Gotta get the briar to the carver. Boat captains may also be involved. And truckers! I almost forgot the trucker.
Is Applying The Term "Engineering" To Pipe Construction Baloney?
- Thread starter sablebrush52
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
As a mechanical engineering student with a senior project about designing the perfect pipe (thermodynamically and hydro-dynamically, from a manufacturing perspective), I would go so far to say that engineering has been a fundamental part of designing the various pipe shapes. Pipe smoking, as a hobby/obsession, appeals to the thoughtful mind. It's no surprise so many of them happen to be engineers 
Gotta go with Warren on this one. Multiple correct definitions. In the U.S., my professional licensure is "Airframe & Powerplant Mechanic". In Canada, it is "Aviation Maintenance Engineer". On a ship, my job would be part of the "Engineering Group", and I could eventually study and test for a position as "3rd Engineer", or maybe even "Chief Engineer". My point is, these are all legitimate licensures or job titles that people are rightly proud to attain. However, at NASA or JPL, I would not be "engineer" anything. I would probably be "that dipshit with all the wrenches and hammers" and wouldn't be allowed in the same lunchroom with the engineers. Engineering can cover a wide spectrum, including its uses in pipe manufacture.
The Hubble telescope is also adjusted with a hammer.
I suppose around NASA the people with all the wrenches and hammers would be called "Astronauts".
I suppose around NASA the people with all the wrenches and hammers would be called "Astronauts".
My work title is test engineering specialist, so I am officially an engineer by trade... Making a pipe and handcutting a stem is no small feat to pull off. As long as you aren't using a fraising machine it is damn well engineering.
If anyone thinks its not I challenge you to make respectable pipe and then decide.
If anyone thinks its not I challenge you to make respectable pipe and then decide.
misterlowercase said:
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.
Pipe makers would seem to fashion a pipe by the principles they have learned about making pipes as well as by what works for others and what they themselves have found to work. When what has worked for them no longer works, they modify the principle; and should that fail, reject the old principle in favor of one that is new. But even with the application of principles, I find much more craftsmanship than engineering in pipe making, as so-called "real" engineering involves the application of mathematical and scientific to optimize the outcome of a process in the physical world.
But the quote above points out quite aptly that language drifts, forming new meanings for words at need by many individuals, all unique and all with their own ends. Thus for makers and smokers in the pipe world, the practice of optimizing airflow within a pipe can legitimately be called engineering, even without the technical training of a professionally trained and practicing engineer.
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.
Pipe makers would seem to fashion a pipe by the principles they have learned about making pipes as well as by what works for others and what they themselves have found to work. When what has worked for them no longer works, they modify the principle; and should that fail, reject the old principle in favor of one that is new. But even with the application of principles, I find much more craftsmanship than engineering in pipe making, as so-called "real" engineering involves the application of mathematical and scientific to optimize the outcome of a process in the physical world.
But the quote above points out quite aptly that language drifts, forming new meanings for words at need by many individuals, all unique and all with their own ends. Thus for makers and smokers in the pipe world, the practice of optimizing airflow within a pipe can legitimately be called engineering, even without the technical training of a professionally trained and practicing engineer.
Ah, Nate I sincerely hope you are wrong. I really want to see a pipe engineered from carbon fiber with at least three airways, a carburetor, a stay clean filter which never needs changing or cleaning, with a permanent, yet breathable finish coating which overnight self-cleanses and polishes itself to a nice, moderate sheen. The bowel should be coated with an undetectable coating which is tasteless but, for those that care, is labeled as a coated bowl so they will have something to complain about. The bowl should be able to shit effortlessly from a straight grain to flame or even bird's eye as required.
The pipe must smoke as well as the best, most expensive briar pipes and also as well as the cheapest best ever smoking cobs. It can never ghost and the shank can never snap. The stem must be soft as ebonite, hard as acrylic, and never oxidize or discolor. It must also be impervious to teeth marking and the button must fit everyone's satisfaction.
Oh! And the stem must be mailable and able to be shaped by the smoker so that if he decides he wants a bent while smoking a straight he can so shape it. Also, the bowl should be constructed so that the smoker can change from . . . say a bull dog to an apple in mid smoke. The shank should also collapse or lengthen as desired at the moment.
With all the shaping the pipe must retain proper proportion in the eye of the smoker and never reek or offend non-smokers. Ideally it would never release smoke or odors which would offend others. Couple that to a blend which releases a room note that is acceptable or better yet, pleasing to everyone with in nose range.
The engineer's work is never done when it comes to the perfect pipe.
The pipe must smoke as well as the best, most expensive briar pipes and also as well as the cheapest best ever smoking cobs. It can never ghost and the shank can never snap. The stem must be soft as ebonite, hard as acrylic, and never oxidize or discolor. It must also be impervious to teeth marking and the button must fit everyone's satisfaction.
Oh! And the stem must be mailable and able to be shaped by the smoker so that if he decides he wants a bent while smoking a straight he can so shape it. Also, the bowl should be constructed so that the smoker can change from . . . say a bull dog to an apple in mid smoke. The shank should also collapse or lengthen as desired at the moment.
With all the shaping the pipe must retain proper proportion in the eye of the smoker and never reek or offend non-smokers. Ideally it would never release smoke or odors which would offend others. Couple that to a blend which releases a room note that is acceptable or better yet, pleasing to everyone with in nose range.
The engineer's work is never done when it comes to the perfect pipe.
Hmm, just to be the Devil's advocate, not that I care how or what someone calls a pipe maker, but maybe if a pipe maker varies the hole based on some formula... But, for the most part of watching these guys discuss such, they just seem to use the drill size they were taught. Sure, someone devised that such and such size works best. But, using things devised by some past engineer (whether actually derived from science or trial and error) doesn't necessarily make the maker an engineer. For example, if I design a small boat that meets some function using my own calculations of boat dynamics, I am engineering a boat. If I take these plans and make that boat engineered by someone else, even if I change some aesthetics, am I still an engineer?
If so, as a jeweler I too am an engineer, making settings for stones and designing rings and chains. I am using engineering set by others and passed down by tradition. Heck, when I use my keyboard, I'm a computer engineer. When I drive, I'm a mechanical engineer.
Now, there are pipemakers who do engineer new designs. The twin bore, the dry-system, etc, all derived from innovative new ideas that had to be engineered. But, if I make my own twin bore pipe using Radice's ideas and designs, am I an engineer?
Now, all that said, you can call them whatever you want. Call them rocket scientists or marine biologists if you want. Whatever you call them, I am thankful someone is making the pipes, whether they ate engineers, craftsmen, artists, or dilly-dalliers. The rose still smells as sweet.
If so, as a jeweler I too am an engineer, making settings for stones and designing rings and chains. I am using engineering set by others and passed down by tradition. Heck, when I use my keyboard, I'm a computer engineer. When I drive, I'm a mechanical engineer.
Now, there are pipemakers who do engineer new designs. The twin bore, the dry-system, etc, all derived from innovative new ideas that had to be engineered. But, if I make my own twin bore pipe using Radice's ideas and designs, am I an engineer?
Now, all that said, you can call them whatever you want. Call them rocket scientists or marine biologists if you want. Whatever you call them, I am thankful someone is making the pipes, whether they ate engineers, craftsmen, artists, or dilly-dalliers. The rose still smells as sweet.
:
Professor in Engineering School discussing the Thermos Bottle to a particular dense Student. Student to teacher, seemly ignorant of the concept of a Thermos. What do it do? Proffesor , it keeps Hot things Hot and Cold Things Cold. Student rubs his heat looking Bumfuzzled, saying Yea! But how do it Know! After working with the supposedly cream of the crop engineers at Exxon, You've got book smart and can't pour piss out of a boot. I believe Zachs ditty, says it all, you have to be a total everything to make a good pipe.
No. But that misses the point. You may not be the engineer, but you may be using the engineering principles devised by others in constructing the boat. It's not that you invented anything, but that you are using established engineering principles. And there's more than "drilling two holes" involved. Look at that "last inch" of the pipe. Look at the different designs for bits, buttons and slots. Are we still using an orific bit? I was looking at the images of Asteriou billiard and was struck by the shaping of the slot:
He's given thought to how to spread the smoke so that more of the flavor can be captured immediately and to also reduce tongue bite. Now maybe this is common with other carvers, but I haven't seen this. Asteriou is a trained architect. To me, this falls under the umbrella definition of engineering that opened this thread:
Engineering is the application of scientific, economic, social, and practical knowledge in order to invent, design, build, maintain, research, and improve structures, machines, devices, systems, materials and processes.
Exactly.
However... the vast majority of pipe makers only do things the way they were taught, or copy the successful designs, dimensions, & etc. of others. They PRODUCE an engineered object, but they had nothing to do with the FUNCTIONAL DESIGN of the object. External shape, color, and etc., yes, but all the bits that are rolled into the term "engineering"? No. They just copy dimensions, designs, and techniques.
Even when it comes to changing engineering-y stuff like tenon material, attachment methods, and so forth, they just experiment. Throw stuff at the wall to see what works.
Is that bad? Am I being disparaging? Not at all. They are just doing things intelligently and efficiently by standing on the shoulders of those who came before by not re-inventing the wheel.
