J_MEC - Engineer Boards
Jump to content
Engineer Boards


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About J_MEC

  • Rank
    Project Manager

Previous Fields

  • Engineering Field
    Mechanical Engineering
  • License
  • Calculator
  • Discipline

Recent Profile Visitors

1,164 profile views
  1. Hopefully somebody here is an experienced user with PTC Creo 2.0 because this is driving me insane and I have lost so much work because of it. What config.pro setting do I need to change so that PTC Creo 2.0 will prompt me to save the file if it has been modified since my last save before closing the window? I have tried turning prompt_on_exit to yes and prompt_on_erase_not_disp but that is not what I am looking for. Hopefully the attachment below clears things up on what I am trying to accomplish.
  2. I got licensed in NC last year. It takes awhile. My experience was about 3 months, but that was using a paper application. Don't be afraid to call and ask for an update. If there is an issue with your application, they won't tell you unless you call and ask. Some of my references filled out the forms improperly and I would have never known there was an issue if I didn't call. Even with an NCEES record, I would still call and double check that they aren't waiting for something.
  3. J_MEC

    Deceptive Exam

    I can't say I agree with this. I work for a company where I don't even have a drawing checker, let alone somebody else checking my analysis/calculations. We do physical testing to validate the design/calcs so if I fudge something up and it fails during the test it won't make it to the field, but the resulting meetings and scramble to find a fix to meet a project schedule which had zero slack time can feel a lot like and be just as stressful as taking the PE exam with a time gun pointed to my head.
  4. I went the self study route. I took Machine Design in April 2017 and passed on the first attempt. I did over 700 practice problems from the MERM, practice exams, six minute solutions, and a few random problems in Shigley's for good measure leading up to the test. For me, practice problems are the key. It was a waste of time for me to read the MERM or textbooks. I found that I just needed to grind away on problems. Another tip is that the FE reference handbook is available for free and has lots of handy equations for those pesky statics/dynamics/solids questions. I actually did use the FE reference handbook during the PE exam because the equations are just easier/quicker to find than the MERM. If they are available, MIT OCW lecture videos aren't a bad way to get some free lectures on subjects you need improvement in. There is no shame in paying for a review class either.
  5. I found this article very interesting and wanted to share it with this community. http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1071&context=lusol_fac_pubs TLDR see quote below
  6. NCEES only created the software PE exam in April 2013, and in April 2017 there were 15 test takers and 5 of them were repeat takers. I would have to imagine with so few software PEs out there that if you explain to a state board your scenario. They will hopefully be reasonable and understand that there are probably less than 500 software PEs in the country right now and it is difficult to get experience working under one. I mean after all, how did the first ever PE get his license if he had no PEs to work under?
  7. Have you looked at SouthCo hinges? They make a lot of different style hinges. I have one of their catalogs and have used some of their latches on previous designs I have worked on. They make a lot of neat stuff. https://www.southco.com/en-us/product/hierarchy.html?hid=7347 Check out their website, there may be something off the shelf that fits your application.
  8. Have you thought about using a commercially available gearbox from some place like McMaster or Boston Gear instead of desiging your own?
  9. I still do not have my license. I have been in contact with the people at the board. I have had multiple issues with my paperwork either being lost (in the mail or at the board office, I will never know for sure) and my references not filling out the paperwork properly. They have contacted me by email each time explaining the issue, but it can take 3-4 weeks for me to hear a response. One of my references was the 3rd PE and after I asked him to send in a reference form a 3rd time (first it was lost, second he didnt sign it, only put his seal on it) he got upset with me/the process and made a big deal/gave me grief about sending a form off a third time so I had to find a new reference. I ended up having a tough time finding a third PE since I work in manufacturing/product development and only knew 3 PEs since it isn't very common in my industry. After much searching/networking I found an Alumni who recently got licensed and he mailed his reference form off about a week and a half ago, so I am playing the waiting game again. It is especially frustrating since finding references and how my references fill out the forms is not something completely within my control. I am going on roughly 12 weeks since I mailed in my original application after I found out I passed and am starting to run out of patience.
  10. The 2pi factor in the equation in the solution is to convert revolutions to radians. P_lat is given to you as 750 lbf. You do not need to know the journal length to solve this problem. Equation 54-33 has P as power, not as pressure.
  11. Still waiting over here. Have you tried contacting them?
  12. I think you might be getting a little hung up on the wording in the explanation. I will try to give a different perspective. The unconstrained thermal expansion of the members is greater than the unconstrained thermal expansion of the bolt because one of the members is aluminum and has a higher coefficient of thermal expansion than the steel bolt. This causes a force on the bolt since the members get bigger than the bolt and they are clamped together by the bolt. Since the members are clamped the bolt has to stretch more than it's own thermal expansion. I drew out a simple diagram for you of the unconstrained thermal expansion of the bolt and each member (see attached). The difference between the thermal expansion of the bolt and the thermal expansion of the members is the change in length of the bolt that causes a thermal strain. That thermal strain can be used to calculate the force in the bolt. If both members had been steel, all the members and the bolt would have the same coefficient of thermal expansion and there would be no thermal strain. If the bolt had been aluminum instead of steel, it would have expanded more than the members and there would also be no thermal strain. Hopefully I am making sense, but I don't think there is anything wrong numerically. How they got there and explanation may be a little confusing, but in my opinion the end result is correct.
  13. They cashed my check. I have been having issues with my reference's forms getting lost and filled out incorrectly. I really hope I got it all sorted out this week.
  • Create New...