What makes an engineer?
I don’t have an engineering degree- though I do engineering work. I am an autodidact innalmost everything I’ve done, and that ability, to learn what I need to learn quickly, has served me well.
What I have done, is become an engineer the way engineers USED to be made, the way they’re educated to this day, in the UK.
IN this country, at the turn of the century, an engineer was a man capable of operating an engine, hence the term. When most people think “engine” they think “motor”, but that’s not what an engine is, an engine, strictly speaking, is a mechainism. Most people think of “internal combustion engine” or “steam engine” but those are just mechanisms used to convert one form of energy into another.
Consider the lathe. At one time, lathes were just things that turned. Most of what they did was let you cut or file or turn something that was round. Around 1810, Henry Maudslay invented a machine that combined the accuracy of Jesse Ramsden’s “dividing engine” with his rigid, accurate lathe.
THis created the engine lathe. There are still bucketloads of people who think that an engine lathe is used to make engines. An engine lathe is used to make accurate cuts on metal, both inside and outside diameter, and most importantly, cut threads. Up to this time, most threads were cut by wrapping a piece of line around the part and the threads cut with a file. An engine lathe meant, that for ther very first time, threads coupd be accurately cut, and a thread made on one machine would fit a thread made on another.
Okay, you in the back, wake the fuck up.
Where I’m going wiht this little bit oif history, is that the engineering accomplisments of the last century were made, in the main, by talented amateurs. In some places, the smae is true today. No group of MIT educated programmers wrote Napster, it was a kid. Google wasn’t written by a huge conglomerate. The things that subtly change the world, come out of left field, more often than not, and nobody knows where the next one is coming from.
Frinstance: Years back, the Big Three experimented with turbine powered cars. In an era of big blocks, they weren’t well accepted. They were also engineering marvels, because of the brute force needed to take the high speed turbine output and turn it into something that the car could use. These days, I wonder why someone doesn’t apply that same tech to making a little hybrid. You could easily gear a turbine to a single speed generator, no accel/decel issues, use the generator to charge batteries, use the batteries to run the car. Old tech and new to make a third, different thing. No, I haven’t done the math, and it may be utterly impausible- but I do know that a turbine is more efficient than a recip, otherwise airplanes would still have propellors. THere are tons and tons of turnings in engineering, many we have never imagined- but someone someday will. And I’ll lay odds it’s not going to be a college professor that does it.
A few years back, an engineering colleague of mine went through the process of upgrading his degree, and when he did, I helped him with some of his labs. I was amazed at the things he was doing, and he got great grades for the class I helped him with. Turns out the piece I helped him make was something he invented off the cuff to test something at his plant, and he just had the idea and ran with it. The education he was getting made it easier to figure out the fine details, but basis of the idea was his, out of the blue, and worked perfectly.
37 comments Og | Uncategorized

Not to pick nits, you point is well taken, and I’m no engineer either so I may be wrong about this…but my undestanding is that turbines are not used in aircraft because of increased fuel efficiency so much as increased power efficiency.
The power to weight ratio of a turbine engine is much higher than that of a recip engine. That allows aircraft to be bigger and faster, not necessarily more fuel efficient.
When attempting to incorporate a turbine into a smaller, lighter craft, much of the power created is uneeded and is, therefore, wasted. Why do you need a 500 horsepower (I’m just throwing numbers out there for example purposes) to drive a generator that only requires 20 horsepower?
By the way…all those military propeller aircraft that you see (P-3, E-2/C-2, C-12) and military helicopters? They use turbine engines too. Propeller doesn’t necessarily mean recip engine. The lighter, smaller planes that don’t require the power or speed of a military aircraft still use recips because they are less expensive and more fuel efficient.
As a sidenote, when I was in high school, a guy that went to my church was an electrical engineer at Delco. He was designing an electric car that worked on the principle you described only with a regular piston engine driving the generator. It was built on a Chevy Chevette and it worked. It had two banks of batteries, when one was being used to drive the electric motor, the other was being charged with a small gasoline engine. When the batteries in use were depleted, the system would automatically switch the banks out.
This was in the late 70’s. The drawbacks were that the top speed was only about 45 mph and the weight of the system wasn’t efficient enough…back then the batteries were all lead acid and were too heavy to be efficient. With modern technology something like that might be possible. If I remember correctly, he got something like 100 mpg out of the setup but the charging bank of batteries could not reach full charge before the driving bank were depleted so it would run out of juice before the engine ran out of gas. The speed was problematic as well for anything outside of driving around town.
The other drawback…it burned his house down. I don’t know that they ever completely identified the cause but the theory is that one of the batteries overcharged and exploded which ignited the whole thing and his house burned.
What’s even worse…I was dating his daughter at the time. She had my class ring which burned with the house. I never got it replaced.
Sailor, the point is to use a 20 horsepower turbine.
Turbines are dramatically more efficient at providing thrust, and if they weren’t efficient at providing angular moment I don’t think Chrysler would have been able to build a turbine car. Yes, I know choppers use turbines, which is again, part of the discussion- turbines are powerful. My point there, was, if recips were efficient enough, and provided enough power/weight, they’d be putting them on larghe planes yet, and they aren’t.
Most hybrids are based on the charger/electric motor principle. I’m just saying, why not use a turbine instead of a recip? the recip was used in cars for it’s ability to accel/decel, which you flat don’t need when charging batteries-in fact, it’s a drawback. So I think a turbine/electric hybrid is going to be more efficient in the long run than a recip/electric hybrid, which is they way they’re building them now.
Of course, for all we know, somebody IS doing it. Some Bill Whittle type out in the Arizona desert has a milsurp jet engine and is farting around with it to see where he can go.
M
And when he comes forth, Mark, I’m gonna invest some money. Doesn’t it seem to make sense? I wish I had done more of that type of work instead of straight up mechanical stuff, I’d be able to sit down and calculate the efficiencies.
But the real question is, how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?
411, Dick.
http://www.tootsie.com/memoriesLicksMachine.html
Og,
You got the essence of what makes an engineer pretty darn accurately. But you got the origin of the word wrong — which is not surprising since 99 of 100 fellow engineers, degreed or not, don’t know. And when some of the 1 in 100 I ask know, they only know because I had told them and I’d forgotten I’d told ’em.
Engineers existed before the first engines. For instance it was engineers who figured out how to build difficult things like tunnels long before the first engines. And war machines like catapults were called engines of war long before the type of engines you mentioned were even a glimmer in the mind of engineers.
Devices like that were called engines for good reason as you’ll come to understand.
The word engine itself is a backformation from the engineers who invented them. Put engineer into a language translator. Look at the tranlation’s spelling in any just about any latin language and you’ll quickly figure out what the root word for engineer really is.
Your description of what makes an engineer proves you already know but only haven’t realized it yet. ;)
You get an F for reading comprehension, Pascal. Read again.
An Engine is a mechanism. AsI already said. A dividing engine is a mechainsim for accurately dividing things- like marks on a sextant, or degrees on a wheel, or inches on a ruler. The combination of the dividing engine with other types of machinery is what made modern manufacturing possible.
BTW, the work of building aqueducts and pyramids was done by “builders”. Until engines existed, (so far as my research has been able to carry me) engineers didn’t exist. The machinery created the profession, not the other way around.
And happy New Year, Pascal!
So you think that ingenuity didn’t exist until the first engines? And that those who skillfully applied ingenuity weren’t significantly different from others? Words like ingenor didn’t exist? Okay. You win.
Happy new year to you too my friend.
Look at when Ingenor was coined. Long after engines existed, to my knowledge. Remember how old engines are.
Ingenuity is older than them all. “In the beginning there was The Word.” :)
goofball.
LOL. Yep. That’s part of what makes a good engineer too.
BTW, I never said your description of engines was wrong. You made a leap about my comprehension there,
All I was after was to pass along that engines imply from the ingenuity of their maker. For some they imply downright ingeniousness, like the effectiveness of interchangeable parts such as machine made screws as you mentioned.
Yes, I’m glad you enjoyed my last play on words. We all — some more clearly than others — imply the ingenuity of Our Maker (Who himself scripture seems to predate by The Word).
Egad: I menat “imply to”
Sure. Now: Tell me how someone can be ingenious before the existence of something ingeniuos to prove his ingenuity? You can’t call someone ingeniuos and Poof! he invents something, but you CAN call someone ingenious after they’ve done something ingenious. A word is not coined (generally) to represent something that hasn’t happened yet, but to describe something that has already happened.
man, my typing sucks today. Ingenious.
Well, I was jsut going to leave a comment, but you inspired me to write a post:
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/01/engineering.html
Sure. Only last week when a friend conceptualized a solution to a problem another friend erupted with “ingenious!” That was before implementation. YMMV, but I bet you’ve been there: the “ah ha” momrnt.
Yep…
“Garage Engineer” & proud of it!
Small lathe & mill, arc & gas weld, Sawsall, forge & anvil, & large junk pile.
What’ju need?
I do know that a turbine is more efficient than a recip, otherwise airplanes would still have propellors.
I think turbines are used on, um, jet planes because of the speed limitations of props. At prop speeds, the prop thrust platform is more efficient, but they can’t go as fast.
OK, let me clarify this for the people who aren’t getting it: A jet engine works at an efficiency approaching 37%. An internal combustion piston engine (gas) peaks at around 25%(optimal conditions) with most operating in the 20% range. A very lean and carefully tuned diesel can theoretically operate at 32% efficiency. Get it? Turbines (as a general rule) do more with the fuel you feed them than do piston engines.
