NECEES Mechanical PE Reference Manual Released - Mechanical - Engineer Boards
Jump to content
Engineer Boards
cvanwy02

NECEES Mechanical PE Reference Manual Released

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, cvanwy02 said:

The link doesn't work because one has to be logged in to myNCEES to download the manual.

I'm going to urge HVAC people to download and review this ASAP. It should put to rest any doubt about what ASHRAE handbooks to bring to the test. Here NCEES has copied everything they deem important. You should review the Refrigeration, HVAC, and Combustion sections and make sure you understand how to use every table and graph in those sections. They're virtually all taken straight from the ASHRAE handbooks.

Similarly for MDM. This handbook definitely helps determine which areas of Shigley's you should really emphasize in your prep.

After a quick review with an eye for the TFS Exam:

  • YIKES! no Mollier diagram anywhere in sight. Makes steam turbine problems unnecessarily long.
  • There are no Normal Shock compressible flow tables, but they do provide the equations, so people taking CBT will have to solve shockwave problems without the benefit of the table. That's not nice of them.
  • Their table of unit conversions is appallingly sparse.
  • The psychrometric charts are preposterously blurry, bordering on unreadable.

 

Edited by Slay the P.E.
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@squaretaper PE....aren't you glad we passed the PE when we did? Imagine taking this exam wihout the use of personal notes, references, books, etc. Look at the evaluation above for the guide that's offered for the TFS exam in particular. WDYT?

  • Like 4
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone still has two more tries in the pencil and paper!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SacMe24 said:

@squaretaper PE....aren't you glad we passed the PE when we did? Imagine taking this exam wihout the use of personal notes, references, books, etc. Look at the evaluation above for the guide that's offered for the TFS exam in particular. WDYT?

Yowza...If anyone has been following my posts, I think I've said on no fewer than ten occasions I couldn't have survived without the Mollier diagram. This is just yet another reason people should just get the Mollier diagram tattooed on their forearms! :rotflmao:

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SacMe24 I think this wouldn't hurt MDM folks as much, what are your thoughts?

I can say that TFS people should consider taking the paper-and-pencil exam this year if they can. I might take a crack at trying to do a practice exam with just this reference, just to see. But some of these tables are pretty hard to read. Look at the Moody diagram on page 204, that's pretty hard to use with an embedded table blocking the lines. Especially in the case of water where the Moody friction factor is 0.02 (usually, approximately) with turbulent flow (most real-life cases), kinda sucks to eyeball across that embedded table.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think this might force NCEES to water down the questions. Who really knows...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, squaretaper PE said:

@SacMe24 I think this wouldn't hurt MDM folks as much, what are your thoughts?

I can say that TFS people should consider taking the paper-and-pencil exam this year if they can. I might take a crack at trying to do a practice exam with just this reference, just to see. But some of these tables are pretty hard to read. Look at the Moody diagram on page 204, that's pretty hard to use with an embedded table blocking the lines. Especially in the case of water where the Moody friction factor is 0.02 (usually, approximately) with turbulent flow (most real-life cases), kinda sucks to eyeball across that embedded table.

I looked at the MDM section and WOW, it's basically just a collection of equations. Little to no explanations or examples like in MERM, I'm just VERY glad I took the exam when I did.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've downloaded and started going through it. I suppose I'll be one of the lab rats who get to test this out by bringing it with me to the exam in April.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm logged in to MyNCEES and the link isn't working for me, anyone know where I can download this?

Edit: Nevermind, I found it.

Edited by Abraham5G PE
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 23and1 said:

I've downloaded and started going through it. I suppose I'll be one of the lab rats who get to test this out by bringing it with me to the exam in April.

I don't want to discourage new test takers with any unnecessary fear mongering about references (or lack thereof). Regardless of whether you will take the new or old tests, if you diligently work a sufficient number of practice questions/exams and really internalize what's really going on with respect to theory, you'll see that it's really quite repetitive (speaking from a TFS standpoint, but I'm sure HVAC and MDM are probably the same, ask those weirdos :rotflmao:) and you'll pretty much memorize most forms of equations you'll ever need. I got to a point where I pretty much memorized steam table values and only looked things up as a sanity check.

