Writing and marketing The
New Engineering
In 1973, I wanted to write a book entitled The New Engineering, but I felt that the title was so grandiose everyone would assume the book was written by a crackpot. In its place, I wrote and published The New Heat Transfer. In the book, I point out that the new heat transfer is a branch of the new engineering, and serves as a model for other branches of engineering.
In 2001, even though it still seemed likely it would be assumed that The New Engineering was written by a crackpot, I could no longer delay writing it. The new heat transfer was not gaining acceptance, and therefore waiting would not make me more credible. More importantly, I was approaching seventy years old, and Alzheimer’s and the graveyard were standing by. I felt it was then or never.
I decided to write the book.
Ventuno Press had published The New Heat Transfer in 1974, and had managed to sell approximately 5000 copies. But it had failed to bring about global acceptance of the new heat transfer. And bringing about global acceptance of the new engineering would be a much more difficult task.
In the hope that an established publisher would be more successful with the new engineering than Ventuno Press had been with the new heat transfer, I decided to offer the book to established publishers.
When I finished writing The New Engineering, I had Kinko’s print 15 spiral bound copies. I sent copies to each of 11 publishers, along with a cover letter, a book proposal, and my curriculum vitae. The publishers and their responses to this mailing were:
· Academic Press: No response (other than E-mail confirmation that the manuscript had been received).
· Butterworth-Heinemann: No response.
· Marcel-Dekker: Negative response dated 10/18/01.
· McGraw-Hill: No response.
· MIT Press: Negative response dated 10/23/01
· Oxford University Press: Negative response dated 11/6/01.
· Prentice-Hall: No response.
· Springer-Verlag: Negative response dated 11/8/01.
· Taylor & Francis: Negative response dated 11/8/01.
· Wiley: Negative response dated 10/25/01.
· World Scientific: No response.
The negative response from MIT Press was typical of the letters I received. (They all appeared to be form letters weakly disguised as letters of substance.)
Ventuno Press, the default publisher
Since the above 11 publishers would not publish The New Engineering, I decided that Ventuno Press (my company) would publish it.
Ads in engineering journals and trade magazines
· Journal of Heat Transfer (ASME)
· IEEE Spectrum (Electrical engineering society)
· Chemical Engineering (McGraw-Hill)
· AIChE
Journal
· Chemical Engineering Progress (AIChE)
Ad 1 appeared in all of the above. Ad 2 and Ad 3 appeared in Mechanical Engineering and Journal of Heat Transfer.
Ad 1 summarizes how and why the new engineering differs from modern engineering, and why the new engineering should and will replace conventional engineering. I had spent a good deal of time on the ad, and thought it would be an effective marketing tool.
Ad 2 is a summary of the only favorable review of The New Engineering. Note the following:
· The review appeared in a respected scholarly journal, Chemical Engineering & Technology, published by Wiley-NCH.
· The reviewer was a respected and honored engineer who had worked for Dow Chemical.
· The reviewer was the author of Design of Simple and Robust Processing Plants. His book was favorably reviewed in the October, 2003 issue of Chemical Engineering Progresss, page 63.
· The reviewer had received a prestigious honor, the Chairman of the Judges Award 2003 from The Institution of Chemical Engineers.
I thought Ad 2 would be more effective than Ad 1, since it documented the fact that the book had been highly recommended in a review that was published in a respected and scholarly journal, and was written by a respected and honored reviewer.
Ad 3 is a description of the material posted on this website.
The first ad resulted in few orders, and the second ad resulted in a few more. I presumed that the persons who perused the ads concluded that the new engineering was indeed the work of a crackpot.
Promoting the new engineering in 2004/2005
I thought that if I could explain the new engineering to live audiences, they would sense that I am not a crackpot, and would recognize that the new engineering is vastly superior to modern engineering.
In 2004/2005, in order to obtain live audiences, I wrote to the Program Chairpersons for most of the ASME and AIChE local sections. I offered to speak about the new engineering at dinner meetings, and indicated that I would do so without stipend or reimbursement. Talks I was invited to give at ASME and AIChE dinner meetings lists the 22 local sections at which I spoke.
My speaking campaign was successful in that many persons gained an understanding of how and why the new engineering is better than modern engineering. It was unsuccessful in that it did not kick-start a widespread transition to the new engineering.
This website is intended to promote the new engineering by providing free access to my: