Pear Cable Redux: How to Combat Scam with Science

[admin]

A Case Study in Applying an Audioholics A/V Education to Identify Marketing Drivel. In this follow-up to our initial article, we will look at Pear Cable as a case study in evaluating exaggerated marketing claims about the audio performance improvements attributed to cables. We will use known science, established engineering principles, and the educated opinions of well known audio engineering practitioners to look for contradictory statements, mistakes and misuse of engineering knowledge, and exaggeration of the audible significance to certain aspects of audio performance.

Discuss "Pear Cable Redux: How to Combat Scam with Science" here. Read the article.

 

[JackT]

Literally beating an actual dead horse might be more entertaining.

 

[yettitheman]

One nameless measurement, a bunch of ham radio amateurs, and some guy named Richard; quite a list of heavy hitters from the scientific, engineering, and R&D communities.

That's the BOSE promise, quality stuff with.... um.... **** to back us up

 

[KurtBJC]

I generally agree with the article, and for the most part I should probably not comment because I am a "competitor" of Pear (though I doubt very many people are sitting on the fence between buying our product and theirs--their direct competition is more in the pricey audiophile sector), but I did want to point out something which I found objectionable in this article.

There's no reason to heap scorn on the American Radio Relay League, or upon Radio Amateurs in general. Ham radio has been responsible for introducing a lot of people to electronics, including many, many electrical engineers I have known. I am a ham myself, licensed since the 1970s (WB7WRR at first; AC7RL later, now N7BN), and I would not be in the cable business, nor would I have the technical background to support what I do now, if it were not for ham radio. The ARRL is a great organization, and ham radio (or "amateur radio"--the terms are interchangeable) is a great hobby.

The Pear Cable citation to the ARRL was a very broad, general, nonspecific cite--no article or other publication was mentioned. Who knows what he was thinking of? I feel very sure, though, that you could browse through every issue of QST (the monthly magazine of the ARRL) since its inception nearly a hundred years ago, and through all of the ARRL's publications (a HUGE pile, in which you would find a vast amount of useful, reliable technical material), without finding a single paragraph that could be said to lend aid or comfort to claims of extravagant speaker cable performance. In fact, I think you'd find, if you go speak with some hams, that they are much less likely to "buy" cable voodoo theories than are the general public. Why? Well, hams actually have to know something about cables. Transmission line theory is fundamental stuff to anybody running a radio transmitter, and there's enough power going down some ham transmission lines to badly burn a person, so sound technical knowledge is important.

There is something admittedly a bit peculiar about referring to the ARRL as a "professional" organization when it is an organization of "amateurs." But that's splitting hairs, really. Many of the people who write ARRL publications are professionals, working, among other things, in the production and design of the radio equipment which is sold for amateur radio usage.

What Pear cites ARRL for, in fact, is really a rather uncontroversial proposition which lends Pear little if any support. He says RFI "can still be a problem in audio applications." Indeed it can, and that's especially true for ham radio operators who have powerful radio transmitters in their homes, mere feet away from their audio equipment. But the product in question here is a speaker cable, and RFI problems in speaker cable are rare, especially if you're not running a 2KW RF linear amp output close by. The amplitude would have to be ridiculously high to move the speaker cone, or the circuit has to be badly designed such that the speaker cable acts as an antenna and feeds RFI back into the amp to be rectified. My point, though, is that all he says ARRL has said is that RFI can be a problem. Even if there were an ARRL publication cited which said those words, those words are clearly true; it is the concusion which Pear seeks to draw which is unwarranted.

Anyhow: if the effect is to give the impression that ARRL is a proponent of audio voodoo, I think that's regrettable. ARRL is an excellent organization and is a tremendous resource for hobbyists who are trying to become literate and capable in electronics. It doesn't deserve the implication that it's somehow promoting strange speaker-cable theories, nor does it deserve to be sneered at as though technical information from the ARRL is somehow dubious or useless.

Dah-dah-di-di-dit, Di-di-di-dah-dah,

Kurt
N7BN (Extra Class, since 2002; licensed about 30 years total)
Blue Jeans Cable

 

[gliz]

Literally beating an actual dead horse might be more entertaining.

this is about education I fully back this up, people need to know that they are getting hosed by spending goofy amounts of money on cables. I have often wondered why the FTC is not investagating some of these claims

 

[DavidW]

There's no reason to heap scorn on the American Radio Relay League, or upon Radio Amateurs in general. Ham radio has been responsible for introducing a lot of people to electronics, including many, many electrical engineers I have known. I am a ham myself, licensed since the 1970s (WB7WRR at first; AC7RL later, now N7BN), and I would not be in the cable business, nor would I have the technical background to support what I do now, if it were not for ham radio. The ARRL is a great organization, and ham radio (or "amateur radio"--the terms are interchangeable) is a great hobby.

Anyhow: if the effect is to give the impression that ARRL is a proponent of audio voodoo, I think that's regrettable. ARRL is an excellent organization and is a tremendous resource for hobbyists who are trying to become literate and capable in electronics. It doesn't deserve the implication that it's somehow promoting strange speaker-cable theories, nor does it deserve to be sneered at as though technical information from the ARRL is somehow dubious or useless.

Kurt

I am pleased that you otherwise agreed with what I had to say in the article, but I would like to take this opportunity to clear up what seems to be a misunderstanding regarding statements I made in the article that involved Pear Cable's citation of the Amateur Radio Relay League.

In actuality, the section that makes mention of the ARRL is very small in context of the overall work and it would seem that too much might have been read into those very short statements.

The intent of my comments was not in any way to disparage the ARRL or to put into question their reputability or competency per se. The point of the comments was to put into question the appropriateness and the accuracy of the citation by Pear Cable.

The issue at hand is that the gentleman who runs Pear Cable claims a formal mechanical engineering degree and through this implies that his company and product designs are rooted in sound engineering principles.

While I am quite sure that the quality of the technical information supplied by the ARRL is in general accurate and is primarily distilled from published formal scientific and engineering research, source material from an amateur group would not be suitable for direct reference in professional research or as a basis for supporting formal engineering opinion. An engineer wishing to cite scientific knowledge supplied by the ARRL would be better served to go back to the original published source material from which they draw.

Think of it as analogous to going into court and citing the opinion of a legal layman, someone off the street, however well informed or educated, as the basis for a legal interpretation or argument rather than going to the statutes and subsequent case law to establish support for a legal position. It is not sure footing for any professional to do as such, lawyer, doctor, or engineer.

To make matters worse, the citation of the ARRL is overly broad and misapplied, as you have pointed out. This is very questionable, ethically, for an engineer to do so, and certainly to do so for a layman audience with the goal of pursuading that audience to purchase expensive products that the engineer in question just happens to sell.

The ARRL has indeed drawn some to pursue formal training in engineering and taught many others basic electronic principles, and I am glad that they brought this knowledge to you, but they are an amateur association, and by definition not a direct basis to support the professional opinion of someone claiming to be an engineer. This is all I meant to say with regard to the organization; nothing more, nothing less.

It is unfortunate that someone laying claim to being an engineer attempted to use his status to fool consumers and used the ARRL in this way to suggest something untrue to sell expensive products with dubious claims. It is damaging to both the perception of the ARRL as well as to the engineering profession.

David

 

[KurtBJC]

David,

Thanks for the response. I get where you're coming from, but my sense of it is that the article is disparaging toward ARRL. I think you allowed some hostility toward the vendor here to spill over onto others. Consider this quote:

"One nameless measurement, a bunch of ham radio amateurs, and some guy named Richard; quite a list of heavy hitters from the scientific, engineering, and R&D communities."

I think that you have, whether you intended it or not, ridiculed the ARRL, and the ham radio hobby, here by lumping it in with others in a list of what you clearly view as completely unreliable sources. There are some goofs which suggest to me that you are not familiar with ARRL or what it does, in particular, your use of the term "ham radio amateurs," which is redundant. In fact, you suggest that to say amateurs are professionals is an "oxymoron by definition" which, apart from also being redundant as stated, is not entirely true as applied here. ARRL is not a "professional organization" but many of the authors of ARRL publications are professionals.

It would have been sufficient criticism of the claim under review to simply note that Pear has not cited a specific source, and that therefore the nature and validity of the claims of that source, and their applicability to the claims made by Pear, cannot be evaluated. The failure to cite sources properly is often the mark of someone who is trying to make it appear that he has good authority on his side but who does not wish that authority to be scrutinized, and that's all that needed to be said.

As for myself, I will say that while ARRL itself is not really an author, and therefore not a good source to cite in and of itself, the quality of the materials published by ARRL is very high and I would not hesitate to rely upon ARRL publications on an issue like RFI, which is of constant concern to ARRL's membership who must deal with cranky-neighbor RFI claims. The fact that it is not strictly a "professional organization" as indicated by Pear is really beside the point, and I think that your remarks are disparaging. I appreciate that that was probably not your intent, but it is how the words come across.

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable

 

[Dan Banquer]

I know a lot of engineers who refer to the ARRL handbook for a number of things, including the construction of cables.
I am also going to suggest that some editing be applied to the present article so your refernece to the ARRL will not be misinterpreted as "amateur"
Other than that Dave it was a good article.
Dan Banquer

 

[DavidW]

Kurt,

First off, I understand that the ARRL is not an author, but publishes works of its membership, and yes, I understand the term ham radio amateur is technically redundant but not every reader may be aware of that fact.

Now that we are finished splitting hairs as you say, let me reiterate, the publications of an amateur technical organization are not proper material for citation to support the validity of scientific and engineering conclusions presented by a formally educated, practicing engineer.

I do not doubt that the information published by the ARRL is of high quality and some of the published work may be by people who practice electrical engineering by day. Nevertheless, this is irrelevant because an amateur publication is not subjected to the scrutiny and peer review process that gives formal scientific literature its credibility.

Nor are its members required to hold certain educational credentials, or in the case of engineering, certain legal credentials. The skill level required of an amateur radio license is that of a technician, and while there is nothing wrong with being a technician, training as such is based on practical understanding of the subject matter but provides limited understanding of the underlying theoretical basis. This is not the same thing as formal scientific or engineering training. Furthermore, to be considered a Professional Engineer and legally use the title requires licensure with an extensive list of credentials including a minimum of a four year ABET accredited degree, minimum work experience under another licensed engineer in responsible charge of engineering work, and several examinations even though in certain unregulated fields of practice, including consumer electronics, the term engineer is often used as well as sometimes interchanged with the term technician.

I have no problem with amateur radio or the quality of their publications and training, but it is unfortunately not a suitable source for formal scientific and engineering reference.

I hope this clears up why I said what I did and that you are able to see the distinction I am making as well as why and do not take offense.

David

 

[KurtBJC]

I hope this clears up why I said what I did and that you are able to see the distinction I am making as well as why and do not take offense.

Well, it clears up what you were thinking, but it does not clear up what you said. I would suggest a rewording to eliminate the disparagement.

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable

 

[Dan Banquer]

Well, that's two people that have suggested rewording the article.
I don't know about Kurt, but one of those people is degreed with over twenty years experience and a contributing writer for this web-zine.
Harumph!
Dan Banquer

 

[majorloser]

PE's...........or in this case EE's

Can't live with 'em and can't bury 'em in the back yard.

 

[DavidW]

Well, it clears up what you were thinking, but it does not clear up what you said. I would suggest a rewording to eliminate the disparagement.

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable

Kurt,

I will be happy to send a rewording to Clint to deemphasize the section that appears to denigrate the ARRL to the same level as some guy named Richard.

David

 

[FLZapped]

Kurt,

Now that we are finished splitting hairs as you say, let me reiterate, the publications of an amateur technical organization are not proper material for citation to support the validity of scientific and engineering conclusions presented by a formally educated, practicing engineer.

Bull.. You have almost no understanding of what an Amateur Radio Operator is. The term "amateur" only means the holders of the license are not practicing radio on a professional level: i.e.; PAID MONEY. That's like saying the Journal of the IEEE is of no value.

Many engineers ARE in fact amateur radio operators, including those who hold advanced degrees, oh yes, including PhD. Are they all, no, but you're illiciting the idea that they are all a bunch of country bumkins.

I do not doubt that the information published by the ARRL is of high quality and some of the published work may be by people who practice electrical engineering by day. Nevertheless, this is irrelevant because an amateur publication is not subjected to the scrutiny and peer review process that gives formal scientific literature its credibility.

You don't know what you are talking about. ALL material published by the ARRL in it's books IS reviewed. Many of those who volunteer their time also write for other organizations such as the IEEE, which does produce a peer reviewed journal.

Nor are its members required to hold certain educational credentials, or in the case of engineering, certain legal credentials. The skill level required of an amateur radio license is that of a technician, and while there is nothing wrong with being a technician, training as such is based on practical understanding of the subject matter but provides limited understanding of the underlying theoretical basis. This is not the same thing as formal scientific or engineering training. Furthermore, to be considered a Professional Engineer and legally use the title requires licensure with an extensive list of credentials including a minimum of a four year ABET accredited degree, minimum work experience under another licensed engineer in responsible charge of engineering work, and several examinations even though in certain unregulated fields of practice, including consumer electronics, the term engineer is often used as well as sometimes interchanged with the term technician.

Again, you are ignorant of the whole truth, the fact that you would quote a source as broad-based (AND NON-PEER REVIEWED!) as Wiki shows that in abundance. There are so many erroneous statements in this paragraph, I don't know where to begin. The title of Engineer and Technician are never confused. Being a "professional" engineer only means you have passed a state exam and can sign off on public projects; and because you have taken an exam adimistered by the state, it lets them off the lawsuit hook. It doesn't make you a more competent engineer - only a more liable one. Just because there are no "technical standards" to be an ARRL member, doesn't mean that holds true at the level where technical publications are wrought.

I hope this clears up why I said what I did and that you are able to see the distinction I am making as well as why and do not take offense.

David

Oh, but I do take offense, you're wrong and apparently too arrogant to recognize it.

Here, let me give you the name of an amateur radio operator who holds a PhD:

Dr. Owen Garriott. Ever hear that name?

Want another, try Dr. Ron Parise

Maybe one last one: Dr. Kazimierz Siwiak, No what on earth would he be known for?

Awww, hell, just one more:

Dr. John D. Kraus

Bruce, WB4YUC


PS: And let me know when you want to know who discovered a new type of non-ducting VHF ionospheric scatter propagation that fell under the category of "Field Aligned Irregulatiries."

 

[KurtBJC]

Thanks, David. And I do want to say again that I think it's a very good article, and very helpful to people who are trying to figure out these cable issues--I just felt that ARRL, and ham radio, got a bit of undeserved collateral damage in the deal.

Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable

 

[Jack Hammer]

I didn't read the story as trying to disparage the ARRL or implying "they are all a bunch of country bumkins." But I do agree with the point that lumping them in with the other sketchy references may give some people the wrong impressions. Years ago I knew several ham radio operators, and they were a pretty knowlegable bunch about electronics in general. IIRC, most were huge audiophiles too.

I'm sure that those Dr's listed above are all smarter than anyone I know, myself included, but I've never heard of any of them, nor do I have the slightest clue who they may be or what special accomplishments they may be responsible for.

