Greatest Achievement in Engineering 8

[zdas04]

There was recently a thread in another forum from a student asking for opinions on "What is the Greatest Achievement in Engineering" of all time. The thread in that forum violated several of eng-tips rules and was inappropriate. But it got me thinking what really was the greatest engineering achievement of all time? Was it one of the early efforts of developing the wheel or the lever? Was it the U.S. space program that spun off so many wonderful new technologies? Was it the computer? Was it the aqueduct's of Rome?

What is your perspective on the greatest achievement in engineering of all time? All answers must be justified and defended there is no "right" answer, but I hope there will be many "wrong" answers.

David

 

[PSE]

Personally, I am not fond of "greatest or worst of all time" statements and would rather use a "greatest or worst to date" type of statement. Not being omniscient, I could not say what lies in the future.

Historically, the first thing that comes to my mind is the capability of creating fire. It allowed the expansion of humanity into previously uninhabitable regions of the world, was needed for metallurgy, and was the "candle" that sent mankind into space.

Regards,

 

[aspearin1]

I wouldn't call fire an engineering achievement, moreso a "scientific" discovery. I would consider rocks and clubs to be more of an engineering achievement, and the early developement of tools, those which enable primitive man to take down his first mammoth.

ChemE, M.E. EIT
"The only constant in life is change." -Bruce Lee

 

[TheTick]

Perhaps fire was a discovery, but the various means of igniting, controlling and maniulating fire are engineering achievements.

Perhaps the bow drill then, or flint?

Due to illness, the part of The Tick will be played by... The Tick.

http://www.EsoxRepublic.com

 

[ScottyUK]

May I suggest the following candidates to be shot down or defended as you wish:

The clock, without which we would have no measure of the passage of time, and thus no measure of velocity, frequency, and so on.

The wheel, from which so many other devices are descended: the sprocket - or cog to electric lads like myself, ha-ha; the pulley; the paddle wheel; etc.

The turbine, invented by a genius from my hometown, which provides motive power to power plants, ships, aircraft, locomotives, etc.



-----------------------------------

Never look down any at anybody, unless you are helping them up.

 

[patprimmer]

Are we talking about the greatest achievements, like building Pyramids, Aqueducts, Great Walls, or putting a man on the Moon, or most important, like devices to help make fire or the wheel, crank arm, discovery of electricity, gunpowder.

Are we talking about single endeavours like building a particular pyramid, or the evolution of knowledge, like the science of making metals, and the resultant ages of history.

Regards
pat pprimmer@acay.com.au
eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

In terms of a classic piece of engineering by a small number of individuals, involving research, invention, development and manufacture, I think the Wright brothers' achievements have got to rank right up there. In terms of more recent efforts, I can't make up my mind whether the development of the V2 rocket or the Apollo program was the greater achievement. The former unfortunately depended on slave labor for its rapid progress, but the latter derived in part from the former, and was in some ways primarily an organizational and political triumph - a bit like the modern equivalent of pyramid construction.

 

[GregLocock]

I'm just looking at Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design.

Rule 1 (Engineering is done with numbers) seems to apply, so inventing fire and the wheel don't really qualify.

I think the Wright brothers were an excellent example of organised engineering research, I'd be interested to see how Brunel went about things, I suspect he was far more ad hoc.





Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[EnglishMuffin]

Well, if you haven't read it, I can recommend "Isambard Kingdom Brunel" by L.T.C. Rolt. It would make a great movie, if done by some director along the same lines as "Titanic". I don't think it would be fair to call him "ad hoc" on the basis of that book. But you could argue that he was a bit "over the top" and maybe went "a ship too far".

 

[GregLocock]

Read it a long time ago. He definitely went an atmospheric railway too far!

Hmm, I wonder when bridges started to be designed as opposed to copied?

And of course there is an argument that the Gothic cathedrals were designed mathmatically, although I think it more likely that a variation on Gaudi's method of weighted strings is more likely.


Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[EnglishMuffin]

If by design you mean "design using modern scientific principles", I would guess some time during the eighteenth century, when the scientific contributions of the likes of Galileo, Hooke and Young were becoming more widely circulated. But not surprisingly, these early scientifically designed efforts were often not as successful as other contemporary designs by self taught men like Telford.
I personally think that the "greatest achievement" should involve some sort of ratio between the quality of the engineering and the total number of people involved in it. This would probably rule out things like the moon program, but not necessarily the pyramids, since they may have been concepted by a relatively small number of individuals. Of course, it is arguable how much "engineering" in the modern sense was involved in such ancient projects.

 

[patprimmer]

I think engineering is engineering, whether or not it uses modern techniques. The quality of the engineering is reflected by the outcome. The Pyramids must rate high, as they not only had to design them, but also erect them, which involved getting very large stones into very difficult positions, like, from the quarry to the peak of the pyramid. All without engines nor electricity.

Regards
pat pprimmer@acay.com.au
eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

Well, it's amazing what you can do with 20000 slaves, and actually the blocks weren't that big as megaliths go - between 2 and 9 tons each. To me, that's more of a logistics triumph than an engineering one. On the other hand, not far away is the much earlier valley temple, which has some megaliths weighing over 200 tons. Nobody has the slightest idea how these were manoeuvred into position - a real engineering mystery if you ask me.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

By the way, don't get me wrong - there is a lot of interesting megalithic engineering in the great pyramid, (see for example

http://www.megaliths.info/megalithic/kcspacers.html),

but to me the engineering wonder of it derives from the fact that it was probably the work of relatively few ingenious minds, not the shear scale of the enterprise.

