mastered the art of putting the “no” in innovation. There are so many layers and gatekeepers in large organizations that out-of-the-box ideas are easily smothered. Those that aren’t smothered often get delayed for such a long time that by the time they garner support, the need for them or the market opportunity has long since passed.

One of the main points Dr. Michael Hammer made in his 1993 book, Reengineering the Corporation, still rings true today; hierarchical structures get in the way of change. Hierarchical structures inherently have a lot of activities going on that do not add value to the company’s products or services. The primary objective of a bureaucracy is self-preservation, the second is growth.

I’ve come to the conclusion that there is not much an individual or even a group of individuals at the working level can do aside from moving to a smaller company or starting one of their own,

Yet, many technological advances require a substantial investment in infrastructure that individuals or small companies do not command. For example, if someone comes up with a new way to make steel that uses 20% less energy, where does she or he go if the company they work for isn’t interested because the investment it requires would siphon funds from another project with substantially less risk but also fewer benefits?

Finally, I don’t necessarily agree with the “no patents” idea. People should be allowed to reap the benefits of their ideas. That is the purpose of the patent system. Yet, your point is well taken; the system gets abused by people with little or no moral conviction other than making as much money as they can while expending as little real effort as possible. One counter to the patent trolls is the use of trade secrets. This is especially effective with processes used to make generic products when the result cannot be differentiated in the final product. Yet, they can be effective in differentiable products. Consider Coca-Cola and Heinz ketchup; neither has patented their formulations (which would’ve run out decades ago) but, they have viable businesses based on trade secrets.

Christopher Perhala

Always design a thing by considering it in its next larger context — a chair in a room, a room in a house, a house in an environment, an environment in a city plan,” said architect Eliel Saarinen. I also wrote about this idea in “A Step Up”.

For example, the other day, the toilets in our home stopped flushing. I called a company that cleared the sewer line between the house and street. The company recommended a $3,200 plastic pipe which would be threaded into the existing line and provide the same diameter line without digging a trench.

After getting over sticker shock — I thought I faced a $100 root removal — the proposal sounded reasonable. But just to make sure, I posted the problem on my neighborhood e-mail group. Several neighbors had the procedure done and the outcome was good.

But one neighbor suggested a product that kills roots within minutes and protects the line against infiltration for a year or more. Cost: $30. Difficulty of application: Mix in pail; pour into toilet; don’t run the water for 6 hours.

By looking at the problem as something beyond my particular experience, I learned there were other ways to deal with it. Even if I only put off the pipe replacement for a year, that gave me an opportunity to manage my cash.

Author Michael Gerber, in a book series titled The E-Myth, says successful entrepreneurs must work on their businesses, not in them. He defines the “e-myth” as the belief that if you are good at something — say, baking or plumbing — you are automatically empowered to create and run a profitable baking or plumbing business. But neither bread-baking nor piping skills have much to do with finding customers, setting prices, choosing a good location, planning for growth, or any of the many other capabilities needed to run a successful business.

Thus, different rules can apply at the different levels. In Godel, Escher, Bach — An Eternal Golden Braid (highly recommended), computer scientist-philosopher Douglas Hofstadter creates a dialogue between an anteater and a talking anthill named Aunt Hillary. “Help yourself to any of the ants that look appetizing,” says Aunt Hillary to the anteater.

Other fantastical characters question this dialog. Isn’t the anteater an enemy of ants? Why is there a cordial relationship between Aunt Hillary and the anteater? The anteater explains that ants and ant colonies are entirely different entities. Just as engineers, although made up of cells, do not object to the fact that they are constantly losing them as new ones are created, Aunt Hillary does not hesitate to offer ants to her guest and intellectual sparring partner, the anteater.

How is all of this helpful to working engineers? Engineers should consider design, production, scheduling, management, or any other challenge in its next larger context. Say you want to add a connector to a measurement device. You find a really nifty one on an obscure Web site. The device is small, unobtrusive, and relatively inexpensive, but nonstandard. If the mating plug should get lost or damaged, you would have to order it. In contrast, a standard USB-type A plug will work, though it is clunkier. It will do the job and if it gets damaged, replacements are easily obtained.

Do you have an example of “going up the levels” that worked for you? Write to me: joel.orr@gmail.com.

— Joel Orr

Joel Orr is an NLP Master Practitioner and
CTO of EZOSA, a software start-up.

Edited by Leslie Gordon
leslie.gordon@penton.com

© 2012 Penton Media, Inc.

A high percentage of inventors come to me with their “million-dollar” idea. More times than not, my response is, “Really? How much money have you made so far?” It’s not that I am in the business of dashing dreams or slaying hope. I believe my role as a patent attorney is to guide inventors along the rocky road of getting a product to market — with the inventor and his or her will-to-invent still intact.

The hard facts are that less than one-half of 1% of inventors’ products actually see the light of the marketplace and are financially successful. In other words, for every 1,000 patents, only about four or five will actually succeed and make money.

So, what does success take? Certainly, having a great idea and being passionate about it are hallmark. Also, the inventor must have tenacity, stamina, and understand that nobody gets to the top alone. The typical “get-rich-quick” approach is a quick ticket to failure. A better approach comes from following these tips to help you successfully move through the steps.

Everyone loves their own idea
And, of course your friends and family “love it” too. However, a successful inventor puts his or her product to a real test by first performing a market analysis. This takes time, but in the long run a good market analysis keeps an inventor from spending thousands of dollars to develop a product for which there is no demand — and, therefore, no need to patent.

Inventors must ask questions and learn what they do or do not know about their idea. A great start is to present the product so no one knows you are the true originator. For example, an inventor might approach a company and say, “A friend of mine came up with this product. I think it’s stupid. What do you think?” The responses can help inventors make improvements, move forward, or let them know it might be wise to shuck the idea altogether.

Confidential resources are available to help individuals perform a solid market analysis. For instance Score, Herndon, Va., a nonprofit association and partner of the U. S. Small Business Administration, provides no-cost counseling services and workshops for entrepreneurs. Another good resource is the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Inventors should be leery of for-profit “invention mills.” Unfortunately, they are usually ruthless and are just looking to turn a large profit and don’t have the inventor’s best interest in mind. For more information on invention promotion scams, visit the National Inventor Fraud Center and the Federal Trade Commission Web sites.

In addition to just “falling in love with your own idea,” a lot of inventors fail for other reasons. A common mistake is to try to develop an idea that is too technical and that demands resources not available to a solo inventor. Companies can patent and develop products more easily because they have marketing departments, sales teams, design groups, and distribution networks. I have seen individuals invest well over $100,000 on a product which I am almost certain will fail because the idea is just too complex.

The right Idea + the right team
Because many products take more funding and expertise than available to a single inventor, I try to steer inventors toward a simple idea that is easy to manufacture and sell. I also urge inventors to team up with those having the skills to help get the product to market. Examples are 3D modelers, prototype builders, writers, and graphic artists. Inventors love to market their products, but most aren’t good at marketing.

One of the first products that my colleague Howard Loewenthal and I invented is a good example. The patent-pending dripless turkey baster sat for seven years on my shelf because my focus was solely on selling the baster. Finally, I got a marketing expert involved by giving him an equity stake in the business. His recommendation: Don’t sell the baster — sell the valve that’s inside the baster. The valve is what makes the baster dripless.

A typical turkey baster sputters. Why? As the cook operates the device, it becomes partially filled with hot oil from the turkey. The hot oil heats up and expands the remaining air in the baster. As a result, the expansion of the hot air causes the basting oil to drip and squirt out of the baster. This flaw makes it all too easy for a cook to get scalded.

In contrast, the unit we invented includes a valve that is inserted into the top of the baster tube. The baster bulb slips over the valve and part way down the tube. Basically, the valve lets the expanding hot air escape into the bulb (not through the tube tip), thus providing a dripless baster. The baster valve is easy to clean. Just pull off the bulb, remove the valve, and rinse everything in warm water.

Selling the turkey baster as a complete unit would have required $100,000 in tooling. In addition, the baster would have been sold to just one company. But by changing the focus to licensing the valve, many of the companies that sell basters that leak want to buy the valve. Suddenly, we went from a weak position, which demanded a large outlay of cash, to a strong position that required relatively little cash outflow outlay. To see a video of basters before and after using the valve visit, www.WonderValv.com.

To cite another case, my colleague Rich Spencer and I sell a golf tee that is die cut in a plastic card. Companies can use the cards as a marketing device. The patent-pending golf tees sell in the U. S. and internationally. However, sales so far have been disappointing and well below our initial expectations. Both Rich and I believe this is a multimillion dollar product. The takeaway? The inventing process can be frustrating, so it’s important to just keep moving forward.

I can’t stress enough how critical it is for inventors to reach out to the right people with the right expertise. Do your due diligence first. Look at experts’ track records, talk with others who have worked with them, and ask “experts” to show examples of products they have successfully commercialized.

A short while ago, a local inventor named Dave Hoffman created a wireless test indicator. After a 2-hr consultation, I discovered that Hoffman had built 10 prototypes. I put him in touch with a marketing expert who had connections in the tooling industry. Within three weeks, all the indicators were sold to Fortune 500 companies. This was something Hoffman had been unable to do on his own for the 10 years his product had been patented. The right expertise can make all the difference — period. Subsequently, Hoffman has had another hundred indicators manufactured to sell them.

Another good reason for developing a “simple” idea is that simple products can generally be manufactured one at a time, or in small quantities. This puts inventors in a better position to manage cash flow and profit margins. Manufacturing in small quantities also lets inventors make design changes less expensively. Seek out domestic manufacturers that will produce a few of the products at a time. A down economy has made many shops hungry for work, so they are more likely to take small orders now than in the past. Once the products sell, use the profits, no matter how small, to produce greater quantities. Over time, the cost of production will fall and profit margins will rise. The goal is to get to positive cash flow as early as possible. Many inventors make the mistake of going overseas where they must place a minimum order of say, 5,000 parts. Most of these products end up sitting unsold in a warehouse or garage.

Sole inventors should avoid selling out to big box stores such as Walmart, Lowe’s, and Home Depot. Their distribution model produces small profit margins for inventors. Instead, sell directly to end users.

Here is an example of marketing to the end user. Another colleague, Greg Getzinger, and I commercialized a patent-pending pizza-cutting board called the Portion PadL (www.PortionPadL.com). Getzinger invented the board for his pizza shop to quickly and efficiently cut equal slices. Selling the device to Dominos, Schwan’s, Speedway, and other franchises gives us higher margins than we would get by selling through Walmart or pizza-supply companies. The Portion PadL is selling extremely well. This is due in large part to Getzinger’s sales and marketing expertise and tenacity.

To patent or not to patent?
The process of licensing products (as opposed to selling them directly) can be difficult and frustrating. A good patent takes time, resources, and a well-qualified patent attorney or agent. Inventors who license a product must approach a lot of gate keepers who usually keep the gates closed. Inventors selling products directly can knock on lots of doors that would be closed to them for licensing deals.

Just as important as the question, “Can my idea be patented?” is the question, “Is the idea worth patenting?” Again, this is where a good market analysis is critical. Should it reveal that there is little or no demand for the product, then it’s time to “fail fast, fail early.” Move on, and put your time, money, and energy into the next idea.

Real failure comes when inventors jump ahead to start a nonprovisional patent or write a patent themselves. Other bad ideas are to finance their ventures through credit cards, friends, or family, or borrow from a bank, venture capitalists, or angel investors. These inventors try to go it alone, sell to big box stores, spend a lot of money, and then never invent again. Now their “million-dollar idea” has cost them their dreams.

© 2012 Penton Media, Inc.

10 YEARS AGO — 2001
Light it up: Want to hoop it up after dark? SparkleGlo plastic optical fiber from Poly-Optical Products Inc., Irvine, Calif., makes it possible. Huffy Sports is using SparkleGlo with an LED for its new Light It Up lighted backboard and rim. The entire backboard and rim, powered by two AA batteries, gives off a glowing light.

Besides recreational uses, the side-lighting optical fiber, abraded on four sides, can be easily formed for decorative and safety lighting, as well as for control panels and POS/POP displays. It offers a heat-free, EMI-free, colorful, and flexible line of light to 20 ft. SparkleGlo is weather and vibration resistant and comes in nominal diameters of 0.060, 0.080, 0.100, and 0.120 in.

30 YEARS AGO — 1981
Energy source blossoming in the desert: Solar One, the world’s largest solar-powered pilot plant at 10,000 kW, is shown nearing completion in the Mojave Desert. Consisting of a 300-ft central receiver “power tower” surrounded by some 1,800 heliostats within a 75-acre area, the facility will use sunlight reflected onto the tower by the giant movable mirrors to produce steam. Designed by McDonnell Douglas Corp., Solar One will demonstrate the capabilities of solar plants ranging in size up to 100 MW and will provide power equivalent to the needs of a community of 7,000 people. Other members of the Solar One project team are the U. S. Dept. of Energy, the Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power, Southern California Edison Co., and the California Energy Commission.

50 YEARS AGO — 1961
An electronic alternator, offered by Motorola Inc. as replacement equipment for automobiles, is available as either a 30 or 45-A unit and will fit most 12-V, negative-ground models built since 1959. Replacing the dc generator and its regulator, the system consists of an alternator, a voltage regulator, and a universal installation kit. Motorola says it extends battery life from 25 to 50%, even in taxicabs or passenger cars having a number of accessories.

© 2011 Penton Media, Inc.

The general public has finally noticed something engineers have long accepted as a fact of life: College engineering courses are more difficult than those for liberal arts. Engineering-course difficulty is now the topic of newspaper articles in the wake of Dept. of Education statistics showing that the number of kids graduating with engineering degrees increased at a much lower rate than that for all college grads, and the number graduating with computer and information sciences actually fell. Inadequate high-school preparation in math and science is getting part of the blame, but so, too, is the tough nature of engineering courses.

Consider one former engineering student profiled in a recent Wall Street Journal article. She switched her major to psychology and policy management from electrical and computer engineering after a particularly tough assignment that “kept her and her partner in the lab well past midnight for several days.” The WSJ also reports that since switching majors, her grade point average has gone from somewhere between a B and a C to near straight As.

Most engineers can relate to these incidents. I personally spent an uncountable number of nights laboring past midnight over one engineering-course project or another, as did the majority of my classmates. One guy I knew dropped out of mechanical engineering partly because he was on academic probation. He switched to political science and within one semester had a GPA near 4.0.

And I would have to say that most engineers complete their degrees through sheer stubbornness rather than because they excel at their class work. On that score, my own engineering-college career began in about the most inauspicious way possible: Freshman engineers at my school went through an introduction-to-engineering course their first semester to get a feel for what lay ahead over the next four years. To say the first exam in that course was hard would be an understatement. I stumbled out of it thinking I might have gotten zero points!

As you might expect, I polled my fellow classmates about how they did. Everybody thought the stupid thing was tough. The results were revealing. The median grade out of 100 was in the 20’s. (With much relief, I discovered I somehow had gotten 40 points on it.)

That was only the first in what was to be four years’ worth of tough engineering exams. So in that regard, you might say that first cold shower did its job by showing us what we could expect over the rest of our undergraduate engineering careers. But it was certainly easy to get discouraged after such a sour first taste of engineering. In a world crying for science and technology graduates, you have to wonder whether this is the best way to encourage freshman engineers to keep plugging.

Finally, there is one point I wish I could explain to freshman engineering students encountering similar challenges: Many of the most-successful engineers I’ve been lucky enough to work with had college GPA’s that were nothing special.

— Leland Teschler, Editor

© 2011 Penton Media, Inc.

Engineer movies and sprinklers to fight fires
Editor Stephen Mraz asked his blog readers to suggest films that might make up a list of the all-time greatest engineering movies. Here are some of the suggestions. And Leland Teschler’s blog on mandating sprinklers in homes also garnered some reader responses.

Engineering entertainment
There are a bunch of good, thoughtful engineering movies out there. One I thought was action-packed was “Shooter.” The main character is a hit man who uses his math skills to make certain shots. Another good one was “PI” about a math wiz who took on journeys.

Kevin Mullen

“The Right Stuff.”

Dan DaSilva

“Apollo 13”

Rom Henderson

“Flash of Genius”

Alex Ramos

“Armageddon” is chock-full of engineering challenges that are accepted and met by men of heroic, yet human, proportions. It’s hard to beat as one of the best engineering movies ever. It’s got action. It’s got romance. It’s got memorable characters (Rockhound - “Embrace the horror, boys!”). It’s got patriotism that gives me goosebumps. Plus, it’s all about how people with practical skills and can-do attitudes, and isn’t that the definition of an engineer). And they push aside the bureaucrats and bean-counters and save the world.