But they are not "applying engineering methods" to develop and design things. They are simply replicating things.
pruss,
You might say a short answer is that writing prose or poetry has nothing to do with mathematics or science, and thus the term engineering, in the formal sense, has nothing to do with either. But if we say that the writer follows principles set by centuries of writers that have come before, then the idea of pipe making as a set of techniques to craft a pipe, based on principles discovered by previous/other makers transfers.
The practical focus of pipe making is on what works, devised by the individual maker or others from whom he has learned, also transfer; that is, although I use punctuation and grammar to some extent stylistically, mostly I follow convention. But it is in syntax that the writer has the most choice. The varying of independent clauses with the subordinate, the chaining of subordinate clauses in number and their placement; but too the fluid determination of word form, noun, noun in verb form and thus a verb, is up to the writer. Also expressing ideas, how much goes in this clause, how much there, is totally a matter of choice. Put three able writers in a room and declare a topic, limit them to five paragraphs and 300 words and you will get three different essays. Each will manipulate the above idiosyncratically. They will package their ideas within the characteristic rhythms of their prose style. (This would also be the case with three makers told to make a zulu.) Their ideas will be similar given the prescribed topic, but one might elaborate it in one long paragraph according to habit but also to what occurs to him spontaneously during the writing.
Or take this: writer A has plenty of ideas about just one point. He states it in the first sentence and methodically supports it to the end. Writer B has the same idea, and though he implies it or states it outright in the first sentence, he then qualifies it in the next five sentences. Then in a brilliant ending pulls all five qualifications together with one idea that removes the qualifications, making them instead support, and ends.
Thus it is the manipulation of the ideas by the fluid rules of syntax, I think, where the writer has the most freedom.
Poetry is an entirely different matter, and as this isn't a poetry board I won't say much about it. But the rules of grammar, punctuation and syntax can be kept or tossed at whim. You might say that the poet writes successful poetry if he feels he does, as he appreciates how he broke the rules, and if he can get the poetry community to agree, he is esteemed. Certainly there are many principles in poetry, and able poets know all of them. They read old and current poets and incorporate their methods. But overall poetry is about the artful breaking of convention, of principles, and he who writes the best poetry breaks the rules the most artfully.
You might say a short answer is that writing prose or poetry has nothing to do with mathematics or science, and thus the term engineering, in the formal sense, has nothing to do with either. But if we say that the writer follows principles set by centuries of writers that have come before, then the idea of pipe making as a set of techniques to craft a pipe, based on principles discovered by previous/other makers transfers.
The practical focus of pipe making is on what works, devised by the individual maker or others from whom he has learned, also transfer; that is, although I use punctuation and grammar to some extent stylistically, mostly I follow convention. But it is in syntax that the writer has the most choice. The varying of independent clauses with the subordinate, the chaining of subordinate clauses in number and their placement; but too the fluid determination of word form, noun, noun in verb form and thus a verb, is up to the writer. Also expressing ideas, how much goes in this clause, how much there, is totally a matter of choice. Put three able writers in a room and declare a topic, limit them to five paragraphs and 300 words and you will get three different essays. Each will manipulate the above idiosyncratically. They will package their ideas within the characteristic rhythms of their prose style. (This would also be the case with three makers told to make a zulu.) Their ideas will be similar given the prescribed topic, but one might elaborate it in one long paragraph according to habit but also to what occurs to him spontaneously during the writing.
Or take this: writer A has plenty of ideas about just one point. He states it in the first sentence and methodically supports it to the end. Writer B has the same idea, and though he implies it or states it outright in the first sentence, he then qualifies it in the next five sentences. Then in a brilliant ending pulls all five qualifications together with one idea that removes the qualifications, making them instead support, and ends.
Thus it is the manipulation of the ideas by the fluid rules of syntax, I think, where the writer has the most freedom.
Poetry is an entirely different matter, and as this isn't a poetry board I won't say much about it. But the rules of grammar, punctuation and syntax can be kept or tossed at whim. You might say that the poet writes successful poetry if he feels he does, as he appreciates how he broke the rules, and if he can get the poetry community to agree, he is esteemed. Certainly there are many principles in poetry, and able poets know all of them. They read old and current poets and incorporate their methods. But overall poetry is about the artful breaking of convention, of principles, and he who writes the best poetry breaks the rules the most artfully.
A different tack:
I was most impressed by the designs and patent applications of almost 100 years ago as mostly having to do with removing moisture, etc. That was a phase back then, apparently, and has been carried forward by a few large companies and I don't know how many independents. But I've gleaned through reading most posts over the last few months that the majority are happy with a filterless, systemless pipe, and prefer same. Would you agree?
At this point in the development of the craft, most of the engineering is done, and we are thus left with craftsmanship, artistry and well chosen materials. Thank heavens!
I was most impressed by the designs and patent applications of almost 100 years ago as mostly having to do with removing moisture, etc. That was a phase back then, apparently, and has been carried forward by a few large companies and I don't know how many independents. But I've gleaned through reading most posts over the last few months that the majority are happy with a filterless, systemless pipe, and prefer same. Would you agree?
At this point in the development of the craft, most of the engineering is done, and we are thus left with craftsmanship, artistry and well chosen materials. Thank heavens!
It would be very interesting to get a transparent mouth to to puff on that beautiful Asteriou billiard, a Becker, a Savinelli (or some other slot made bit), a corn cob, and an old Native American pipe to see whether they do in fact deliver differently. It has struck my mind on many occasions that I might just not be able to detect these subtle nuances given to the bit of a pipe. I find that I sometimes leave one of my Beckers in the car for my driving pipe on many occasions. It is a great pipe, but I am just not wow'd by it as much lately. And, I find myself pondering whether the form of the pipe vastly outweighs any other aspect of the pipe. I get a good smoke from my cobs, but... (I hesitate to say, because I don't want to sound like a snob putting down the cobs) ...but, it just doesn't appeal to me aesthetically. A couple of times I have smoked two pipes, a factory slot bit and a handmade, just to see if they deliver differently. It may just be my slow smoking style, or some lingering neanderthal palate of mine, but I just don't detect any different experience. But, don't get me wrong, I do vastly appreciate the workmanship that goes into these small details. I appreciate, but when the rubber hits the road, and the bit is in my maw, is there really something different going on? Maybe something I cannot detect?
As a dabbler in pipemaking for my own curiosity and pleasure... I have made a few pipes. I appreciate the work that goes into the bit and the drilling. I've even done a little "throwing it at the wall" with drill sizes, tapered drill bits, polishing the interior, leaving it hacked... maybe I just adjust to the differences in my smoking styles, as one who has many different types of pipes within the genres that I collect, ...maybe it is just my own perceptions, ...but, I don't think any of it matters, at least to me. I think that of the pipe is beautiful to me, I grab it more often. And, by beautiful, I don't mean pretty or shiny, just a pipe that appeals to me, one that fits me, not too big, too small, nice shape, texture, "feel."
But, I am curious if there is any actual perceptive difference in the bit and the way it actually distributes. However, if there is, if I cannot detect it, should that matter to me? Just a question for myself, my own inquisitiveness.
As a dabbler in pipemaking for my own curiosity and pleasure... I have made a few pipes. I appreciate the work that goes into the bit and the drilling. I've even done a little "throwing it at the wall" with drill sizes, tapered drill bits, polishing the interior, leaving it hacked... maybe I just adjust to the differences in my smoking styles, as one who has many different types of pipes within the genres that I collect, ...maybe it is just my own perceptions, ...but, I don't think any of it matters, at least to me. I think that of the pipe is beautiful to me, I grab it more often. And, by beautiful, I don't mean pretty or shiny, just a pipe that appeals to me, one that fits me, not too big, too small, nice shape, texture, "feel."
But, I am curious if there is any actual perceptive difference in the bit and the way it actually distributes. However, if there is, if I cannot detect it, should that matter to me? Just a question for myself, my own inquisitiveness.
Yes.
I suspect that most of the manufacturers during that period knew they were selling patent medicine, too. By its nature, pipe smoking is a simple concept that's difficult to master, and that, plus a steady influx of new smokers guaranteed to have a rough go at first meant that offering a PIPE which would make things easier was a shrewd (if cynical) move. It became so widespread for a while that a pipe line without plumbing or gimmicks was the exception.
Because the entire approach was a building built on sand, though---people will only believe something to be true when it isn't for so long, no matter how relentless the marketing---virtually all the widgetry eventually disappeared.
Its having existed DOES make for interesting collecting and a colorful page of PipeWorld history, though.
Do I have to be an engineer to apply engineering? Who did it or when doesn't seem all that important. Somewhere along the line someone did some engineering to optimize the performance of pipes. When those principals are applied the resulting pipe was engineered. The existence of patents suggests that the government's requirements for a sufficiently different approach was established so at sometime in the past engineering was done. Because the individual who manufactured the pipe was a technician/artist not an engineer doesn't mean the pipe itself wasn't engineered. But "engineered" in this case is more the vernacular for conveying general concepts rather than a reflection of real fact. It suggests the a pipe conforms to an established set of standards. Most pipe makers are not engineers but they do apply the work of someone that did the original engineering. Applying the term engineering to pipes is quite reasonable. Applying "Engineer" to the maker is quite another matter.
- Status