Is Applying The Term "Engineering" To Pipe Construction Baloney?

[georged]

Same with building an instrument. My luthier isn't an "engineer," but if he doesn't understand how a guitar's engineering works, all he's made is a pretty wood sculpture, not an instrument.

Etcetera.
The essential difference being that engineers take action as a result of calculation, while craftsmen take action as a result of instruction.
"But today's instruction is the result of calculation done previously by others!" you say.
No, it isn't. Pipes have been around since prehistoric times, and simply evolved through usage. Trial and error. Some small number of people might have examined today's evolved pipes with an engineer's eye (though I've never seen it done except superficially), that's not enough to declare them to be "engineered" objects that exist as a result of calculation. (Think camera lens.)

 

[pipesmokingtom]

Love that anecdote - it's the same in a lot of careers. It comes up often when negotiating a price for playing a show at a festival or club or something. Or with a bar owner that wants you to play for "exposure."
Yeah - $100 bucks/set may seem pricey, but I have to get there, set up my (expensive) equipment, tear down, get home... not to mention the countless hours that went in to learning in the first place, rehearsing, marketing...
That's more part of the value conversation that happened in the thread that sparked this one, probably, but there can be a whole lot built in to the pricing of something than simply the materials and hours it took to produce that specific thing.

 

[pipesmokingtom]

The essential difference being that engineers take action as a result of calculation, while craftsmen take action as a result of instruction.

Two ways to get to the same end. That doesn't mean the final product isn't still, ultimately, engineered to some degree. And in guitar building there is a fair amount of calculation. It's an object that exists due to engineering, although a guitar builder isn't an engineer, I guess because that's not what it says on his pay stub.

 

[allan]

Thank you for posting that video
Extremely enlightening

 

[georged]

Whatever we might think about pipes, I think it's reasonable to assume that no engineering was involved in the making of this entertainment decision:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/05/us-usa-fireworks-maine-idUSKCN0PF0TY20150705

 

[mso489]

Not being a professional engineer, I accept the use of the word engineering related to the design and actual manufacturing or artisanal crafting of pipes, in the limited way you might say you engineered the building of a deck on your house, if you did a lot of careful groundwork, design, selection of materials, and suitable weather proofing and safety features. It doesn't make you an architect, a master carpenter, a civil engineer, or any such thing, but you are applying your skills to bring together those pieces of knowledge that result in a properly designed, long-lasting structure. No one is claiming a pipe carver is primarily an engineer, only that he engineers his crafted object so it does its job in a superior serviceable functional way. On that basis I accept the term engineering, with no slight or misuse intended toward the hard working, usually exceptionally intelligent people who are educated as professional engineers. Grandiosity? Maybe a touch, but not in a bad or foolish way ... if you love pipes.

 

[lordofthepiperings]

I say pipes are engineered.
Different carvers will use different diameters for the draft hole to acquire a draw they think is optimal. They'll cut the bit to different thicknesses and cut the button a bit differently because they feel that makes for the most comfortable clenching. Some make the bowl chamber tapered to create an air pocket which they feel gives a smoother draw. That's just a few examples off the top of my head.

 

[tyler]

I think using the term engineering as a description of well executed pipe internals is a convenient term, and I use it regularly. That said, I don think it's a technically accurate. I am an engineer by day, and a pipe maker by night. The two activities are quite different. I am a chemical engineer, and actually make my living doing fluid flow calculations, sizing pipe and other equipment in order to optimize fluid transfer, heat transfer, and deal with condensation's affect on efficient operations. It's actually the same sort of thing that goes into our tobacco pipes. However, I've never done any engineering on my pipes. I just copy known dimensions, and do all the other well-known little tricks we do inside our pipes. That, in my opinion, is not engineering. It's craftsmanship. It's certainly possible to engineer a pipe, but I don't know anyone who does it. Trying three different draft hole sizes to see which one works best isn't engineering. Engineering is being able to determine which is the best size BEFORE you make it by applying the appropriate scientific and mathematical principles.

 

[agnosticpipe]

Hey, let's not forget about train engineers! As a kid that's the only kind of engineering I was interested in. I wanted to drive a train, and you had to be an engineer to do that. Now clearly I didn't understand how much you needed to know to actually drive a train, but it seemed like such a cool job. There were still some coal engines around yet then, but diesel was becoming more popular, and I liked them all.
Oh yeah, about pipes, I have no problem saying they are engineered. I can't make a pipe (yet) and still can't drive a train, but I can engineer a pretty good Margarita! :nana:

 

[bcharles123]

In addition to all things said, i know I prefer pipes to cigars because they are engineered. I enjoy breaking them in, cleaning them, figuring out which sizes and shapes work best for which type of tobacco, bowl sizes, depth, shape, temperature, resting, materials....
They may not be as intricate as a watch or as complicated as a space shuttle, but they are absolutely engineered.

