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

[georged]

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. [Given all that] Applying the term engineering to pipes is quite reasonable. Applying "Engineer" to the maker is quite another matter.

And in those last two sentences, finally, we have it, I think. Clarity and language converging into something everyone agrees is true.
Thank you, G-Man. :D

 

[torque]

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.

I'm not sure I can get behind this concept 100%. To an extent yes, but not totally. By this rational, nothing that has been improved upon can really be considered to be truely engineered advancements. Henry Ford was the only real automotive engineer, everyone else just "threw stuff at the wall to see what worked". Only the guy that made the first micro-processor did any real engineering, every advance that came afterward was just the result of experimentation. I could give a thousand examples. While I agree with your point for the most part, I still think it's a little to simplistic and a bit of a broad stroke statement. I don't believe that every single advancement in pipemaking was done without any well thought out design principles being applied. And at the end of the day that is what most "Engineering" is all about.
To imply that only those that made the initial discoveries are the "true engineers" does a disservice to all the briliant men and women that have enriched our lives with vast improvements over the years. I wouldn't want to still be driving a Model A today and I'm grateful for all these non-engineering experimenters that have given me a much better vehicle for my transportation needs. Just my 2 cents on the subject.

 

[pruss]

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.

Agreed the net result of utilizing those techniques, based on principles discovered by others and ingrained in the collective is a work of writing or, in the case of pipe makers, engineering.
-- Pat

 

[saltedplug]

This is the best multi-person think thread that I've encountered in some time. Kudos to all!