Remember, you're all very smart, beautiful, and capable, AND already working engineers. You can do it!

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, squaretaper PE said:

I don't want to discourage new test takers with any unnecessary fear mongering about references (or lack thereof). Regardless of whether you will take the new or old tests, if you diligently work a sufficient number of practice questions/exams and really internalize what's really going on with respect to theory, you'll see that it's really quite repetitive (speaking from a TFS standpoint, but I'm sure HVAC and MDM are probably the same, ask those weirdos :rotflmao:) and you'll pretty much memorize most forms of equations you'll ever need. I got to a point where I pretty much memorized steam table values and only looked things up as a sanity check.

Remember, you're all very smart, beautiful, and capable, AND already working engineers. You can do it!

True that.  I haven't taken the test yet but I'm going through the Slay the PE test bundle and have already memorized most formulas and conversions needed for the PE exam... Once you truly understand the concepts, the NCEES questions are not that hard.  I started out with the 2016 NCEES practice exam and got to where I could get a 100% but never TRULY understood what was going on.  It was more like wrote memorization. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI,

 Can anyone guide me how to get? I logged into NCEES and I can't find it. 

NEVER MIND: I got it. 

Edited by Workx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2019 at 8:00 AM, 23and1 said:

I've downloaded and started going through it. I suppose I'll be one of the lab rats who get to test this out by bringing it with me to the exam in April.

Lab rats unite!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2019 at 4:10 PM, squaretaper PE said:

Yowza...If anyone has been following my posts, I think I've said on no fewer than ten occasions I couldn't have survived without the Mollier diagram. This is just yet another reason people should just get the Mollier diagram tattooed on their forearms! :rotflmao:

Yeah, no Mollier diagram which is a major bummer.

However, they did put in some really useful and important stuff such as the charge of an electron, Faraday's constant, and the conversion factor from hectares to acres. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PEinIllinois said:

Yeah, no Mollier diagram which is a major bummer.

However, they did put in some really useful and important stuff such as the charge of an electron, Faraday's constant, and the conversion factor from hectares to acres. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Dude.  You mean you don't have the conversion from hectares to acres memorized?  Fo shame! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, monty01 said:

Dude.  You mean you don't have the conversion from hectares to acres memorized?  Fo shame! 

I don't have it memorized, so I'm lucky they were smart enough to include it. 

I'm also grateful they made some room for these ever useful trig identities. I mean, these are crucial for the P.E. exam:

 104254629_ScreenShot2019-03-06at9_13_54PM.png.bc77b4d570a9dce1ae9f10606be3d607.png

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I am sorry to any long time engineers that are going to have to take the CBT. That reference is utter shit. One of the main things that saved me for my exam, was that I could bring along equation formats I was used to, which I can tell you right now were different than many of the things included in the MERM. Some of my undergraduate profs wrote their own texts and used unique terms/terminology that, even though it matched 1:1 (in most cases) with other references, would have required me to relearn what I already knew.

 

Also, it's a mere 522 pages without any explanations. On my paper/pencil exam there were questions that made you reason out answers based on formula derivations, principles and so forth. I have to assume those are going bye bye? This reference is little more than a collection of equations.

 

First they did away with subject matter that would require an engineer to be well rounded and now this. What a pile of horse hockey this test is becoming.

Edited by Audi driver, P.E.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Audi driver, P.E. said:

Well, I am sorry to any long time engineers that are going to have to take the CBT. That reference is utter shit. One of the main things that save me for my exam, was that I could bring along equation formats I was used to, which I can tell you right now were different than many of the things included in the MERM. Some of my undergraduate profs wrote their own texts and used unique term/terminology that, even though it matched 1:1 (in most cases) with other references would have required me to relearn what I already knew.

 

Also, it's a mere 522 pages without any explanations. On my paper/pencil exam there were questions that made you reason out answers based on formula derivations, principles and so forth. I have to assume those are going bye bye? This reference is little more than a collection of equations.

 

First they did away with subject matter that would require an engineer to be well rounded and now this. What a pile of horse hockey this test is becoming.

Concur with this.  The change from the "general" morning is a detriment to the exam and the introduction of this reference manual is more akin to the FE where you're testing to what's provided and not testing to what is representative of the industry.

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope CBT takers never are asked to find the entropy of a saturated liquid-vapor mixture of water at 100 psia.

 

705952747_ScreenShot2019-03-08at9_51_26PM.png.378a011cf971b823e012ea1e449b4573.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple question:

What is the specific volume of saturated water vapor at 2 psia?

The superheated vapor tables in the handbook have a line for the saturated liquid and one for the saturated vapor. From this table, vg(2 psia) = 192.368 ft3/lb

image.png.c0ef1d36dd4859f4bcfedaecc9b3e9b5.png

 

 

...but the saturated vapor table in the handbook begs to differ:image.png.82db1bc03aa6300149672f99faa4c2ac.png

 

The saturation values in the superheated vapor table (6.3.3) are wrong. The right answer by the way is 173.7 ft^3/lbm  confirmed by the table in MERM13 and the NIST ChemistryWeb site. https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/fluid.cgi?Action=Load&ID=C7732185&Type=SatT&Digits=5&PLow=2&PHigh=2&PInc=1&RefState=DEF&TUnit=F&PUnit=psia&DUnit=lbm%2Fft3&HUnit=Btu%2Flbm&WUnit=m%2Fs&VisUnit=uPa*s&STUnit=N%2Fm

 

Edited by Dr. Barber
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking the April 2019 MDM exam and printed out the first 200pgs of this reference manual as a quick reference and have MERM, Kennedy and Shigley's as backups. The MDM section heavily relied on the Shigley book for reference. Went through all the MDM section in the manual line by line to make sure I'm familiar with the material. Nothing surprising on there if you have done section 45 to 60 on MERM.

My weak point will be Quality Control/Statistics so I'll be concentrating on that before the exam.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2019 at 9:53 AM, Dr. Barber said:

Simple question:

What is the specific volume of saturated water vapor at 2 psia?

The superheated vapor tables in the handbook have a line for the saturated liquid and one for the saturated vapor. From this table, vg(2 psia) = 192.368 ft3/lb

image.png.c0ef1d36dd4859f4bcfedaecc9b3e9b5.png

...but the saturated vapor table in the handbook begs to differ:

image.png.82db1bc03aa6300149672f99faa4c2ac.png

 

The saturation values in the superheated vapor table (6.3.3) are wrong. The right answer by the way is 173.7 ft^3/lbm  confirmed by the table in MERM13 and the NIST ChemistryWeb site. https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/fluid.cgi?Action=Load&ID=C7732185&Type=SatT&Digits=5&PLow=2&PHigh=2&PInc=1&RefState=DEF&TUnit=F&PUnit=psia&DUnit=lbm%2Fft3&HUnit=Btu%2Flbm&WUnit=m%2Fs&VisUnit=uPa*s&STUnit=N%2Fm

 

I haven't looked. Have they published any errata for this yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Audi driver, P.E. said:

I haven't looked. Have they published any errata for this yet?

Not as far as I can tell. I've just sent them a message about these issues with their steam tables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I see here that no errata has been posted for the PE ref manual. Don't know if anyone else but me decided to practice with it for the MDM practice test. Page 178, the configuration for the weld you need on the exam problem has b and d flipped. I'm sitting here banging my head against a wall thinking how is it a 1" weld I need? Used the right Ju equation and no problem. has anyone checked the other weld groups for correct Ju formulas? The manual has some nice info and I'd want to use it but if this is wrong, what else is? Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...