Just out of curiosity, what is the efficiency of a well-designed reciprocating steam engine?
Pitiably, Cat, most of the energy was turned to heat, which just dissipated.
Found it. A steam engine exhausting to atmosphere was between 1% and 8% efficient. Closed engines (Most of the later steam engines) could go a great deal higher, and with combinations (piston and turbine combined) they could arrive at some pretty substantial levels. Steam turbines are still used to generate electricity in nuclear plants.
About engineers, engines, armatures and innovations.
Hi, while it is true that the practicable internal combustion engine efficiency is bellow 30% and the steam engine is still less, Recently we have questioned the feasibility of combining both.
I mean utilizing the combustion machine but instead of throwing out through cooling systems its access heat (which today become total energy waste) to capture it and utilize it by a second steam machine.
Along the design root, we have realized that in order to accomplish such a thermal approach the internal combustion engine structure should be slightly modified. We had to “re invent” the split engine configuration which perform the engine two cold stroke in one cylinder and the engine two hot strokes in a separate cylinder.
If done properly, it can be expected that this new machine will produce mechanical power around the 50% efficiency.
More details can be read at http://www.tourengine.com
By the way, as mentioned in the above written article, the inventor is not a formal educated engineer!
Only good for all
Ben Tour
Interesting concept,Ben. Still, the complexity of the mechanism causes some concern. A turbine will have about three moving parts, if you count the pump that brings it fuel.
This is one of those threads were the comments are as good as the post itself.
If I remember correctly, the big coal fired steam turbine power stations we have in the UK are about 33-35% efficient. They could have gone a bit higher, but I think they wanted to keep the superheat temperature down for longevity.
I’m only a university student, so I only know what I’ve been told, not so much what I’ve done, but I believe the big marine diesels can just about make 50% efficient. I suppose that’s an advantage of scale.
Turbo-diesel cars are far more common in the UK than the US, and in Europe I think they’re about half the market, because we get so royally screwed by fuel taxes. Of course, they aren’t 50% efficient, but they get a fair bit more mileage for the money, and for a lot of lazy drivers the thumping midrange when the turbo spools up makes them feel faster. I’m not a huge fan of them personally, because those chunky iron blocks can make themselves felt in the handling, and the ones I’ve driven didn’t rev quickly for smooth downshifts.
JJB, i think Cat was referring to reciprocating steam engines. The pinnacle of which was the Corliss. Remember, coal was incredibly cheap- and STILL corliss managed to build engines that would pay for themselves in a few years coal savings.
As for marine diesels, not so much. Diesel efficiencies of 50% are potentially in our future, but not here now. Cat and EMD, the manufactureres of most of the “mid sized” marine diesels, show efficiency in the 28-30% range. The really BIG diesels, like the two-strokes used in large container ships, can operate at close to 50% efficiency, but it’s kind of hard to shoehorn a 90 foot diesel into an economy car.
http://www.ultimatestupidity.com/pics/1/diesel/
Yes, I was talking about the really big marine two strokes, sorry for not making that clearer. But as you say, you’re never going to get that sort of efficiency in an automotive diesel.
As for coal savings with reciprocating steam engines, back when the steam locomotive still held sway east of the Atlantic the French were very fond of compound expansion because coal was rather less plentiful there (probably why they’re so fond of nuclear and hydroelectric power). I think even at their best they weren’t getting much over 10% efficiency out of them, and by the standards of steam locomotives they were complex and unreliable. They still reckoned the coal savings were worth it. Says something about what simple expansion locomotives must have been like for efficiency.
JJB, I am given to understand that the big diesels like that became so efficient because of the long hours they worked, never shutting off, staying at operating temp for weeks on end, using minimal fuel to just keep the mass of the engine moving.
It may be that the ability to electronically regulate diesel injection and timing will eventually improve the efficiency on smaller vehicles, but I’m every bit as interested in the low maintenance of the turbine as I am in it’s efficiency. In a turbine there are so many fewer parts, and so few parts to fail. granted, turbines used on jet engines are maintaned very well and are extremely expensive- turbines made for cars wouldn’t have to be nearly so sophisticated. Anyway, it’s just a pretty fantasy, nothing will probably come of it.
Two meditations on engineering…
Two very nice essays on Engineering — what constitutes it and how it has affected our lives. First is from Og at Neanderpundit: What makes an engineer?I don’t have an engineering degree- though I do engineering work. I am an……
On the subject of turbine engines in automobiles, I can speak to some of the issues. We had a Rover gas turbine in the lab of the mechanical engineering department when I went through. Inevitably the subject came up in thermo class. The basic explanation was that whn you get turbines down to that size ( 70HP for the Rover ) friction in the air flow takes a big bite out of the efficiency. Scale effects was the two word answer.
Thanks, IBM. I’ve wondered if they scaled well, and now I know.