• Scam Alert. Members are reminded to NOT send money to buy anything. Don't buy things remote and have it shipped - go get it yourself, pay in person, and take your equipment with you. Scammers have burned people on this forum. Urgency, secrecy, excuses, selling for friend, newish members, FUD, are RED FLAGS. A video conference call is not adequate assurance. Face to face interactions are required. Please report suspicions to the forum admins. Stay Safe - anyone can get scammed.

Engineering based on antiquated standards.

jcdammeyer

John
Premium Member
I found this on facebook. Absolutely fascinating. I've added paragraph spacing to make it more easily readable

The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used?

Well, because that's the way they built them in England, and English engineers designed the first US railroads. Why did the English build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the wagon tramways, and that's the gauge they used. So, why did 'they' use that gauge then?

Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they had used for building wagons, which used that same wheel spacing. Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing?

Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break more often on some of the old, long distance roads in England . You see, that's the spacing of the wheel ruts. So who built those old rutted roads?

Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (including England ) for their legions. Those roads have been used ever since. And what about the ruts in the roads? Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match or run the risk of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome , they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.

Therefore the United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot. Bureaucracies live forever. So the next time you are handed a specification/procedure/process and wonder 'What horse's as came up with this?', you may be exactly right. Imperial Roman army chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the rear ends of two war horses. (Two horses' ases.)

Now, the twist to the story: When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah . The engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains, and the SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.

So, a major Space Shuttle design feature, of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system, was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's as. And you thought being a horse's ass wasn't important? Ancient horse's asses control almost everything.
 
This kind of reminds reminds me of a show I loved watching as a teen, Connections by creator/host James Burke. Sometimes technology & development has more linear threads running deep into time somewhat like your example. And sometimes its lumpy or sudden like when a new idea or method or material or circumstance sets out a completely different path. (I hate the modern overused word 'disruptive' but that's what I mean).

 
This kind of reminds reminds me of a show I loved watching as a teen, Connections by creator/host James Burke. Sometimes technology & development has more linear threads running deep into time somewhat like your example. And sometimes its lumpy or sudden like when a new idea or method or material or circumstance sets out a completely different path. (I hate the modern overused word 'disruptive' but that's what I mean).

I too loved that show...... I just wish I was a teenager when I was watching it.....:oops:
 
Along the same lines...the ship building industry is controled to fit ships between the walls (4 inches clearance on each side) of the Corinth canal, dug by slaves also in Roman times. I have stood on the banks of that canal when a ship went thru and man it was tight too me and the amazing thing is how arrow straight that thing is considering when and how it was dug Many layers of rock show in the walls.
 
Shame some of the true skills of craftsmen many years ago are lost with new engineers today.

We now have sophisticated CAD software that can calculated the stress and strains of the materials we use yet now to design and build something new and advanced takes us years longer.

Something has gone backwards and not forwards.
 
I found this on facebook. Absolutely fascinating. I've added paragraph spacing to make it more easily readable

The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used?

Well, because that's the way they built them in England, and English engineers designed the first US railroads. Why did the English build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the wagon tramways, and that's the gauge they used. So, why did 'they' use that gauge then?

Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they had used for building wagons, which used that same wheel spacing. Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing?

Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break more often on some of the old, long distance roads in England . You see, that's the spacing of the wheel ruts. So who built those old rutted roads?

Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (including England ) for their legions. Those roads have been used ever since. And what about the ruts in the roads? Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match or run the risk of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome , they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.

Therefore the United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot. Bureaucracies live forever. So the next time you are handed a specification/procedure/process and wonder 'What horse's as came up with this?', you may be exactly right. Imperial Roman army chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the rear ends of two war horses. (Two horses' ases.)

Now, the twist to the story: When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah . The engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains, and the SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.

So, a major Space Shuttle design feature, of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system, was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's as. And you thought being a horse's ass wasn't important? Ancient horse's asses control almost everything.
Wasn’t this a problem in WW2? There was a problem with rolling stock being the wrong gauge from one country to the next. Well, not wrong gauge there was two different gauges, if I’m remembering right
 
Shame some of the true skills of craftsmen many years ago are lost with new engineers today.

We now have sophisticated CAD software that can calculated the stress and strains of the materials we use yet now to design and build something new and advanced takes us years longer.

Something has gone backwards and not forwards.
As someone who had to build things drawn by engineers who have never picked up a wrench, it’s surprising how often I’d get designs that were easy to draw but impossible to build. Example - 60ft long straight length of 4” steel pipe, no joints, epoxy coated and lined. Engineer was annoyed that we couldn’t work out a way to sandblast the inside of the pipe. I suggested that if they could find me a 3-1/2” tall Temporary Foreign Worker maybe the TFW could walk through the pipe with the blasting gun.
 
Wasn’t this a problem in WW2? There was a problem with rolling stock being the wrong gauge from one country to the next. Well, not wrong gauge there was two different gauges, if I’m remembering right

I remember the same thing. I recall that NA had a different standard.
 
Shame some of the true skills of craftsmen many years ago are lost with new engineers today.

We now have sophisticated CAD software that can calculated the stress and strains of the materials we use yet now to design and build something new and advanced takes us years longer.

Something has gone backwards and not forwards.

As someone who had to build things drawn by engineers who have never picked up a wrench, it’s surprising how often I’d get designs that were easy to draw but impossible to build.

I think @whydontu has a valid point. One that I have made while trying to improve engineering education. A basic engineering education is 4 years of pure hell yet its missing a key element. In my view, engineers need to have experience and understand fundamentals not just memorize complicated formulas and methods.

Who here would let a cardiac surgeon do bypass surgery on their heart if the only practice the guy ever had was reading a book, listening to a lecture, or watching a YouTube video?

My world never looked like @Degens world. CAD-CAM, Robotics, Rapid Prototypes, CAE, and digital testing dramatically cut development times in the Auto Industry. What used to take 6 years, only takes 2 now. The only thing that hasn't changed is the time involved for regulatory compliance. Everything takes forever when government gets involved. Nothing takes less time. Just longer and longer.
 
Yes in many fields the practical and experience can get overlooked and emphasis on "book smarts" only, can end up producing less effective/competent professionals.

I have a family member who taught at a veterinary college basic animal handling and what was once considered common sense techniques to students. When he went through university, most everyone had experience with handling livestock animals, but nowadays the majority of the students have never even been near a cow/pig/horse etc. Even though the students are extremely bright and hard working individuals, the majority of them are completely clueless on how they would go about getting even a blood sample from a live animal.
In my view, engineers need to have experience and understand fundamentals not just memorize complicated formulas and methods.

Who here would let a cardiac surgeon do bypass surgery on their heart if the only practice the guy ever had was reading a book, listening to a lecture, or watching a YouTube video?
 
Sorry, I think like engineer and design to build and function (because I the guy that has to do it). So yes I agree engineers should be required to work with their hands before being allowed to design.

In reply to @Susquatch, I know he's talking about the automotive industry, maybe actually slowing down the design process might be a good idea considering how many problems cars have, you'd think they'd learn and stop making the same mistakes :cool:. Oh wait the Software said it would work:oops:!
 
One point not to miss is that a standard is often very little about what is important from an engineering point of view. Things like "is it compatible with current methods of production"? or "what compromises do we need to make now, in order to make the long, long, long term cheaper (or even viable)"?

I think this anecdote illustrates very well is that designs are fleeting, but standards are mostly forever.

Remember if one standard for a thing is great, the 10 standards for must be heaven!!! ;)
 
Back
Top