If you belong to an organization which pays for your professional memberships, consider yourself lucky, but not all of us are so graciously fated. And there are a lot of professional groups out there, more than 1 for every profession, including:

• AIAA
• IEEE
• SWE
• ASME
• ACEC

A few years ago, when I was still a Rocket Student, I was the chair of the AIAA student branch. After graduating and starting work with my current employer, I was sent to a conference which included professional membership dues. This year I didn’t get sent to that conference, and so my membership renewal wasn’t paid by my company.

All of which brings me around to my current dilemma: Now that dues are coming out of my own pocket, what real benefit has my membership given me?

Sure, I get the magazine which I read on my lunch break; sure I make it most months to the local chapters meetings, but is it really worth my money?

One could easily argue that there is a sense of camaraderie involved with being a part of such groups. Another good reason is that it helps you keep up on current on events and trends in the industry.

As I lick the envelope containing my credit card information, I reflect on my own reason for continuing on with my professional organization: I’m still a new engineer, the education I got in school really only opened the door into the engineering world. There are still a lot of people, places, companies, technologies, and ideas that I haven’t seen or heard of yet. New or veteran, this industry moves too quickly for me, or anyone else, to risk falling behind. If I want to stay relevant, I’m going to need the knowledge and contacts these groups provide.

Here’s to one more year of magazines, conference invites, and not feeling guilty while staring at a letter on my desk.

Are you in a professional organization or still on the fence about joining? Which one? What have the benefits been? Drop a quick comment below and let’s discuss.

We may be several months behind on this, but back in April Science-Bookmarks did a really good post on the World’s Most Expensive Engineering Projects.

A link we’d like to dedicate to our friend, Craig the Rocket Scientist, we found this post on bitrebels.com today, and we’ve been itching to get home and try it ourselves ever since. Check out: How to Make a Paper Jet Engine.

And for our friends in the Chemistry Department, Philly.com has a feature on a new class being taught at West Chester University: The Chemistry of Beer.

And finally for this week, we bring you The Ultimate Productivity Blog, a great blog that your bosses will actually encourage you to visit.

Late last century, when I worked for another software development company, we tested our product in no less than 12 different ‘flavors’ of operating systems including UNIX, Windows, local area network systems, and Web browsers. Legacy support cripples product development and the thrill of releasing radical new functionality is laced with paralyzing fear of destabilizing the software.

A similar scenario is brewing today with Web browsers. Knovel is in a much better position because we develop Web-based software. But there, the picnic ends. Our software engineers generally use the latest browser versions, and our engineers typically prefer Firefox to Internet Explorer.  (Not a judgment, just my own informal survey and personal preferences.)  Our users, on the other hand, use browsers dating back to Netscape Communicator, and a majority of our users are still on IE6.  With the advent of IE 8, we are now mandated to test and support a minimum of 6 different browser versions:  IE6, IE7, IE8, FF2, FF3, FF3.5. And not surprisingly, our defect list tracks more IE6 items than any other browser version.

The engineers say, “Why can’t they just upgrade?  and “These older browsers are far less functional.”

Tom Dahm, writing for NetMechanic, sums it up nicely: “The major difference between two versions of the same browser is their support for newer portions of the HTML language. A new browser is generally better at displaying Web pages than an old one.”

As keeper of the Knovel Product, I grapple constantly with the question of browser version support. We’re aiming high in the product functionality realm and, increasingly, the older browsers are simply not up to the task.

So, what’s the answer? I am painfully aware that most of our users are constrained by strict IT policies that govern what browser(s) are used in their organizations, and how and when upgrades are managed. I am not optimistic that this will change, nor am I under the illusion that Knovel has the clout to force a corporate browser upgrade. What I do suggest is that Knovel will soon add messaging to our product advising users that Knovel is optimized for use with certain browsers [for starters, IE7 and above, and FF 3 and above], and hope to influence customers who use older browsers to consider the benefits of upgrading.

But what do you think? Either from a developer or a user standpoint, what browser related frustrations have you encountered?

I’m pleased to act as liaison for the Board, and to work with such an exceptional group of engineers. They act as a sounding board for our ideas and keep us informed of engineering research “hot spots.” In the past six months we’ve added new content areas such as project management and signed licensing deals with leading societies such as AASHTO and ASHRAE based on their recommendations.

Of course, we’ll continue to follow up on our customer requests. We value customer feedback. But we want to be proactive. We want to publish content before it’s needed. The Editorial Advisory Board is yet another way for Knovel to keep our collective ear to the ground. Rather than ask customers, “what do you want on the website?” we’re working with industry experts to ensure that the content needed to do an engineering job is there before you have to ask.

I want to take this opportunity to welcome the Editorial Advisory Board members to the Knovel team. We’re excited you’re here.

To read the press release, click here.

The Curious Cat Engineering Blog checked in last week to deliver info on the brand new 3D Printer from Stratasys Inc. The printer actually creates 3D models to save time for Engineers (a quest near and dear to the hearts of those of us at K Exchange and Knovel)

If you don’t have $15,000 around to buy a 3D Printer, you might want to try checking out Lehigh University’s “Engineering Day 2009 Competition” I have to admit I’m a sucker for these kinds of competitions, takes me back to the days of building giant Lego buildings.

WebUrbanist has a very cool feature this week, 7 More Amazing Engineering Wonders of Today and Tomorrow detailing projects like the Large Hadron Collider and the Dubai World Islands. This is just the latest in their 7 Wonders Entries, a series that is more than worth your time to check out.

Finally, MSNBC looks at scientists answering a question that has long plagued mankind.We know that yawning is contagious is human beings… but what about chimps?

The Augustine Report.

Depending on if you are outside of the aerospace field, you may or may not have heard about this. Basically, President Obama sent the Augustine Commission to evaluate possible directions to take NASA. For several months the commission dug into briefings, listened to pitches from companies and audited NASA and its contractors. Now, finally, the commission has a report to present.

So what does it say? Is it the nail in the troubled Constellation Program’s coffin? Is it the blue print to humanity’s future in space? You can read the report summary here.

Well… What Does it Say?

The report starts off by detailing NASA’s current projects and the different launching options available (Ares, EELV, Shuttle Derived). It then breaks down the different destinations and the advantages of going to each one and in which order. Finally, the report puts together a list of optional paths to take dependent upon money available, launch vehicle, and destination.

The report mostly gave findings and very few opinions. What opinions they did give were:

• Maintain the ISS until at least 2020 (currently only funded through 2015)
• NASA’s given goals do not match its given funding
• We benefit from international partners
• The shuttle will need additional funding to fulfill its current manifest
• Mars should only be explored after closer, easier destinations

The report actually turned out to be much more balanced and unbiased than most had believed it would be. At no point does it advocate one vehicle over another, and it is careful to list the positive and negative attributes of each option.

What Does it All Mean?

Basically? We are more or less back to where we started: each company arguing its space vehicle is better, more reliable, cheaper, and faster to develop than the others.

I suppose that’s my one real problem with this report. It really offers no guidance, has no vision and doesn’t push anything in any direction. The aerospace industry is no better off now than when the commission started.

Most of the large aerospace companies were hoping for a boost from this report, but at the same time feared this report could kill them. But let’s be perfectly honest: Each system will work. Each system will get the job done. No matter who develops the next generation of American launch vehicles, all the major companies will get a piece of the pie, it’s just a question how big each piece is.

My hope is that this report will force lawmakers to come to a final decision on what direction NASA should take, and then allow NASA the time and resources needed to accomplish its goals. Regardless of what direction is taken, we as a country need to make a decision and stick with it, otherwise all these reports and commissions are simply wasting time.

*Speaking of that Ares Rocket test… how cool is this?

ENR has an interesting feature this week on cement. After 2000 years of use by our friends in the civil engineering and transportation engineering departments, the chemistry dept finally decoded cement’s basic molecular structure.

Another nod to ENR who checked in last week with a good feature on the stimulus and job creation, asking  Do You Owe Your Job to the Stimulus?.

On a much more positive note, how would you like NASA to give you $1 Million? All you need to do is build a rocket ship.

And finally, we at K Exchange are never above a bit of self promotion. Today is the debut of Knovel’s University Challenge, so if you’re a college student who uses Knovel, click here to play (and win!)

How would you like to win a Kindle? What about a Wii? An iPod Nano? Maybe some Gift Cards?

By nature, engineers are problem solvers and make technical decisions every day. Knovel’s University Challenge allows you to get hands on experience finding and using tools and information essential to your studies, work, and future projects. All while competing to win great prizes.

Enter at http://info.knovel.com/challenge today!

“If you’re not a PE, you are not an engineer.”

I had to choke back an immediate scathing reply, and proceeded to spend the next week fuming over his words. What about my degree? What about the last 2 and a half years working as an engineer? How dare he call me not an engineer!?

I can tell you the exact moment when I stopped fuming and started thinking: I was getting frustrated with a coworker and was raging in my mind that he was simply grandfathered into the engineering position since he spent most of his life out on the production floor of the company. Who is he to call himself an engineer?

The realization of what I’d been thinking floored me: What about his 20+ years of experience? What about his knowledge of how the system works? What about all the time he spent doing engineering work before I was even in high school? How dare I call him not an engineer!?

To PE or not to PE

Engineering is a profession, and just like other professions, like doctors or lawyers, engineering must have some sort of legal status and entry criteria. (Otherwise my 6 year old nephew could be considered an engineer when he is playing with his blocks)

So what is that criteria? It varies from state to state, but generally to become a PE one must:

• Graduate with a degree from a four-year university in engineering.
• Complete a standard Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam
• Accumulate a certain amount of engineering experience typically under the supervision of a P.E.
• Complete the Principles and Practice in Engineering exam (PE)

As a PE one may sign and seal official legal documents. As a PE you’re also considered legally responsible.

Some people actually prefer not to gain PE status because of the liability they take on  (I.e. someone can sue the company AND sue you as well!). Others simply have no desire to spend their careers stamping plans and checking others work, something not uncommon in large companies where only a few PEs exist.

A Rose by Any Other Name…

So what does it mean if you’re not a PE but still working as an engineer for your company? There is a term for those with a degree in engineering called a “Graduate Engineer.” If you’re working in an engineering position without a degree or PE certification you can be called an “Operating Engineer.” However you’re an engineer only as long as the company calls your position an engineer.

So was my professor right? Technically, with my degree I’m an engineer, but then again so is the guy sitting next to me with no engineering degree. So who is right here? What is an engineer?

• A PE?
• Someone with an engineering degree?
• Anyone with an engineer title?

Or is being an engineer more than that? Is it a state of mind? Part of someone’s personality?

It can be a pretty hot debate, so I welcome the comments!