|
|||||
New Zealand Engineering 1997 April Letters To The Editor Letters To The Editor Can Be Sent To: Safe and fuel efficient cars There is no doubt that safety should be a high priority demand from consumers purchasing a car ("How safe is your car?", NZ Engineering , February 1997). But as the article suggests, larger size is not necessarily a guarantee of enhanced safety. Small, light cars can be produced using smart engineering and modern materials which are at least as safe as their heavy counterparts and, because of their lower weight, are also more fuel efficient. People need to demand not only safe but also fuel efficient vehicles from the market, by asking manufacturers if the vehicle has been tested for safety and what the fuel consumption figures are. Elizabeth Yeaman, Wellington Einstein's formula revised - 1 April 1997 Einstein's famous formula E = mc2 is universally known, globally accepted, and has been a cornerstone of nuclear physics for many decades. This in spite of the fact that the mathematical and scientific derivation of the formula is so highly complex that very few mathematicians or scientists (and probably no engineers at all) are able to understand it. The writer has been engaged for many years upon a re-examination of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, and is now at liberty to reveal that the deceptively simple equation is indeed in serious error. A paper giving a complete and detailed proof of this revolutionary statement is under preparation and will, if ready in time, be offered for presentation at the next Annual Conference of the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand, provided of course that no prior invitation is received from the Royal Society, who have expressed considerable interest. Nevertheless the writer feels duty bound to ensure that his fellow Members of IPENZ are among the first in the world to be made aware of this outstanding discovery, and that is the purpose of this letter. Subject to the concurrence of Council, a similar statement will be sent to Scientific American, and possibly also to Astounding Magazine, for simultaneous publication. Because of the extent and complexity of the calculations involved it is only possible, at this stage, to give a very brief outline of the basic argument, couched somewhat in lay terms. The writer offers his apologies for this; no insult to the intelligence of IPENZ members is intended. What happens when a body of mass m is converted into pure energy? It is shown mathematically, in the writer's paper, that conversion of mass into energy is exactly equivalent to instantaneous acceleration of that mass to the speed of light. The energy of the body is, at that instant in time, at once kinetic and atomic. Kinetic energy is given by the well-known formula E = 1/2 mv2, where v is the velocity. Clearly, when v is equal to c, the speed of light, this expression becomes E = 1/2 mc2. Einstein was in error by a factor of two. It is of more than passing interest to note that correcting Einstein's formula in this way will secure its compatibility with the well-known and proven formulae for stored energy in forms other than nuclear. Examples include: Kinetic energy of a moving body = 1/2 mv2 Kinetic energy of a rotating mass = 1/2 Iw2 Electrical energy in a capacitor = 1/2 CV2 Electrical energy in an inductor = 1/2 LI2 Note that there is a 1/2 factor in all of these expressions, despite the several derivations being from totally dissimilar arguments. Is not Mother Nature trying to tell us something? The impact of the writer's findings is certain to be far-reaching. The question of whether or not atomic bombs (test and otherwise) deliver the exact amount of explosive energy that is calculated, and how much fissile material is converted to energy, may never be answered. Explosive force can be measured in terms of kilotonnes of TNT, but it is unlikely that anyone will ever be able to gather up all the products of an atomic explosion, weigh them, and subtract the total from the original mass of the fissile material. The writer has requested information from the Heads of State of the principal countries known to maintain nuclear arsenals but, to date, has received no replies. Their silence is considered to be highly significant. In the slightly less socially unacceptable nuclear power generation field, however, considerable interest in the revised theory has been expressed by the UK Atomic Energy Authority, who have promised to run some tests and get back to the writer, probably this time next year. Their comments, if received in time, will undoubtedly have a place in the forthcoming paper. Stuart Bridgman, Wellington New ipeNZ logo I cringed when the new IPENZ logo was unveiled at the recent conference. I think it looks messy and disjointed. I certainly will not be adding it to my business cards, letterheads etc. To check that I wasn't alone in this opinion I tried it on a few acquaintances. Comments included "schizophrenic" and "childish". We are all baffled as to why the N is bigger and why NZ is in upper case and the ipe in lower case. In addition I think the register mark falling partway off the blue field implies a lack of precision. I know that IPENZ has invested a lot of money in this new logo, but I think it would be worth trying again and urge the board to give it their consideration. Jim Lovell-Smith, Christchurch New corporate image As an overseas member I realise that I must be out of touch with current trends within New Zealand, however the shock with which I read the letter from the national office regarding the new corporate image has compelled me to write to this letter. I accept that I must be in the minority, as (according to the letter) the new image was well received at the 1997 Conference. I also apologise to the group of Board members who have put in the hard work on this project, they deserve our support in their service to our society and have far too little feedback on all the positive things they do for us, the members. Nevertheless I must say that the new logo is most inappropriate for a professional society such as ours. At first glance (when the most important impressions are made) it appears as a child-like scrawl (although I am most relieved, on closer inspection, to find that the "e" is not in fact written backwards). On further reflection the style seems to be more appropriate for a shop selling novelty party balloons, not for a "learned society" such as ours. The description claims that certain aspects of the logo such as the dot of the "i", the typeface, the spiral "e", the panel and the blue colour represent such things as "precision, accuracy and exactness", and even "history". Our society should be all of those things that are written about this new image. Unfortunately the logo is almost the exact opposite of what the graphic design consultant would have us believe. It is unbalanced, disorganised and faddish. It looks ridiculous opposite the traditional coat of arms on the letterhead, and will do little to inspire confidence in prospective clients or members, the majority of whom I would believe are reasonably conservative. We do need a change of image, desperately. In making this change however, we should not lose sight of what we really are - a professional society. Nick Traylen, Hong Kong (abridged - Editor) Philip Best, IPENZ marketing manager has compiled the following statistics: "Altogether six members have written critically of the logo to date, 20 have asked permission to use it and 180 have bought corporate products. Incidentally one Cabinet Minister has also expressed her approval". |
|||||
 |
|
|
|