 

[sablebrush52]

Whatever we might think about pipes, I think it's reasonable to assume that no engineering was involved in the making of this entertainment decision:

Okay this schnook gets into a tie with this other schnook:
Alligator baiter
as a top contender for a Darwin Award.

 

[misterlowercase]

I can sympathize, linguistically, with the prescriptivist position --- I think it's a noble goal to try and preserve the integrity of meaning and prevent the erosion which comes from misuse, but ultimately it's like fighting the tides and there's really no way to prevent it from happening.
Language is in a living state,

but it's also corrosive.
Nature of the beast.

 

[sablebrush52]

I think using the term engineering as a description of well executed pipe internals is a convenient term, and I use it regularly.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I use it, plus it's already an established usage within this small community.

That said, I don think it's a technically accurate. I am an engineer by day, and a pipe maker by night. The two activities are quite different. I am a chemical engineer, and actually make my living doing fluid flow calculations, sizing pipe and other equipment in order to optimize fluid transfer, heat transfer, and deal with condensation's affect on efficient operations. It's actually the same sort of thing that goes into our tobacco pipes. However, I've never done any engineering on my pipes. I just copy known dimensions, and do all the other well-known little tricks we do inside our pipes. That, in my opinion, is not engineering. It's craftsmanship. It's certainly possible to engineer a pipe, but I don't know anyone who does it. Trying three different draft hole sizes to see which one works best isn't engineering. Engineering is being able to determine which is the best size BEFORE you make it by applying the appropriate scientific and mathematical principles.

I think that Pop would have agreed, though I know that he also had a broader definition that developed over the 60+ years he practiced, one that did not ignore the "art" involved. This may have been a more common attitude amongst scientists who came up in the 1930's and before. This was a guy who effortlessly did cube roots in his head and was a walking calculator. And one of the things that he knew from long experience was that despite meticulous preparation, the unexpected could still happen. It's impossible to take into account all of the potential variables. The ability to respond to the unexpected and find a workaround is no less valuable than any other part of the process.

 

[settersbrace]

Thanks Jesse, it was time to put some of BS in the manure pit. Yes, any slap bag can drill a couple holes and rough out a general pipe shape AND get away with finding someone to buy them, usually they are mimicking the technical dimensions someone else came up with.

Neolithic people made bows and spear throwers that brought down Mastadons and Cave Bear, does anyone doubt a few of those working pieces of wood didn't blow up in the makers face before they figured out the RIGHT way to fashion one? Apples and oranges, I know but engineering none the less.

 

[warren]

So, if you drive the locomotive, but didn't engineer it, are you still called an "engineer?" I believe so.
And, should an "operating engineer" still be referred to as an engineer.
I believe most of us use the term to refer to a person who "carries through an enterprise by skillful or artful contrivance." Merriam-Webster
A man shaping a stummel on a lathe would be engineering as he/she is running a machine.

 

[tyler]

I think that Pop would have agreed, though I know that he also had a broader definition that developed over the 60+ years he practiced, one that did not ignore the "art" involved. This may have been a more common attitude amongst scientists who came up in the 1930's and before. This was a guy who effortlessly did cube roots in his head and was a walking calculator. And one of the things that he knew from long experience was that despite meticulous preparation, the unexpected could still happen. It's impossible to take into account all of the potential variables. The ability to respond to the unexpected and find a workaround is no less valuable than any other part of the process.

Fair enough. I do a lot more than calculations on an day-to-day basis. Perhaps I am being too subjective with my definition. A lot of what I do can be done by non-engineers. The thing I uniquely do is the math and science to back what experienced people often already know the answer to be. Perhaps that informed my definition too much.
I'm very accustomed to the term engineer being used loosely. My title at work is "facilities engineer". I joke that many see my title and assume I'm the janitor. :D

 

[warren]

If you have put in the time, effort, and study so are eligible to put "PE" or some such after your name you will be justifiably proud of the designation and no doubt guard the designation jealously. Still, engineer and engineering are terms with multiple correct, not "loose", definitions.

 

[zack24]

Almost everyday, I'm a machinist.

Occasionally, I'm an engineer.

When I'm shaping a pipe, I'm a sculptor.

On a very good day, I'm an artist.

On a very bad day, I'm a butcher...

 

[misterlowercase]

Great quote Zack!

:clap:

 

[jmill208]

I'm confused. What does making a pipe have to do with driving a train? :?: