I have always been fascinated by “things” that fly; pterodactyls, pidgins, kites, Superman and airplanes; but ALWAYS airplanes.  As a kid growing up in rural east Tennessee, I would assemble model airplanes until I was drunk from “sniffing” the Testers glue.  I had a model of just about every flying machine made by man, dating back to pre-WWI days.  As I got older, I invested time and money into building “U-control” planes and spent Saturday afternoons competing with a couple of buddies on one of the local ball fields.  I soloed at the age of 15 in a fabric-covered Piper Tri-Pacer and had to wait a whole year before I could take my check ride.  The FAA inspector was somewhat amazed when he saw I had 172 hours of flying time prior to that ride.

Enough of that, point made.  Let’s flash forward a few years to Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah.  Home of the Ogden Air Materiel Area (OAMA).  OAMA is a TAC (Tactical Air Command) Base that supported silo versions of the Titan II missile and refurbished F-4 Phantom fighters coming back from Vietnam.  One chilly Sunday afternoon I was the assigned APO (Air Protocol Officer) pulling a twenty-four hour temporary duty.  APO and OD (Officer of the Day) responsibilities were typically assigned to junior officers; 1^st Lieutenant through Captain.  Captain Bob (that’s me) was in the control tower swapping lies and talking football with the ATC (air traffic controllers) when a distress call came in from a pilot whose voice definitely had an edge to it.  No panic—just real concern.  This was in the fall of 1969.  He indicated the loss of one engine and definitely needed to land ASAP.  Hill AFB was the nearest facility.  The ATC started clearing air space for his arrival.  One small item, “I’m flying an SR-71 Blackbird so I will need maximum security, including a guarded hanger during repairs.”   The Blackbird became fully operational in 1966 so most pilots felt there was still a “learning curve” to overcome.  Also, it had technology that could not fall into the wrong hands.   I called the air police headquarters, told them the situation and then called the Deputy Base Commander, in that order.  The APs completely understood the significance of the arrival and dispatched a squad of armed personnel within minutes of my call.  The pilot did not declare an emergency because he was in complete control for the descent and landing, which was uneventful.  Even though this was the case, emergency vehicles; i.e. fire trucks, EMT vans, foam equipment etc were available and along the runway to handle any unexpected events that might happen.  This is SOP. 

I have been around airplanes all of my life, but to this day, never have I seen one to equal what I saw that Sunday afternoon.  First, it is a huge, huge airplane.  Long, wide and tall.  Jet black, twin inclined vertical tails and a blunt nose right out of Star Wars.  I heard someone say that if and airplane looks like it will fly, it will fly.  This one looked like it would fly and fast.   It is without a doubt the most futuristic airplane I have ever seen or probably will ever see.  The two JPEGS below will give you an idea as to the configuration.  Take a look and then we will list several aspects of the configuration and performance.

SR-71 Blackbird

The JPEG above does not really do the plane justice relative to size but you can see the remarkably sleek lines.  Notice how the engines are “blended” into the wing structure and their placement to minimize vibration and improve wing stability and integrity.  I wonder how many wind tunnel hours were necessary to “prove” the design.  Next, let’s take a look at the cockpit.

SR-71 Cockpit

Please note that all of the instruments are analog in nature.  No digital readouts at all.  A pilot had to scan his “dash” repeatedly to obtain a continuing status of each gage.  No “heads-up” displays, no flashing LEDs, no obvious computers providing voice-activated warnings when necessary.  I know the layout of the instrumentation took considerable time and thought prior to placement.  Now let us consider several facts and performance specifications.

• The service life of the operational SR-71 was 1966 to the late 1980s.  The planes were fully retired from the Air Force in 1990.  Two were used after the 1990 date by NASA for high altitude studies
• Only 93 Air Force officers were trained to fly the SR-71s.  There were fewer -71 pilots than astronauts.
• The first series was designated A-12 with the first flight being April 1962.  This flight was made by Lockheed test pilot Lou Schalk.  The design genesis was the work of Kelly Johnson’s Skunk Works.  The Skunk Works employed only seventy-two people, engineers, draftsmen, manufacturing specialists, etc.  A remarkably small team of highly dedicated individuals—each know their jobs inside and out.
• Due to excessive temperatures, high temperature fuel, lubricants, sealants and components had to be designed and assembled, not to mention insulating materials to keep the pilot and technical officer cool.
• Each member of the flight crew wore very special clothing specifically designed for high altitude.  The clothing was more in line with what you would expect for an astronaut.
• 93% of the airframe was made from titanium alloy.
• The cockpit glass was designed to withstand operational temperatures of 650 degrees F.
• Two Pratt and Whitney J58 turbojet engines, each developing 35,000 pounds of thrust each, were employed to drive the plane.  Each engine required 100,000 cubic feet of air per second.
• Specifications:

1. Wingspan:                   55’-7”
2. Length:                         107’-5”
3. Height:                         18’-6”
4. Wet Weight:              170,000 pounds
5. Maximum Speed:    2,000 + miles per hour
6. Rate of Climb:            1,140 feet per minute
7. Service Ceiling:          85,000 feet
8. Range:                          3,200 miles

I told you it was a monster.  On September 1, 1974, an Sr-71 flew from New York City to London in 1 hour and 54 minutes.  This was 3 hours faster than the “old” record.    

In our case, the repairs were made by an experienced crew flown in specifically for the purpose of getting this baby back in the air.  The equipment and components required came in a separate plane; even they were guarded.  No one but the repairmen were allowed in the hangar.  The process took approximately 3 days.  I was again in the tower during preflight and the takeoff.   The sight was really something to behold.  It was gone in an instant.   I have no idea as to how much runway the plane needed prior to nose wheel rotation but that was achieved in a spit second.  Ladies and gentlemen let me emphasize that this marvelous piece of engineering and management was accomplished without the use of computers, parametric modeling, mathematical algorithms defining air flow over the surfaces, etc etc.  We are talking about knowledgeable engineers, using slide rules, trig tables, drafting tables and reams of paper to design this marvelous airplane.  To me, this is an engineering accomplishment that rivals the space program itself.  All accomplished by passionate Americans given a target, a goal and enthusiasm for the venture.  I hope you agree.

The information for this blog was taken from the following source:  “History of the 504^th Bomb Group (IV) in WW II” by Mr. Fiske Hanley, Historian, 504^th Bomb Group, Copyright 1992.

We have often heard that necessity is the mother of invention and during World War II our country desperately needed a long range all-weather bomber that could carry payloads from islands in the Pacific to Japan, and back.  The B-17 bomber (Flying Fortress), introduced in 1938, was used primarily during daylight hours for missions in Western Europe, specifically Germany.  It was perfectly adequate for medium range sorties but did not have the range or the carrying capacity required for the Pacific Theater.   The B-29 was a logical evolution of the four-engine B-17.   This new bomber required greater technology such as: more powerful engines, heavy armament, larger bomb loads and considerably higher altitude capabilities.  The Boeing B-29 Superfortress was to WWII as the B-52 was to Viet Nam.  The first flight was 21 September 1942 and was piloted by Boeing’s Chief Test Pilot Eddie Allen.  Even with its existing problems, the plane was an engineering marvel for its time.  The photograph below will show the configuration.

 Now let us look at the specifications for this “flying machine”.

• Power by four, eighteen cylinder Curtiss Wright R-3350 engines, each developing 2,200 HP. (NOTE:  The engines ran very hot and used considerably more aviation fuel than expected.  Frequent fires occurred due to the second row of nine cylinders located behind the first row of nine.)  For high altitude operation General Electric B-11 turbochargers were installed.
• Wingspan:  141 Feet-3 Inches
• Length:  99 Feet from nose to tail.
• Height: 27 Feet-9 Inches
• Design payload: 120,000 pounds, gross take-off weight.
• Maximum Overload Weight: 135,000 pounds
• Fuel capacity: 9,363 gallons (NOTE: For some reason a residual of 213 gallons disappeared into the structure and was not usable.)
• 500 gallon bomb-bay fuel tanks could be carried in lieu of bombs for extra long missions and were used for day-light precision attacks.
• Installed with AN/APQ-14 radar which proved very accurate for mine placement.  This radar was much better than the Norden Bombsight and provided all-weather capability.
• Operational range:  With a payload of 20,000 pounds, 3,250 miles.
• Propellers:  Hamilton Standard Hydromatic, oil operated.
• Bomb doors were screw-jack operated.
• Armament: Remote controlled General Electric guns consisting of 12 50-caliber and 1 20 mm cannon                                   
• Five gun-turrets were provided
• Crew: Twelve
• Number built:  3,970
• Unit costs: $639,188
• Service ceiling: 40,000 Feet
• Maximum speed: 350 MPH

Of course we all realize the evolution and development of aircraft (bombers and fighters) was greatly accelerated by the advent of WWII.  We actually went into WWII with some bi-wing, single seat fighters.  The B-29 indicates what Americans can do when there is a need and when we really put our minds and work ethic to it.

The following text in italics was taken from a publication detailing the “HISTORY OF THE 504^TH BOMB GROUP (VH)”.   It was written by Mr. Harold Fairweather.  Mr. Fairweather was a bombardier in the Reed crew, stationed on Tinian in the South Pacific.  Tinian, if you remember your history, was the atoll from which the “Enola Gay” departed that fateful day to drop “the bomb” on Japan.

I am one of those “hard-nosed” individuals who would believe in UFOs and “little green men” if you stood them in front of me.  I know there are sightings that truly defy logic but, in my opinion, most could be fully explained if we only took the time and applied scientific principals and the necessary effort.  On the other hand, some sightings are really tough to dismiss.  The one given below is an actual account from a B-29 crew-member while returning from a mission to mine the harbor of Genzan, Korea.  Take a look.

Back in the days of Tinian, we had never heard of the expression UFO.  I became a believer one night as we returned from what I think was one of the longest missions ever flown.  On the night of 10 August 1945, the day after the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, the Reed crew was scheduled to mine the harbor of Genzan, located in the most northern corner of Korea. 

The documented flight time of the mission, according to AAF Form #1A was 18:05 hours.  The only relief to a long and boring trip came when we checked in with a submarine stationed somewhere in the Sea of Japan.

We dropped our mines and turned homeward on a course that brought us back over the center of Japan.  I was amazed that no interest was shown in our flight by either the Japanese air force or the antiaircraft batteries.  It was difficult for me to believe we were on a combat mission.  As we crossed Japan, the Pacific coastline began to appear, and to the right was located all crew members favorite town, Hammantsu. Now, why couldn’t Colonel Martin have sent our crew there for all thirty-five missions?

It was then, that I noticed a very bright light approaching us from below and closing at an enormous speed, faster than anything I had ever seen before.  It changed to a on its new course without a hint of slowing its speed. (The sentence structure is a little shaky here but I have written the text as given in Mr. Fairweather’s account. ) 

I sat there thinking about this “thing” for twenty minutes or so trying to decide if I was brave enough to tell the crew what I’d seen, at the risk of being toosed [sic] out as a raving lunatic.

Just when I had made up my mind to tell them, Captain Reed remarked over the intercom that about twenty minutes ago he had observed the fastest moving light that he had ever seen streaking by our left wing.  I didn’t say a word.  I became a believer in UFO’s at that moment.

I have no earthly idea as to what Mr.Fairweather nor Captain Reed saw but on a quite night, no turbulence, no appreciable cloud cover, no antiaircraft guns to divert your attention it must have been something extraordinary.  I am a rated pilot and at one time owned a Piper Arrow IV.  Trust me on this one, you get used to things you can’t explain, at the time, but most are atmospheric in nature.  I’m not too sure this account fits that particular description.  Maybe we will know some day.  “THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE”.

My wife and I love a good movie although we have some differences when defining the word “good”.  She generally leans towards spy vs. spy thrillers and light-hearted movies involving interpersonal relationships; i.e. “chick-flicks”.  I like more Si-Fi and action-filled yarns involving mechanical equipment and battlefield scenes.  I will purchase a ticket to a grade “B” movie just to see the animation and computer graphics.  I am absolutely amazed at the processes that must be involved in making a movie such as “Transformers”.  Hour upon hour of computer work necessary to bring about this type of movie to the “big screen”.  How the actors interact with the animation is truly fascinating to me.  With this being the case, what do you think are the very best “engineering” movies?  The ones that demonstrate equipment designs having come about due to significant engineering effort and program management planning.  Given below is my list.

• “Minority Report”
• “The Right Stuff”
• “October Sky”
• “Apollo 13”
• “Transformers”
• “Iron Man”
• “Terminator”
• “Star Wars”
• “Flight of the Phoenix”
• “Alien”
• “Mission Impossible”
• “2001-A Space Odyssey”
• “James Bond”
• “District 9”
• “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”
• “Back to the Future”
• “ET”
• “The Day the Earth Stood Still”
• “The Matrix”
• “Blade Runner”
• “Cowboys and Aliens”

I’m sure you can add several I have forgotten or probably not seen.  Having five grandchildren, I also get a generous “dose” of kid-type animated movies that are just as impressive as the ones listed above.   The hardware and software needed to provide content is tremendously impressive.  If you have the time, make your own list.

It’s been an interesting year and one which will not be soon forgotten.  I definitely feel actions taken, or not taken, have provided the groundwork for 2012 to be a pivotal year in our nation’s history.  I also feel there have been significant engineering activities that will drive us to much greater technical accomplishments next year and years beyond.  On one hand, 2012 could be a rough ride for those of us who work for a living and yet engineering developments and scientific discoveries could possibly generate thousands, if not millions, of jobs.  I will indicate what I feel are this year’s most important secular stories AND this years most important engineering advancements.   I think you will find significant differences in tone and optimism.  Here goes:

WORLD STAGE:

• Leaving Iraq—The good news, we are out.  The bad news, all of our returning Vets will need jobs and those jobs are not necessarily waiting their return.  The cost of the war in human capital was tremendously devastating but, it’s over.
• Death of Osama Bin Laden—Bin Laden was the “face” of terrorism for the United States.  His death was a necessary event for us to move on.
• Japanese Earthquake and subsequent tsunami—This event was absolutely devastating to the Tohoku area of Japan and the Fukushima Nuclear power plant.  The effects will be lasting for decades to come.
• Fall of Joe Paterno and Penn State—Even though Mr. Paterno was seemingly a bystander in the events leading up to his resignation, the damage to Penn State and the educational system will remain for quite some time.   Students, by necessity, have become much more suspicious of authority in general but this event heightens their suspicions.
• Blago trial—Illinois just can’t seem to catch a break.  The past two governors have been indicted and will serve time for basic greed and other misdeeds.  (Must be the water!)
• Casey Anthony trial—This proves you can keep your mouth shut and get away with just about anything.
• GOP hopefuls and their run for the White House—A modern mess. There must be a better way to achieve the nomination.  The political slander is shameful.
• $15 Trillion US debt
• Financial difficulties in Europe and with the “euro”
• Arab “spring” – As a results of various “social networks”, people in the Middle-East are finding out what they are missing.
• Death of Moammar Gadhafi—His death certainly marks a turning point for Libya
• Fall of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak
• A remarkably ineffective US Congress—Does anyone really know how these folks spend their time?
• A President who refuses to engage and lead
• Saying goodbye to our manned space flight effort—A huge mistake on our part and one in which we will regret for decades to come.
• Residential housing “meltdown”—A well officiated game in the NFL has more oversight than given to “Freddie” and “Fanny”.  Another shameful episode.
• 9.2% unemployment
• Discovery of largest black hole in the known universe
• “Earth-like” planets “
• Death of Kim Jong-Il

I am sure I have missed a few but these events will have lasting effects upon the United States and other countries of the world.  

 Now, let’s take a look at those engineering and scientific accomplishments that WILL change our lives for the better.  In my opinion, these will alter how we live, the products we use and our ability to pull ourselves from the financial morass we are in.  Here is my list:

ENGINEERING AND SCIENTIFIC

• Launch of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner—80% of this remarkable commercial airplane is assembled using composite materials.  These strong but lightweight materials provide a 20% improvement in fuel economy.  This product demonstrates what is possible with other products using composites and how “thinking big” can make a difference.
• “I” devices—I-phone, I-pad, Apple computers, all give us designs that complement our lives and (again ) demonstrate what can be accomplished with vision and good old fashioned hard work.
• Going “green”—Efforts to conserve will be with us for the foreseeable future and should be.   As a society, we need to recognize that our very existence results from the ecology around us.
• RFID technology—A tremendously important method of controlling and documenting “stuff”.  A remarkably fast-moving technology.
• Application (apps) software for “smart” devices—The possibilities are endless.
• Adhesives—More and more, adhesives are replacing traditional methods of fastening components together.  In many instances, nuts, bolts, weldments, etc can be replaced with lower cost adhesives.
• Large Hadron Collider—This device, located at CERN, can possibly provide the answers to how our universe came to be.  The search for the “god” particle (Higgs Boson) is underway at this time.
• NASA Kepler Telescope—A remarkable engineering feat!  Kepler is discovering worlds we only imagined a few years ago. 
• NANO technology—NANO technology promises to improve noninvesative medical procedures and provide doctors with information on a micro level.  Other uses are just as exciting and long lasting.
• Advances in laser technology and fiber optics—Improvements in band width and baud rate will result from these efforts.  Who knows, if the FED gets out of the picture maybe there will come a day in which there will be no dropped calls.
• Rapid prototyping—This emerging technology can provide manufacturers and design engineers with prototypes within hours.  The various processes can be hastened to launch better products much faster than ever before. 
• Access to clean water—We sometimes think that oil and petroleum products drive our societies. Not true—it’s clean water.  This is the resource we absolutely cannot do without.  Efforts are now underway to better utilize and manage this non-renewable resource.
• Secure cyberspace—The day will come when true security is possible and we will no longer fear the “hacker”.  At that time, we will only have the CIA, FBI and IRS to worry about.
• Advancements in semiconductors—These advancements will lead to the development of products on a micro scale and foster continued development of NANO technology.  We will be able to do more with less.

I think you can see the great optimism relative to the second list.  Please notice the contrast.  This is one reason that some of us, although dimensioning in number, choose to be engineers and not politicians.

We hear these words and fear these words at the same time—SUSTAINABLE DESIGN.  From the standpoint of manufacturing, sustainable design conjures up visions of added expenses, the inability to compete relative to others in the same or similar industry, longer design times, delays in launching the product, greater product costs, etc.  We also seem to feel that any product that addresses sustainable design methods will appeal to a much smaller segment of our society; i.e. “tree huggers”.   In today’s marketplace, this perspective is proving to be incorrect and outdated at best.  Today, environmentally friendly sustainable designs can substantially increase revenues, significantly lower overall costs and most importantly become the catalyst for innovation and business growth.  Those manufacturers able to respond to increasing consumer demand for “green” products, will find themselves a part of the “wave” that optimizes energy, optimizes material usage, fosters better recycling efforts and produces increased revenues through expansion and organic growth.

QUESTION:  When does a company start the process of incorporating sustainable design into their methodology?  ANSWER:  Product development is the natural place to implement sustainable design because it represents your business at its most embryonic point.   Virtually every issue relative to sustainability emanates from the product design effort.  Overall design, how the product is made, the materials used, possible life cycle, the ability to recycle, how the packaging is designed and what materials are used, how it is ultimately shipped to the distributor, environmental impact, etc:  all follow the engineering and design phases of the product’s life.  Thus, the most logical place to start is the initial product design.  Most complex products follow the schedule given as follows:

• Initial Scope Study
• Design Guidance
• Design Confirmation
• Pre-Pilot Production
• Pilot Production
• Production

During these phases of design, development and testing, the following may be calculated or measured:

• Calculation of carbon footprint
• Total energy consumed by the product
• Total energy required during the manufacture of the product
• Air acidification ( if any )
• Water eutrophication

The greatest challenge resides in implementing a strategy for sustainability; the associated benefits, the long-term payback, supply chain management, etc.  An approach recommended by SKM ( Sinclair Knight Merz ) is as follows:

• Be ingenious—work smarter—innovate
• Expand your spheres of influence
• Breakdown conventional approaches in favor of newer methods of approach
• Seek improvement at the conceptual stage of development
• Take a whole systems approach to design, packaging, shipping
• Strive for engineering excellence

Engineers and scientists have the unique ability to perform tasks necessary to produce and manufacture products that represent the very best relative to sustainability design.  We have the tools now to do so.  I would recommend all design engineers and engineering managers discuss sustainability with corporate management to realize benefits that could propel their company into much better positions relative to the buying public.  The rewards are beginning to become evident.

RESOURCES FOR THIS BLOG ARE AS FOLLOWS:

• NASA Tech Briefs, Vol 35, Number 10
• SKM ( Sinclair Knight Merz ), www.skm.com
• Machine Design Magazine
• Point Carbon

I think we all have an educational “half-life”.  Many, if not most, of the things we learn in college become obsolete within ten or fifteen years after graduation.   As you well know, the pace of technology is remarkably fast and continuous learning is the only means by which an engineer, scientist, medical practioner etc. remain relevant in his or her profession.  I look at all of the marvelous technology nonexistent two or three decades ago and wonder where we will be in twenty years.

Three weeks ago, I had the pleasure of attending a two day seminar conducted by Point Carbon, a division of Thomson Reuters.  Thomson Reuters Point Carbon is a world-leading provider of independent news, analysis and consulting services for global power, gas and carbon markets.  Energy and environmental markets are the focus of the Point Carbon business.  Thomson Reuters has a much much broader reach.  They have offices in Oslo (corporate headquarters), Washington D.C., London, Tokyo, Beijing, Kiev, Hamburg, Zurich and Malmo.  In other words, they are very well-connected and have a client base that literally spans the globe.  The individuals conducting the presentation were remarkably knowledgeable and demonstrated a depth of understanding that results only from “doing time” in the field.  “Green technology”, carbon credits, cap and trade, the Kyoto Protocol, Western Climate Initiative, carbon offsets, carbon footprint, etc are “new kids on the block” for me.  We all have read about various energy saving initiatives supported by governments and the private sector but this seminar provided new insights and a great in-depth look at where our country might be going relative to the technology that drives that sector of the economy.

There is the strong feeling that human activity drives greenhouse emissions.  Carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane ( CH4) are two primary constituents relative to GHGs.  The following areas account for the overwhelming percentage of GHGs on a global basis:

• Transportation                  13%
• Electricity & Heat             24.6%
• Other fuel combustion   9.0%
• Fugitive emissions          3.4%

(Pollutants released into the atmosphere from leaks in equipment, pipe lines, seals, valves, etc.)

• Industry                           10.4%
• Industrial processes     3.4%
• Land use changes         18.2%
• Agriculture                     13.5%

We were also introduced to the “Kyoto Six”.  These pollutants are as follows:

• Carbon dioxide
• Methane
• Nitrous  oxide
• Hydrofluorocarbons
• Perfluorocarbons
• Sulfur hexafluoride

These six components comprise the “hit list” for reduction in greenhouse emissions.

 Entities emitting GHGs must purchase carbon allowances to cover their emission under a cap-and-trade program.  This promotes trading of carbon credits and treats them as one would a commodity.  The value of one carbon allowance varies depending upon supply and demand considerations.   Price drivers such as weather, temperature and precipitation affect short-term demand while long-term demand is affected by:

• Economic growth
• Relative fuel and carbon price
• Energy efficiency measures
• Electric vehicles
• Renewable governmental policies
• Nuclear policies
• Long-run marginal costs

OK, all well and good, but how does this technology affect products designed by engineers?  Standards and performance are mandated by the buying public.  Competition is based upon providing a better “mousetrap” and giving the customer MORE than what they expect—including an efficient product.  Already minimum energy standards exist for some appliances and with this being the case, engineers must be aware of energy consumption whenever designs are contemplated.  Where cap-and-trade programs are being created—like California—business consumers will need to know the emissions impact of products they are buying.    Engineers must be mindful of their consumers:  factoring in the cost of carbon will affect the purchasing choices of covered emitters.    This is something engineers should be aware of, particularly in the industry/power generation space.

 I feel it would be wise for every practicing engineer to gain knowledge about methods to reduce energy consumption and mitigate excessive greenhouse gas emissions.  It is also wise to understand the procedures needed to purchase and sell carbon allowances as well as any local, state or federal requirements for doing so.   Better to be ahead of the curve as opposed to behind it.

This blog uses the following references: 1.) Manufacturing Engineering, “Masters of Manufacturing—Dr. Carl R. Deckard”, July 2011 and 2.) Rapid Prototyping—PDHonline by Bob Jackson.

Sir Isaac Newton once said “if we accomplish at all we do so by standing on the shoulders of giants”.   Engineering technology and scientific endeavor have always been dependent upon those discoveries preceding “great enterprise”.   My generation laughingly calls this kicking the can down the road.  There are many marvelous technologies that had to wait until other discoveries were made.  The i-PAD would be impossible without transistors; RFID (radio frequency identification) could never have been commercialized had “chip” technology not been available and rapid prototyping, specifically, selective laser sintering, would be just a great idea without computer aided design and parametric modeling.   Selective laser sintering (SLS) is an “additative” technology in which highly complex parts can be manufactured and prototyped from materials such as metal, plastic, ceramic, and sand. The material, in powdered form, is deposited on a platform, then a carbon dioxide (CO₂) laser is used to selectively melt or sinter the powder into the desired shape for each layer. The layers are lowered on a platform, with loose powder around the growing structure acting as a support for the top powder layer. Computer programs slice the CAD three-dimensional model into layers approximately 0.001 inch in thickness to achieve the profile required by the design.  As mentioned, the platform is lowered by the height of the next layer and powder is reapplied. This process continues until the part is complete.   The strength and porosity of the material can be controlled by adjusting various process parameters, such as laser scanning speed and power. Products have ranged from turbine rotors to medical inserts.

Developed by Carl Deckard for his master’s thesis at the University of Texas, selective laser sintering was patented in 1989.    Dr. Deckard is one of those “giants” I would like to bring to your attention with this document.   Dr. Deckard, as much as any individual, was destined to be the developer of an innovative and transformative technology.  His statement—“as far back as I can remember, I wanted to be a scientist”, pretty much says it all.  That changed when Deckard’s father took him to the Henry Ford museum.  He was eight years old at the time.  “I decided that I wanted to be an inventor from that time on”. Not an easy task since you are looking for things that really do not exist.  During his grammar school years, he actively studied the lives of the great inventors and became very familiar with the patent process while working on a number of inventions himself.  Upon leaving high school, he decided he wanted to be a mechanical engineer.  He felt that profession was the closest thing to majoring in invention.   The timing could not have been better.  In the 1980s, computers and 3-D CAD were about to change the way parts and associated tooling were made.  “The hype in the early days of 3-D CAD was that you could go from a computer model to a CNC program in an automatic way.”  That really did not happen until some years later, but that was all the “buzz”.  Still, even using 3-D CAD, you had to go from the drawing to a casting or a forging or a CNC mill or lathe.  The process of going right from the parametric model to a completed prototype was not possible at the time.  This is where the genius of Deckard became apparent.  The very first thing he realized was that the process, to be successful, had to be addititive.  “With a subtractive process, there are too many geometric constraints and if you machine one area it affects another area”.  You have to have tool access for a subtractive process to be viable.  From this thought, he decided the process had to be an incremental addititive process in a regular sequence.   He experimented with sugar and salt and finally decided that using a two-powder approach would be very difficult and not yield the results he was after.  Those results were quality and attention to detail.   That is when he decided to lay down one power and hit it with a directed energy beam and that beam would be controlled by a computer.   He recalls that this was something that really could work and was worth putting effort into.    By the time he was accepted into graduate school, he realized that this could be a great graduate research project.  Vision and future came together at this point and he approached Dr. Joe Beaman, a University of Texas professor.  His “pitch”—to build three-dimensional objects from a computer model using layers of powder and melting those powders together with a directed energy beam.  The Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Texas had just moved into a new building and there was money for equipment and tooling.  Deckard was told to “spec-out” the equipment he would need for the project.  This equipment included a 2-D laser scanning 30 frames per second.  As it turned out, he had made a fairly serious error in his calculations and re-speced the laser to a 100 watt YAG with galvanometer tracking.   He used, believe it or not, a Commodore 64 as his computer.  64K!  His program was hand-assembled and a whopping 153 bytes long.  The original setup proved the concept.  The first models were very crude but persistence yielded approval from the school to go forth and apply for a US patent.   During the early phases of his work he decided to commercialize the device but could not interest any large companies to finance the risk.   At this time, he began looking for partners to establish a start-up business and eventually was able to team up with B.F. Goodrich. The initial expenditure was $300,000.   This joint-venture yielded the very first commercialized laser sintering process and produced the SLS 125.   Since that time, there have been many developments and many iterations relative to the initial concept—all producing marvelous results and cutting the time to prototype from days, possibly weeks, to hours.  Even the most complicated model rarely takes over 72 hours to make.     

Let me now ask, do you know the following names—Justin Bieber, Kim Kardashain, LL Cool J, Beyonce?  You know these folks.  Granted, maybe great performers but, how much have they really contributed to society? Just how much?   OK, so why have you never heard, until now, of Dr. Carl R. Deckard or many of the other engineers, mathematicians, scientists, etc. who labor quietly following their passion.   We can change this and you are– right now.

Hope you have a great week—-Bob Jackson

I recently read an article by a “young” lady named Regina Brett.  This lady is 90 years old and has a perspective that just might be of some real use to folks heading her way.  The article was published in The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, Ohio.  I won’t list all of the points, even though all are very poignant for our year and time but here are a few that struck me.   Take a look.

• Life is not fair—but it’s still very good
• Life is much too short to waste time hating anyone
• Your job won’t take care of you when you are sick. Your friends and parents will.  Stay in touch.
• Pay off your credit cards every month.
• It’s OK to get angry with God.  He can handle it.
• Save for retirement starting with your first paycheck.
• When it comes to chocolate—resistance is futile.
• Make peace with your past so it won’t screw up the present.
• Don’t compare your life with others.  You have no idea what their journey is all about.
• If a relationship has to be secret, you should not be in it.
• Get rid of anything that is not useful, beautiful or joyful.
• Whatever does not kill you will really make you stronger.
• It is never too late to have a happy childhood but the second one is up to you.
• When it comes to going after what you love in life, never take no for an answer.
• Burn the candles, use the nice sheets, wear the fancy clothes.   Don’t save it for a special occasion.  Today is special.
• Over prepare.
• Don’t wait for old age to wear purple.
• No one is in charge of your happiness but you.
• Forgive everyone everything.
• Don’t audit life—show up and make the most of it.
• Get outside every day.  Miracles are waiting everywhere.
• Envy is a waste of time.
• No matter how you feel, get up, dress up, show up.
•  Life is not tied with a bow, but it is still a gift.

Hope you like these.  Thanks Ms. Brett.

Each year the Princeton Review publishes a document that “rates” colleges and universities relative to the following criteria:

• Academics/Administration

1. Best classroom experience
2. Students Study the Most
3. Students Study the Least
4. Best Professors
5. Worst Professors
6. Class Discussions Encouraged
7. Best Career Services
8. Best College Library
9. Best Health Services
10. Great Financial Aid
11. Long Lines/Red Tape

• Quality of Life

1. 1.       Happiest Students/Least Happy Students
2. Most Beautiful Campus
3. Least Beautiful Campus
4. Best Campus Food
5. Dorms Like Palaces
6. Best Quality of Life

• Politics
• Demographics
• Social Life
• Extracurriculars
• Parties
• Schools by Type; i.e. party schools, jock schools, future Rotarians and Daughters of the American Revolution, tree huggers, etc etc ( you get the picture )

I have not broken out specifics after Quality of Life but each category can be “unpacked” to reveal how 122,000 students felt about their school relative to the classifications given above.  The Best 376 Colleges was published in August of 2011.  On the 80-question survey, students were asked to rate their own schools.  Each of the sixty-two (62) lists reports the top twenty (20) schools in a specific category.  It appears (again) that engineering students are NOT very happy.  As a matter of fact, engineering schools seem to dominate the unhappiness list and have done so since 2008.  At least five of the ten unhappiness schools were considered “schools of engineering”.  Let’s take a look at the survey:

LEAST HAPPY STUDENTS:

• Unites States Merchant Marine Academy
• New Jersey Institute of Technology
• United States Coast Guard Academy
• Stony Brook University
• Clarkson University
• University of Hawaii-Manoa
• St. John’s University
• Illinois Institute of Technology
• Fisk University
• Hofstra University
• Drexel University
• University of California-Riverside
• SUNY at Albany
• George Mason University
• SUNY College at Purchase
• Hampton University
• Stevens Institute of Technology
• Case Western Reserve University
• Rutgers
• United States Air Force Academy

HAPPIEST STUDENTS:

• Brown University
• Princeton University
• Whitman College
• Clemson University
• Stanford University
• The College of New Jersey
• Tufts University
• The University of Tulsa
• Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering
• Yale University
• St. Mary’s College of Maryland
• University of N.C.—Chapel Hill
• Amherst College
• California Polytechnic State University—San Luis Obispo
• Haverford College
• Brigham Young University
• Claremont McKenna College
• William Jewell College
• Southern Methodist University

I know that when I attended The University of Tennessee School of Engineering, we did not automatically feel we were there to “get happy”.   In my case, it was a tough slog to the end and I never felt I had time to adequately complete those assignments that just might land me that great job “on the outside” and propel me to the notoriety I just knew I deserved.  “Back in the day”, we all had classes MWF AND TThSat.  Can you believe Saturday classes?  You bet!  The College of Engineering at UT had classes beginning at 0800 hrs and running till noon—ON SATURDAY.   After the last class, we would leave our books and head to the stadium for the football game at 1400 hrs.  Please note: this was the most enjoyable part of our week because after the game, a quick meal, pick up the books and then hit the books.  Yes we studied on Saturday evening and Sunday.  Invariably, there was a lab due first thing Monday morning and, as we all know, that’s what the weekend was for.  We never really felt the “happiness quotient” factored into our overall purpose for being at the university.   We all have endured the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” i.e. running out of gas 10 minutes before the final in fluid mechanics, trying to “nail” a lab while working through a temperature of 102, knowing we had a pile of dirty clothes to be washed and dried (after studying till midnight) and the all-night laundromat was always “take-a-number”, etc.  I had a roommate who snored so loudly that four hours of sleep was a god-send. ( He failed out after the first year so there is answer to prayer!)  Added to the list; we all have  had teachers who worked diligently to see how many students could be convinced engineering was not for them; i.e. Dr. W.K. Stare, Dr. C.R. ( cold-rolled) Brooks, etc.  I had one professor ( Infinite Series Mathematics) who actually could not speak English—could not speak English.  One of my classmates spoke Cantonese and tried to get clarification on subject matter for future lessons.     The professor went ballistic.  Was insulted.  Walked out of class.  I really don’t know if he came back because I dropped the class, that day, and took the course in summer school.  Better odds of completion and a (somewhat ) better chance of getting a decent grade. 

 I will tell you what I did get from my university experience, OPPORTUNITY !  An opportunity to:

• work within the best profession on the planet—-engineering
•  support my lovely wife (46 years this July)
•  provide for our three sons ( private schools all the way because public schools in Chattanooga, Tennessee SUCK!—Another story for another day.)
•  work in the Aerospace Industry. ( Met all of the original 7—except Scott Carpenter, and  I’ve really never forgiven him for that! )
• be a small part of a dynamic, fascinating, forward-thinking industry fostering innovation and improving the lives of people and lessening their “domestic” work-load

I am really HAPPY about all of these things and more.

NOTE:  The sources for this blog came from the following publications:

1.)       The Princeton Review, August 12, 2011

2.)      Design News—Engineering Schools Dominate Unhappiness List by  Mr. Charles Murry