 

[25362]

Yes, I think engineering is a science. A science by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made (directly and indirectly) useful to humans in structures, machines and products.

In addition to the great enginering feats already mentioned I'll add the making of paper (2000-3000 years ago) and later on printing. These were the vehicles to convey the inherited legacy of knowledge through ages and places.

As for energy, the making of steam, steam machines and steam transportation of goods and people merit a high place in the list of engineering achievements. Steam power eased the production of electricity and electronics, which carried energy, information, ideas, light, and images everywhere.

One is compelled to think about the future, whether mankind would, at last, become the master of its fate, for better or for worse.

 

[GregLocock]

So, who agrees with Akin, ie you have to do mathematical analysis to do engineering?

I guess I'm looking at the early steam engines, which I strongly suspect were designed purely on an ad hoc basis. Later on, people got very good at designing steam engines analytically, but they were dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants.

This is where the Wright brothers scored, they cascaded requirements down to each sub system, and recognised the interactions. In contrast, Brunel worked on robust systems where poor performance in one subsystem did not prevent the entire thing from working, usually.




Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[jmw]

So,
we need first to define what we mean by "achievement".
e.g.
any artificial construct
any artificial construct that serves a useful purpose
any artificial construct that serves its purpose and advances engineering
and so on.
We might incude the pyramids because they fire our imagination (party because they seem so ambitious a project compared with our perception of the skills available) and the question of the extent to which slaves were employed is debated....some suggest that in a river culture with wealth, and a large permanent population with largely seasonal employment that it is a bit like the CCC in America. But let's not go there.

We might also disqualify projects such as the pyramids and the great wall of China on the grounds that as engineering achievements they failed.... or that they are still here long after their useful purpose was served (unless you count tourism, which surely wasn't in the design specifications). Imagine if 4000 years from now all our engineering achievments are still cluttering up the planet.

So we might consider that we are looking for something that has endured. The wheel surely fits that bill and fire is a discocvery, but while the bow drill might be legitimate, who uses it any more. Actually, since we don't have a planet full of useless bow drills, it might be valid. Fint and steel are certainly still available and used.

Size and age surely aren't sole criteria. Velcro could prove pretty enduring. After all, the principal is an enduring part of nature. (copying from nature is OK by me).

I personally don't think mathematical ability or draftsmanship are necessary qualifications. It is the mind that is the important tool.

We might consider earthquake proof architecture.... in which case the Chinese can lay a claim.

Perhaps we should include a "before their time category" for successful engineering projects. By this I mean those projects that we tend to think of as fitting within a particular technological era. For example, drilling for natural gas... again we give the prize to the Chinese for their gas wells in 970BC (i think, but in this comment on salt production from evaporation we have at least 200BC:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/milestones/naturalgas.html)

Thoughts?

If not I'll put forward my original suggestion temporarily which is the wooden wedge, invaluable in quarrying the marble for the great sculpturers. When driven dry into a crack in the stone and then soaked in water it employs hydraulics and not brute strength for its action.

JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[aspearin1]

Why the pyramids? They are a world wonder and architectural feet... but what purpose do they really serve? Entomb some old rich guys? Chart the heavens? Channel electromagnetic energy to aliens robbing us of our natural resources? To be an engineering achievement, I think you should have to go beyond that of pure marvel and keep with practicality and pervasiveness of the invention. Keeping with the spirit of the Wright Brothers, I'm going to go with the bicycle. From my understanding, the bicycle is still the most efficient form of transportation, turning the human engine into a rolling machine. What other machine could move 200 lbs. at 25 mph for an hour using only a cheese sandwich and water for fuel? Emmissions consist of CO2, H2O, heat, and fully biodegradable solids. And if you think about it, the invention really hasn't changed much. Sure, there are variations on the theme and advancements in materials, but a bicycle is still as recognizable today as it was yesterday.

As far as math goes, there are many industrial practices that cannot be completely modelled mathematically. Human comprehension simply cannot grasp all the unknown variables. But experience, intuition and ad hoc methods have kept these systems going.

After successfully overcoming a processing obstacle with a co-worker, he asked me, "what does the math look like for this?" I told him, "I don't care what the math does, if it works." Don't get me wrong. Lot's of math goes into these things, but it's not the end-all predictor. It's usually the initial selection criteria (1st law of thermo), but after that comes experimentation (data analysis with math), intuition, and sometimes ad hoc methods.

ChemE, M.E. EIT
"The only constant in life is change." -Bruce Lee

 

[IRstuff]

duh....


Obviously, the greatest engineering achievement is this site; where else would we go to discuss this weighty question?

TTFN

 

[EnglishMuffin]

The problem I have with the bicycle is that it sort of "evolved", and to me "achievement" tends to imply some major contributions by individuals, although I can't logically justify that position. And it doesn't seem to fit Akin's and GregLocock's "requirement" (if there is one) about mathematical analysis, since the mechanics of the bicycle are quite subtle and were not really fully understood until relatively recently. I'm willing to bet that the Wrights had a better engineering understanding of flight than they did of bicycles, even though that was their main business. I'm not sold on the pyramids either.