I really do like the "professional" review by Richard. That's hilarious. I did a search for the Bay Area Audiophile Society and they do exist. However, I couldn't find any reference by the BAAS to any member, founder, or person otherwise involved with them who had the name of Richard. Maybe I was looking in the wrong place...

KurtBJC, class act as always. Great way to make your point while still remaining a true Gentleman.

Jack

 

[DavidW]

Bull.. You have almost no understanding of what an Amateur Radio Operator is. The term "amateur" only means the holders of the license are not practicing radio on a professional level: i.e.; PAID MONEY. That's like saying the Journal of the IEEE is of no value.

As a word, Professional has been watered down by misuse in popular culture to suggest it is simply one who works for pay and by those seeking to exaggerate the perception of their status.

From the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

4 a: a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation b: a principal calling, vocation, or employment c: the whole body of persons engaged in a calling​

From the American Heritage® Dictionary: Description of profession

2. An occupation, such as law, medicine, or engineering, that requires considerable training and specialized study.
3. The body of qualified persons in an occupation or field: members of the teaching profession.
​

As to the analogy with the value of the IEEE, it is flawed.

Many engineers ARE in fact amateur radio operators, including those who hold advanced degrees, oh yes, including PhD. Are they all, no, but you're illiciting the idea that they are all a bunch of country bumkins.

Bumpkins; your word not mine.

I clearly stated that I am aware that there are engineers who operate ham radio, but operating ham radio does not require one to be an engineer and the FCC's only real concern is that amateur operators know enough to avoid interfering with commercial and emergency broadcast signals.

You don't know what you are talking about. ALL material published by the ARRL in it's books IS reviewed. Many of those who volunteer their time also write for other organizations such as the IEEE, which does produce a peer reviewed journal.

Many but not all. An amateur organization can draw upon professional sources but it is not suitable as a reference source in and of itself in professional scientific and engineering literature.

Again, you are ignorant of the whole truth, the fact that you would quote a source as broad-based (AND NON-PEER REVIEWED!) as Wiki shows that in abundance. There are so many erroneous statements in this paragraph, I don't know where to begin. The title of Engineer and Technician are never confused. Being a "professional" engineer only means you have passed a state exam and can sign off on public projects; and because you have taken an exam adimistered by the state, it lets them off the lawsuit hook. It doesn't make you a more competent engineer - only a more liable one. Just because there are no "technical standards" to be an ARRL member, doesn't mean that holds true at the level where technical publications are wrought.

The statement above shows complete ignorance on your part as to what a PE does and why they are required to be licensed. Use of the term public in the context of requirements to be a PE has nothing to do with government funded projects, it is required for all engineering projects, privately or publicly funded and exists for the safety of the public to provide a uniform standard for minimum competence so that things like buildings, bridges, and dams don't collapse and kill people, including you.

National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying

The licensing of engineers is important because of the significant role engineering plays in society, affecting every human being in terms of safe buildings and roads, clean water, functional machinery, communication, and medicine. The profession is regulated by licensing boards—composed of P.E.'s and members of the public—in each U.S. state and territory. The licensing boards set high standards for professional engineers, and these high standards help protect the public health, safety, and welfare. As a result, engineers must be licensed to offer their services to the public.
​

For some additional light reading:

Illinois Compiled Statutes
PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS
(225 ILCS 325/) Professional Engineering Practice Act of 1989.

I will provide certain relevant sections in a subsequent post. Also note that Illinois separates out Structural Engineering for a specialized license but it falls under a PE designation in most states.

The references to Wikipedia are for general information only regarding definitions to distinguish differences and similarities between scientist, engineer, and technician.

Oh, but I do take offense, you're wrong and apparently too arrogant to recognize it.

Here, let me give you the name of an amateur radio operator who holds a PhD:

Dr. Owen Garriott. Ever hear that name?

Want another, try Dr. Ron Parise

Maybe one last one: Dr. Kazimierz Siwiak, No what on earth would he be known for?

Awww, hell, just one more:

Dr. John D. Kraus

Bruce, WB4YUC


PS: And let me know when you want to know who discovered a new type of non-ducting VHF ionospheric scatter propagation that fell under the category of "Field Aligned Irregulatiries."

I presume you are not among the PhD holders or I would have been informed of such above.

Also please note, the people cited who are making these accomplishments and discoveries are not doing so solely because of their amateur radio training, they all seem to have Doctorates and also happen to like participating in amateur radio.

 

[DavidW]

Illinois Compiled Statutes
PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS
(225 ILCS 325/) Professional Engineering Practice Act of 1989.

(225 ILCS 325/1) (from Ch. 111, par. 5201)
(Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2010)
Sec. 1. Declaration of public policy. The practice of professional engineering in the State of Illinois is hereby declared to affect the public health, safety, and welfare and to be subject to regulation and control in the public interest. It is further declared that the practice of professional engineering as defined in this Act merits the confidence of the public, and that only qualified persons shall be authorized to engage in the practice of professional engineering in the State of Illinois. This Act shall be liberally construed to best carry out this purpose.
(Source: P.A. 86‑667.)

(225 ILCS 325/4) (from Ch. 111, par. 5204)
(Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2010)
Sec. 4. Definitions. As used in this Act:

(m) "Professional engineer" means a person licensed under the laws of the State of Illinois to practice professional engineering.
(n) "Professional engineering" means the application of science to the design of engineering systems and facilities using the knowledge, skills, ability and professional judgment developed through professional engineering education, training and experience.
(o) "Professional engineering practice" means the consultation on, conception, investigation, evaluation, planning, and design of, and selection of materials to be used in, administration of construction contracts for, or site observation of, an engineering system or facility, where such consultation, conception, investigation, evaluation, planning, design, selection, administration, or observation requires extensive knowledge of engineering laws, formulae, materials, practice, and construction methods. A person shall be construed to practice or offer to practice professional engineering, within the meaning and intent of this Act, who practices, or who, by verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card, or any other way, is represented to be a professional engineer, or through the use of the initials "P.E." or the title "engineer" or any of its derivations or some other title implies licensure as a professional engineer, or holds himself out as able to perform any service which is recognized as professional engineering practice.
Examples of the practice of professional engineering include, but need not be limited to, transportation facilities and publicly owned utilities for a region or community, railroads, railways, highways, subways, canals, harbors, river improvements; irrigation works; aircraft, airports and landing fields; waterworks, piping systems and appurtenances, sewers, sewage disposal works; plants for the generation of power; devices for the utilization of power; boilers; refrigeration plants, air conditioning systems and plants; heating systems and plants; plants for the transmission or distribution of power; electrical plants which produce, transmit, distribute, or utilize electrical energy; works for the extraction of minerals from the earth; plants for the refining, alloying or treating of metals; chemical works and industrial plants involving the use of chemicals and chemical processes; plants for the production, conversion, or utilization of nuclear, chemical, or radiant energy; forensic engineering, geotechnical engineering including, subsurface investigations; soil classification, geology and geohydrology, incidental to the practice of professional engineering; energy analysis, environmental design, hazardous waste mitigation and control; recognition, measurement, evaluation and control of environmental systems and emissions; automated building management systems; or the provision of professional engineering site observation of the construction of works and engineering systems. Nothing contained in this Section imposes upon a person licensed under this Act the responsibility for the performance of any of the foregoing functions unless such person specifically contracts to provide it.

(225 ILCS 325/8) (from Ch. 111, par. 5208)
(Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2010)
Sec. 8. Applications for licensure.
(a) Applications for licensure shall (1) be on forms prescribed and furnished by the Department, (2) contain statements made under oath showing the applicant's education and a detailed summary of the applicant's technical work, and (3) contain references as required by the Department.
(b) Applicants shall have obtained the education and experience as required in Section 10 or Section 11 prior to submittal of application for examination, except as provided in subsection (b) of Section 11. Allowable experience shall commence at the date of the baccalaureate degree, except:
(1) Credit for one year of experience shall be given
for a graduate of a baccalaureate curriculum providing a cooperative program, which is supervised industrial or field experience of at least one academic year which alternates with periods of full﷓time academic training, when such program is certified by the university, or
(2) Partial credit may be given for professional
engineering experience as defined by rule for employment prior to receipt of a baccalaureate degree if the employment is full﷓time while the applicant is a part﷓time student taking fewer than 12 hours per semester or 8 hours per quarter to earn the degree concurrent with the full﷓time engineering experience.
(3) If an applicant files an application and
supporting documents containing a material misstatement of information or a misrepresentation for the purpose of obtaining licensure or enrollment or if an applicant performs any fraud or deceit in taking any examination to qualify for licensure or enrollment under this Act, the Department may issue a rule of intent to deny licensure or enrollment and may conduct a hearing in accordance with Sections 26 through 33 and Sections 37 and 38 of this Act.
The Board may conduct oral interviews of any applicant under Sections 10, 11, or 19 to assist in the evaluation of the qualifications of the applicant.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to supplement the application, when requested by the Board, by provision of additional documentation of education, including transcripts, course content and credentials of the engineering college or college granting related science degrees, or of work experience to permit the Board to determine the qualifications of the applicant. The Department may require an applicant, at the applicant's expense, to have an evaluation of the applicant's education in a foreign country by a nationally recognized educational body approved by the Board in accordance with rules prescribed by the Department.
An applicant who graduated from an engineering program outside the United States or its territories and whose first language is not English shall submit certification of passage of the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) and the Test of Spoken English (TSE) as defined by rule.

 

[DavidW]

(225 ILCS 325/10) (from Ch. 111, par. 5210)[/URL]
(Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2010)
Sec. 10. Minimum standards for examination for licensure as professional engineer. To qualify for licensure as a professional engineer each applicant shall be:
(a) A graduate of an approved engineering curriculum of at least 4 years who submits acceptable evidence to the Board of an additional 4 years or more of experience in engineering work of a grade and character which indicate that the individual may be competent to practice professional engineering, and who then passes a nominal 8‑hour written examination in the fundamentals of engineering, and a nominal 8‑hour written examination in the principles and practice of engineering. Upon passing both examinations, the applicant, if otherwise qualified, shall be granted a license to practice professional engineering in this State; or
(b) A graduate of a non‑approved engineering curriculum or a related science curriculum of at least 4 years and meeting the requirements as set forth by rule, who submits acceptable evidence to the Board of an additional 8 years or more of experience in engineering work of a grade and character which indicate that the individual may be competent to practice professional engineering, and who then passes a nominal 8‑hour written examination in the fundamentals of engineering and a nominal 8‑hour written examination in the principles and practice of engineering. Upon passing both examinations, the applicant, if otherwise qualified, shall be granted a license to practice professional engineering in this State; or
(c) An engineer intern who meets the education and experience qualifications of subsection (a) or (b) of this Section and has passed the nominal 8‑hour written examination in the fundamentals of engineering, by application and payment of the required fee, may then take the nominal 8‑hour written examination in the principles and practice of engineering. Upon passing that examination, the applicant, if otherwise qualified, shall be granted a license to practice professional engineering in this State.
(d) When considering an applicant's qualifications for licensure under this Act, the Department may take into consideration whether an applicant has engaged in conduct or actions that would constitute a violation of the Standards of Professional Conduct for this Act as provided for by administrative rules.
(Source: P.A. 91‑92, eff. 1‑1‑00.)

 

[Audioholics]

Oh my gosh, David - give it a rest will you. Last time I checked, the point of the article wasn't to insult Ham Radio operators.

Please send me some recommended changes and go find something else to defend your honor on.