Jim Million

“Wizard of Menlo Park”

Jim Sawyer

Another for “Apollo 13” and “Real Genius.” And don’t forget “Mosquito Coast” and that TV series “Salvage 1.”

Andy W.

What about “Fat Man and Little Boy?”

Nick Swartz

You’ve got to see “Primer.” It’s a low-budget indie film, but perfectly captures my experience as an engineer.

Kevin Albertsen

“Cheaper by the Dozen.” Frank and Lillian Gilbreth lead the charge for efficient manufacturing as they raise 12 children.

Maricka Roger

“Flight of the Phoenix” is certainly a good pick. It is a great exploration of complex characters as they come together to engineer an escape from a desperate situation. “Apollo 13” likewise should be right up there. It was all about engineering a solution on the fly.

Mike Hollingsworth

“October Sky,” the story about the “Rocket Boys.” It’s set in the time right after the Russian Sputnik was launched into space.

Leonard Kikstr

I’m surprised nobody mentioned “The Dam Busters.” It documents how British engineer Barnes Wallace developed a bouncing bomb used to attack hydroelectric dams critical to Germany’s war production in World War II. Special effects are okay by 1950s standards, but still intriguing and well acted. Definitely an engineer’s war movie.

Ralph Reinhardt

“Terminators,” “Transformers,” “Star Trek,” and “Batman.”

Rob McMillen

“Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.” And the “Flubber” movies.

Andy W.

Another vote for “Primer.”

Dustin J.

“From the Earth to the Moon” TV miniseries. The scene where everyone says they can meet the schedule until someone admits they can’t, then everyone says “I could use a couple more weeks, too,” is priceless. Panning back to see all the baseballs on the roof, thrown by the Grumman chief engineer while they were building the Lunar Lander is also priceless.

David Fox

I’d like to mention “Spitfire”. This story tracks the development of one of the best fighter aircraft of World War II and the man behind it. Produced in 1942, with David Niven and Leslie Howard, it not only addressed the aircraft’s development, but also the effort to get it accepted.

Richard Beemer

How about “Iron Man.” It’s all about engineering. Even when Tony Stark doesn’t have all his computer-aided equipment, he can take it back to the basics and still build the unimaginable. An engineer that’s not to good to get dirty.

Paul Rizzo

Iron Man is an entertaining movie but consider this: Tony Stark cobbles together an iron-man suit in a primitive workshop and this suit works the first time, but the version he puts together in a state-of-the-art lab has a number of glitches??? — Leland Teschler

A sprinkler system in every house?
Fire-safety codes have already gotten completely out of control. We don’t need more regulations.
Homeowners already have the option to install kitchen grease-fire suppression systems while maintaining smoke/fire detectors throughout the house. Add in a CO detector in the room housing the furnace and hot-water heaters, and most homeowners would be well protected. Current regulations are enough and anything beyond that adds cost for minimal benefits.

Common sense and consumer responsibility should be guide in our regulations.

Chris Jennings

It makes more sense to mandate smoke alarms that are hard-wired to the house’s electrical system with batteries as a backup. It’s much less expensive and much-more effective at saving lives.

TJ McDermott

I wonder at the cost of maintaining a sprinkler system and the damage that could be caused by failed pipes. I would bet that the probability of damage due to failed pipes or sprinkler heads would be many times that of a fire.

Smoke detectors provide the life-saving warning at a fraction of the cost, but still are lacking in many homes. We cannot force people to be responsible.

Ken Beatty

An experienced electrical inspector I know disagrees with the mandate for home-sprinkler systems. His experience shows that most damage in house fires is limited to smoke damage. He surmises that an activated sprinkler would drastically increase damage and claims. Currently, damage is often limited, thanks to the increased use of smoke detector and improved response times from fire departments (even the rural, volunteer ones). So, for all we know, the personal-injury statistics could be unaffected by a mandate for sprinklers, especially as the mandate would only apply to new construction.

So maybe there should be a requirement that smoke detectors automatically call the local fire department. I know of one case where an automatic call through an ADT system prevented major damage from a overheated coffee pot in an unoccupied house. I know of another case where a secluded home burned to the ground. The residents escaped but couldn’t get to a phone to call the fire department until it was too late.

Dan Wortman

© 2011 Penton Media, Inc.