Paul J. Heney senior editor pheney@penton.com

What is the future of fluid power? I was honored to be able to sit on a panel at the recent NFPA Education/Industry Summit in Chicago. The topic was an important one: Should there be a fluid power degree? Along with myself, panel members included Joe Kovach, vice president of technology and innovation at Parker Hannifin; and University of Minnesota professor Kim Stelson, who is also director of the Engineering Research Center for Compact and Efficient Fluid Power. The panel was moderated by Bill Parks, president of Deltrol Fluid Products and the chairman of NFPA’s Education Committee.

What excited me, beyond the scope of the committee, was the NFPA’s decision to allow the audience to get involved. There was some audience discussion/ questions during the panel, but even more that night at dinner. Each table was instructed to talk about the issues raised and to try to come to some agreement. Many of the ideas presented merit some serious consideration:

• Most of those present agreed that a four-year bachelor’s degree was not the ideal solution. Mechanical engineering degrees provide much of the broad technical background that is required to succeed in fluid power.
• An early exposure to fluid power, in the form of classes within the mechanical engineering realm, would be highly desirable.
• The typical engineering student looks for attractive salaries and looks for degrees that provide some level of flexibility between industries. Thus, fluid power could be offered as either a minor option to ME students, or offered as one of the specialization areas that are often part of a senior ME design focus.
• A Master’s level program in fluid power is another interesting alternative that may make sense.
• Industry should make a larger effort to work with engineering students through co-op programs.
• Industry also needs to play a role by providing more hardware for fluid power labs.
• A priority should be to develop high-level research positions at selected universities, which would trickle down to undergraduate coursework. Attendees also noted that some current ME professors have not been taught hydraulics, making the effort more difficult.
• Two-year technical college fluid power programs are another option; some of these already exist, and perhaps that area could be examined and expanded upon. This can also be used by graduate mechanical engineers to learn fluid power with a “practical” bias.

All in all, there was a lot of interesting ideas generated, and there seems to be a variety of directions that this idea could go. In fact, the next step might even be to go in several directions.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I think the newly formed Center for Compact and Efficient Fluid Power is key to moving fluid power in the U.S. forward. The center is something that both industry and manufacturers should pay attention to and support. Take a look at their website, www.ccefp.org. Their dedication research and education may be the linchpin that we need to figure out how to keep fluid power strong, competitive, and on the minds of the youngest, brightest students mulling over career choices.