# New Mechanical PE specifications for the April 2017 exams



## pmc

FYI. The exam specs for all three ME depths are changing in 2017. It appears as though the common ME breadth topics have been removed and its essentially one depth exam for each area of expertise.

http://ncees.org/engineering/pe/


----------



## Audi Driver P.E.

To the detriment of the test, if you ask me.  All mechanical engineers should have some basic knowledge of the various depth areas and that is what the breadth sections covered.


----------



## JHW 3d

Audi driver said:


> To the detriment of the test, if you ask me.  All mechanical engineers should have some basic knowledge of the various depth areas and that is what the breadth sections covered.


Couldn't agree more.


----------



## Habib

Should there be different licenses for TF, MM and HVAC?


----------



## JHW 3d

Habib said:


> Should there be different licenses for TF, MM and HVAC?


It seems that's what NCEES is suggesting. If not in name, at least by inference.

There is often so much overlap in industry, I question the value in this decision. The genius of the breadth/depth setup was that there was so much material, that it forces the examinees to study material they haven't seen in a long time and become comfortable with it. Even if one doesn't see that material on the test they will have some knowledge of it and can understand the basics -- remember, "minimally qualified." I know I benefitted from this.


----------



## I.ELKADY

Is this going to effect the October exam results? , since the Breadth topics like (management technology and economics, ...) have been removed for the April test


----------



## Audi Driver P.E.

I.ELKADY said:


> Is this going to effect the October exam results? , since the Breadth topics like (management technology and economics, ...) have been removed for the April test


I don't see why it possibly would.  Do you?


----------



## I.ELKADY

I really hope it would , I didn't do any good in the management and economics questions


----------



## I.ELKADY

I did great in the afternoon HVAC and Refrigeration, but not in the morning session


----------



## Habib

Look for new sample exams for all three mechanical depths.

If NCEES issue new sample morning exams for all three depths then I think this is trial year and soon we will see separate PE certificates HVAC, MM &amp; TF.


----------



## Viper5

As someone who is having to take April 2017, this frustrates me greatly. I don't even know what resources to use for these new topics and I certainly don't like the idea of being a guinea pig.

I can't imagine the April exam will be easier and maybe if I'm lucky it will be just as difficult.


----------



## Habib

So NCEES did upload their new sample exams, below is the link just for HVAC Exam:

https://account.ncees.org/exam-prep/pe-mechanical-hvac-and-refrigeration-practice-exam-1

I am pretty sure this will make exams lot easier with lot more theory type questions.


----------



## P-E

Habib said:


> Should there be different licenses for TF, MM and HVAC?


That would have been bad for me.  Most of my work is TF in nature.   But sometimes I have simple HVAC systems.   Glad it's a generic mechanical stamp.


----------



## Habib

P-E said:


> That would have been bad for me.  Most of my work is TF in nature.   But sometimes I have simple HVAC systems.   Glad it's a generic mechanical stamp.


Same is the case with me, I really hope that it remains a general Mechanical stamp, otherwise it will be hard to categorize people who already have PE. 

May be they can keep it general for existing PE's and all new candidates will have to get PE's in their specific fields ( more source of money for NCEES).

I am just guess at this point, only time will tell what happens in future....


----------



## P-E

Habib said:


> Same is the case with me, I really hope that it remains a general Mechanical stamp, otherwise it will be hard to categorize people who already have PE.
> 
> May be they can keep it general for existing PE's and all new candidates will have to get PE's in their specific fields ( more source of money for NCEES).
> 
> I am just guess at this point, only time will tell what happens in future....


I doubt that will happen.   Although MA used to have an HVAC stamp.


----------



## GregoryPE

Just my own humble opinion, but I don't think we can infer from a few sample exams that they will begin categorizing licenses by type at any point in the near future. At least for now, a PE is a PE, whether she be geotechnical or mechanical. Personally I like the breadth/depth model and would hate to see it go. However, I probably studied WAY more than the average person because I had always heard about the epic nature of the exam and was overly cautious. With that being said, I felt great about both sections (not to gloat).


----------



## starquest

Wow!

Econ is still covered under all three morning sessions.  Project Management only is in MD.  

I have mixed feelings on this.  I spent way too much time studying areas outside of my expertise that I know I will not use in my line of work.     But I like the general ME PE stamp and feel that all three areas should be covered.


----------



## starquest

Hmm, I missed it earlier...but anyone notice that they switched the name of the MD exam yet again!  I took the 'Mechanical Systems and Materials' exam in April.  Now it is 'Mechanical Design and Materials'.


----------



## MikeGlass1969

Does this mean it's all depth?  Sounds like it is just a mixtures of depth and breadth questions mixture in morning and afternoon.


----------



## Audi Driver P.E.

MikeGlass1969 said:


> Does this mean it's all depth?  Sounds like it is just a mixtures of depth and breadth questions mixture in morning and afternoon.


Looking at the topics, it's pretty much all depth.


----------



## I.ELKADY

Audi driver said:


> Looking at the topics, it's pretty much all depth.


I really think that is a great Move from NCEES.


----------



## Audi Driver P.E.

Well, I don't see how it's anything but ridiculous.


----------



## snickerd3

JHW 3d said:


> It seems that's what NCEES is suggesting. If not in name, at least by inference.
> 
> There is often so much overlap in industry, I question the value in this decision. The genius of the breadth/depth setup was that there was so much material, that it forces the examinees to study material they haven't seen in a long time and become comfortable with it. Even if one doesn't see that material on the test they will have some knowledge of it and can understand the basics -- remember, "minimally qualified." I know I benefitted from this.


probably because too many people (i.e. millennials who bitch about everything being unfair) were complaining about having to study for topics that were outside their normal areas, they got tired of hearing it can caved to the masses.  They did the same thing to the FE exams.  They are tailored to the topic instead of testing a general knowledge base.


----------



## Guest

.


----------



## Sarturo

Habib said:


> Should there be different licenses for TF, MM and HVAC?


Most states do not even differentiate between mechanical, civil, electrical, etc.   I think it's unlikely this will happen.   

Kind of sucks now that the resale value of practice problem books and sample exams will take a hit now.  Hope I passed the October exam(MM depth).  It will suck to have to buy another practice exam book or study for a different exam format.


----------



## Habib

Sarturo said:


> Kind of sucks now that the resale value of practice problem books and sample exams will take a hit now.


I will not worry about that if I pass.



Sarturo said:


> Hope I passed the October exam(MM depth).  It will suck to have to buy another practice exam book or study for a different exam format.


I am sure you will do fine, hope for the best. Due to change in format for April 2017 exam, there is a chance to have low cut score this time around.

As for as the books are concerned, I think MERM 13th edition is still okay to use for all three formats. It might be worth spending money to buy NCEES practice exam for one's specific depth.


----------



## pat_in_the_hat

Kinda covered in the last post, but before I fork out the money I figured I should get some opinions. 

Whats everyone buying for study material with this change? 

I was thinking 13th edition of the MERM and the 6 minute solutions. Anyone have an opinion on this tactic? Should I wait a little to see if they come out with more specialized material for the exam?

I will be taking the HVAC exam in April


----------



## Habib

pat_in_the_hat said:


> Kinda covered in the last post, but before I fork out the money I figured I should get some opinions.
> 
> Whats everyone buying for study material with this change?
> 
> I was thinking 13th edition of the MERM and the 6 minute solutions. Anyone have an opinion on this tactic? Should I wait a little to see if they come out with more specialized material for the exam?
> 
> I will be taking the HVAC exam in April


I will suggest to add all ASHRAE books. I took HVAC and I used all the ASHRAE books.

Check with your coworkers for these books which you ma be able to borrow.


----------



## starquest

Definitely will need your supplemental references: ASHRAE for HVAC, Shigley's for MD, etc. 

I looked back over the new MD spec sheet.  I'm surprised that the area of vibrations is only covered in the 'principles' section (AM).  Also noted that 'Codes and Standards' is now included in 'Applications' (PM).  I don't recall any mention of codes/standards on the former sheet, nor do I recall working on problems that would require a specific code/standard besides something very basic like ASME B/PV welds, etc. that are covered in the MERM.  

I'm really curious how the April 17 exam will be.  Might have been worth signing up for that 'Mechanical Standard Setting Study' in May.


----------



## Habib

I think one of the reasons for NCEES to change exam specification is taking first step to computerize PE exams. For computer tests, I heard that NCEES preference is to provide reference book just like they provide for FE exam ( no more an open book exam).


----------



## Habib

Habib said:


> I think one of the reasons for NCEES to change exam specification is taking first step to computerize PE exams. For computer tests, I heard that NCEES preference is to provide reference book just like they provide for FE exam ( no more an open book exam).


And of course this will not happen until 2020.


----------



## MechanicalApril17

Is mathematics gone too?


----------



## JHW 3d

MechanicalApril17 said:


> Is mathematics gone too?


Is this sarcasm?


----------



## spastic

Anyone know of mechanical design review courses that have been updated to the new exam format? I see Dr. Tom's is on the ball, although the course schedule still shows the 2016 material.


----------



## Nevill24

Hello folks I plan on taking the TFS exam in April 17 and have already found these forums to be extremely beneficial! Like many I also wonder what are the best prep materials for the new format.

Looks like there is a new PPI book "Thermal and Fluids Systems Reference Manual for the Mechanical PE Exam (METS)". Im assuming this is geared towards the new format.  I wonder if this essentially replaces the MERM for those taking TFS or would it still only be complementary to MERM?  

I also plan to purchase the 2016 NCEES TFS practice exam and will also study with the Six-Minute Solutions for TFS (have a copy of 2nd edition from a friend). Is there any additional material that I'm missing out on for TFS?


----------



## Audi Driver P.E.

Nevill24 said:


> Hello folks I plan on taking the TFS exam in April 17 and have already found these forums to be extremely beneficial! Like many I also wonder what are the best prep materials for the new format.
> 
> Looks like there is a new PPI book "Thermal and Fluids Systems Reference Manual for the Mechanical PE Exam (METS)". Im assuming this is geared towards the new format.  I wonder if this essentially replaces the MERM for those taking TFS or would it still only be complementary to MERM?
> 
> I also plan to purchase the 2016 NCEES TFS practice exam and will also study with the Six-Minute Solutions for TFS (have a copy of 2nd edition from a friend). Is there any additional material that I'm missing out on for TFS?


Looks like it is meant to be the only volume you need.  I think I would get the MERM as it is a more complete reference. However if cost is an issue perhaps it will be enough.  It's hard to say.  Looks like maybe they just took out all the sections that are no longer covered on the exam (I note that econ is still on the exam but not apparently in this review book).  Just goes to show that future exams are not going to certify a very rounded engineer.

Edit: I note that they are advertising a bundle deal that includes this book and the MERM, so maybe it's not?  The book description doesn't make it very clear.


----------



## SmilinEd

Nevill24 said:


> Hello folks I plan on taking the TFS exam in April 17 and have already found these forums to be extremely beneficial! Like many I also wonder what are the best prep materials for the new format.
> 
> Looks like there is a new PPI book "Thermal and Fluids Systems Reference Manual for the Mechanical PE Exam (METS)". Im assuming this is geared towards the new format.  I wonder if this essentially replaces the MERM for those taking TFS or would it still only be complementary to MERM?
> 
> I also plan to purchase the 2016 NCEES TFS practice exam and will also study with the Six-Minute Solutions for TFS (have a copy of 2nd edition from a friend). Is there any additional material that I'm missing out on for TFS?


One of my personal favorite books is Crane Technical Paper 410. Between that book, a heavily tab'd MERM (and color-coded tabs too), and some extra properties tables (air, water, refrigerants, etc., but no repeats from MERM), that was all I needed (and frankly, had time to look through) for the test.


----------



## Ramnares P.E.

The MERM appendix has all the information you need for the exam that is available in Crane Technical Paper 410.  With that said, Crane Technical Paper 410 is a very good reference for fluids and piping engineers.


----------



## Mr_Duct

The good and the bad of 3 completely separate exams vs 1 common AM and 3 separate PM:

*Good*


Less material and topics to study

Units are all in English (at least for HVAC and Refrigeration)

No project management to worry about (at least for HVAC and Refrigeration)

More effort spent studying your specific subjects and perhaps becoming more proficient in your specialty 

Less chances of "this problem might as well be written in Latin"

*Bad*


Less "well rounded" exam covering fewer topics

Increase in exam difficulty if all problems would follow PM difficulty (no more AM carrying the load for those did worse PM)

Harder time selling old exam prep material

3 different types of ME licenses?


----------



## Audi Driver P.E.

Mr_Duct said:


> The good and the bad of 3 completely separate exams vs 1 common AM and 3 separate PM:
> 
> *Good*
> 
> 
> Less material and topics to study
> 
> Units are all in English (at least for HVAC and Refrigeration)
> 
> No project management to worry about (at least for HVAC and Refrigeration)
> 
> More effort spent studying your specific subjects and perhaps becoming more proficient in your specialty
> 
> Less chances of "this problem might as well be written in Latin"
> 
> *Bad*
> 
> 
> Less "well rounded" exam covering fewer topics
> 
> Increase in exam difficulty if all problems would follow PM difficulty (no more AM carrying the load for those did worse PM)
> 
> Harder time selling old exam prep material
> 
> 3 different types of ME licenses?


Units are split in the other exams and I believe that is the same as before, so that is neutral maybe?  The selling of old exam material will drop out very soon as a bad.  And it will still be only one type of ME license, at least for now. As for project management to worry about: IME, that has been a highly important aspect of my job in just about every position I've had in my career.  Not testing for PM is a very bad, IMO.

As for difficulty, I thought the PM was easier than the AM.


----------



## Mr_Duct

> Units are split in the other exams


Good observation.  This simplifies the fluid mechanic and thermodynamic questions on the HVAC+R exam.



> Not testing for PM is a very bad, IMO.


Project management is important, but if the problems are focused on something project managers would easily answer and has nothing to do with engineering in the practical or theoretical sense, I would disagree.  To me, project management fails when the project manager sets wild, unrealistic goals and tells no one about it.  I've never been a project manager, but I've called out blatantly obvious "_promising the moon_" situations as soon as I saw them. :angry:



> As for difficulty, I thought the PM was easier than the AM.


I thought the PM average difficulty per problem was greater than the AM average difficulty per problem, even if a couple AM problems were written in Chinese (*in a figurative sense*).  I finished the first pass of the AM problems with 90 minutes left.  I finished the first pass of the PM problems (HVAC+R PM exam) with about 40 minutes left.


----------



## Audi Driver P.E.

As I noted, it's been my experience that project management is important to engineering functions.  I've been working as an engineer for going on 20 years.  Furthermore, nearly every single job description I see advertised asks for candidates to have experience with project management.  What has been your experience?  Based on my experience, NCEES needs to pull their heads out of their collective asses on this.  At least they have kept it in for the MD exam. :wacko:


----------



## Mr_Duct

> What has been your experience?


I have about 9 years of experience in the architectural/engineering field.  I have seen most of the spectrum of project management.  The best project managers are very open about the projects in allowing input from the project members, giving updates on the project, and don't setup their projects to fail.


----------



## starquest

Honestly though, do you really think those PM questions on the PE exam make you a better project manager?  They were almost a joke, if you ask me.


----------



## Guest

.


----------



## Audi Driver P.E.

starquest said:


> Honestly though, do you really think those PM questions on the PE exam make you a better project manager?  They were almost a joke, if you ask me.


No matter how easy or difficult the actual exam questions may be, requiring that an engineer prepare for the subject matter, or not as the case in the new exams is what is important because it forces review of the material.  Do you think you're a worse engineer for knowing how to do well on project management questions?


----------



## [email protected]

pmc said:


> FYI. The exam specs for all three ME depths are changing in 2017. It appears as though the common ME breadth topics have been removed and its essentially one depth exam for each area of expertise.
> 
> http://ncees.org/engineering/pe/


Yes, you're right. Check out 


Thermal and Fluids Systems Reference Manual for the Mechanical PE Exam


----------



## Nevill24

[email protected] said:


> Yes, you're right. Check out
> 
> 
> Thermal and Fluids Systems Reference Manual for the Mechanical PE Exam


I just received my copy of this manual (METS) and from a quick glance it appears to be "comprehensive" for the TFS PE exam as it states on the cover of the manual.  I'm kind of torn on if I i should purchase the MERM at this point?  In the introduction of the METS it states that it is assumed that you already have the MERM and the two books are independent of each other. It also states that the MERM includes all the necessary appendices (steam/air properties, friction factors, etc.) that are needed for the exam which is not included in METS.  If the METS is truly comprehensive is it really worth spending ~$250-300 on the MERM for only the appendices?  

So far I have accumulated the following prep material


METS

2011 and 2016 NCEES practice exams

Six minute solutions 

Practice problems for ME PE Exam (MERM Companion MEPP13) 

Lindeburg's Engineering Unit Conversions

Steam tables English book by Keenen and Keyes  (Limited interpolation) 

Steam tables SI  http://www.nist.gov/srd/upload/NISTIR5078.htm   (Limited interpolation) 

Psychrometric chart: USCS &amp; SI units:  www.coolerado.com/pdfs/Psychrmtrcs/0000Psych11x17US_SI.pdf 

Misc property tables and charts English (air, refrigerant 134a, etc) homepages.wmich.edu/~cho/ME432/Appendix2_English.pdf

Misc property tables and charts SI www.kostic.niu.edu/350/_350-posted/350Chengel7th/Appendix1Udated.pdf

Items needed


MERM?

MERM Appendices or "other engineering references" (as stated in the METS)?

Crane TP-410 USCS or other (for friction factors, press, etc)?

Others?

To save on some cash I would prefer not to buy the MERM so hopefully the reference materials I've listed especially for the steam tables, air tables, etc. are adequate.


----------



## Audi Driver P.E.

Nevill24 said:


> I just received my copy of this manual (METS) and from a quick glance it appears to be "comprehensive" for the TFS PE exam as it states on the cover of the manual.  I'm kind of torn on if I i should purchase the MERM at this point?  In the introduction of the METS it states that it is assumed that you already have the MERM and the two books are independent of each other. It also states that the MERM includes all the necessary appendices (steam/air properties, friction factors, etc.) that are needed for the exam which is not included in METS.  If the METS is truly comprehensive is it really worth spending ~$250-300 on the MERM for only the appendices?
> 
> So far I have accumulated the following prep material
> 
> 
> METS
> 
> 2011 and 2016 NCEES practice exams
> 
> Six minute solutions
> 
> Practice problems for ME PE Exam (MERM Companion MEPP13)
> 
> Lindeburg's Engineering Unit Conversions
> 
> Steam tables English book by Keenen and Keyes  (Limited interpolation)
> 
> Steam tables SI  http://www.nist.gov/srd/upload/NISTIR5078.htm   (Limited interpolation)
> 
> Psychrometric chart: USCS &amp; SI units:  www.coolerado.com/pdfs/Psychrmtrcs/0000Psych11x17US_SI.pdf
> 
> Misc property tables and charts English (air, refrigerant 134a, etc) homepages.wmich.edu/~cho/ME432/Appendix2_English.pdf
> 
> Misc property tables and charts SI www.kostic.niu.edu/350/_350-posted/350Chengel7th/Appendix1Udated.pdf
> 
> Items needed
> 
> 
> MERM?
> 
> MERM Appendices or "other engineering references" (as stated in the METS)?
> 
> Crane TP-410 USCS or other (for friction factors, press, etc)?
> 
> Others?
> 
> To save on some cash I would prefer not to buy the MERM so hopefully the reference materials I've listed especially for the steam tables, air tables, etc. are adequate.


No one is going to be able to tell you for sure, but I will tell you this: I'd rather have the MERM for the exam and not need it than not have it and need it.  Hopefully, after this first pass on the new format, you and others like you can help shed some light on whether the METS successfully replaces the MERM or not.  I don't envy the position you're in.  Maybe you can get some written clarification from PPI??


----------



## [email protected]

Yes, you should have MERM, as that's the main book, and METS will be the main book for the thermal portion.

Note on METS - A companion to Mechanical Engineering Reference Manual for the PE Exam, 13th Edition, this manual will be essential in your preparation for the Mechanical PE: Thermal and Fluids Systems exam.

Thanks,


----------



## landolakes

Are the practice problems in METS different than MERM? That'd be a great alternative than to hunt down NCEES 2001 exam book.


----------



## SmilinEd

I have also found MERM to be useful after the exam. I have to prepare fairly in-depth calculations (most by hand, no modeling). MERM has been great as a reference book, for equations or properties. Even if you don't use it on the exam day because METS is enough, its good to have down the road. YMMV.


----------



## Nevill24

landolakes said:


> Are the practice problems in METS different than MERM? That'd be a great alternative than to hunt down NCEES 2001 exam book.


I plan on comparing the METS to a friend's MERM13 on Monday and will post back.

Also found a good deal on a used MERM12 and bought it. Hopefully it's not too outdated.


----------



## landolakes

Thanks that would be great to, not sure why PPI doesnt just mention it on their site.


----------



## Nevill24

So far it appears to me that the METS is essentially *most *of the TFS portion taken out of MERM, but worded differently. However, the METS does often give more details on how an equation is derived compared to the MERM. The METS virtually has none of the tables, charts, properties, etc. that are needed for the exam and frequently references the reader to the MERM without telling the reader where exactly to go in the MERM.  The METS does provide 88 end-of-topic practice problems that appear to be new.  It’s probably worth noting that about 1/3 of the problems are not multiple choice. 

My hopes were that METS would essentially replace the MERM so I wouldn't have to carry around a massive book that is half filled with material I don’t need for the exam.  Now I’m essentially left with a book that can't replace the MERM, but doesn't provide much in value as a companion.  I understand everyone including PPI has some catching up to do with the new specs, but I am disappointed this book is marketed as “comprehensive” and “offers complete coverage” as seen on PPI’s website when it clearly does not. This may sound harsh, but METS seems like simply a money grab.

I should say this is all based on a couple hours spent comparing the two so maybe I shouldn’t be so critical.  Maybe once I dive into studying I will start to notice additional material that is covered in METS that is left out of MERM.  I’ll be interested to see what others think of METS.

TLDR: METS=TFS taken from MERM reworded with sometimes more details on how equations are derived. 88 new problems.  No appendices, tables, charts, properties, etc are included.  Probably not worth the $150+ price tag IMO.


----------



## landolakes

88 problems and some new material sounds like it is worth it...i do believe the MERM is a must. I ordered the METS and once received, i will also do a comparison. Sucks this is my last of 3 attempts at the exam so Im nervous about how indepth NCEES will go in the actual exam... any help with practice problems is a step closer to passing.


----------



## starquest

Nevill24 said:


> I plan on comparing the METS to a friend's MERM13 on Monday and will post back.
> 
> Also found a good deal on a used MERM12 and bought it. Hopefully it's not too outdated.


There is practically no difference between MERM12 and MERM13 unless you are taking the HVAC exam.


----------



## landolakes

I got the METS yesterday and started reading through it. Its a good setup of chapters that basically reflect what is in the MERM... wording is a bit different which I think is a good thing because its like getting the same lesson from two professors... the problems are unique and comprehensive for the chapter so u can grasp concepts like lindberg. Differences I seen include more info on certain power cycles, cooling towers, and other new 2017 specs. The last chapter is supportive knowledge which gets into some of the AM specialty material (econ, joints, etc)... again a shorter, to-the-point version of the MERM. 

I am happy with the purchase. With NCEES exam book, SMS TF, MERM and mow METS... i have enough practice problems to keep me busy and just work through multiple times until April exam.


----------



## spacebanjo

The 6MS recommends bringing the following references:

API 570-1998 "Piping Inspection Code.."

API 682-2004 "Pumps -Shaft Sealing Systems for Centrifugal and Rotary Pumps"

B31.3 "ASME Process Piping"

BPVC

I am not sure this recommendation would apply under the old exam much less the new exam. Thoughts? Are detailed code handbooks applicable to new format?


----------



## SmilinEd

spacebanjo said:


> The 6MS recommends bringing the following references:
> 
> API 570-1998 "Piping Inspection Code.."
> 
> API 682-2004 "Pumps -Shaft Sealing Systems for Centrifugal and Rotary Pumps"
> 
> B31.3 "ASME Process Piping"
> 
> BPVC
> 
> I am not sure this recommendation would apply under the old exam much less the new exam. Thoughts? Are detailed code handbooks applicable to new format?


I'd say they are not required for the exam. IMHO none of those codes would have helped me, they would only consume your time while searching them. Your exam time is already scarce, I'd leave them home; choice is yours.

PS, the Civil PE exam specifications from NCEES (link) call out codes that are applicable to the exam, and Mechanical does not.


----------



## justin-hawaii

Hi spacebanjo,

I would not suggest bringing the API or B31 codes.  Those codes are quite large.  In my opinion you should only be aware of the codes and when they are used.  For a test taker to test those codes would not prove that an individual is competent as a Thermal and Fluids engineer.  I could see testing someone with these codes, who is a pipe/pump inspector.  I know in the fuel and fire protection industry there are pump inspectors and API certifications, where some of these codes are tested.


----------



## Ramnares P.E.

Not sure why it would recommend you bring B31.3.  That code is primarily used in pipe flex calculations and there's software out there, such as CAESAR II, that's industry standard for that.  B31.3 certainly has good material but I can't really see a scenario where they can really test that without being absolutely specific to that industry.


----------



## landolakes

Based on the specs does it look like heat transfer content will remain the same?

My past attempts at TF, HT seemed to linger around fundamentals. 

This is where the new METS reference manual is confusing for me on what to expect... the book uses differential equations quite a bit.


----------



## Audi Driver P.E.

landolakes said:


> Based on the specs does it look like heat transfer content will remain the same?
> 
> My past attempts at TF, HT seemed to linger around fundamentals.
> 
> This is where the new METS reference manual is confusing for me on what to expect... the book uses differential equations quite a bit.


It's unlikely you will need to perform diff eq calculations on the exam, but you will need to know what equation to use.


----------

