| THE ESSENTIAL ENGINEER Why Science Alone Will Not Solve Our Global Problems Henry Petroski New York: Alfred A. Knopf, February 2010 |
Rating: 4.5 High |
|||
| ISBN-13 978-0-307-27245-4 | ||||
| ISBN 0-307-27245-1 | 274pp. | HC/BWI | $26.95 | |
| Page 9: | "The purpose of the mostly underground machine is to send protons, which contain collections of elementary particles known as hadrons, into various targets in the hope of observing never-before-seen subatomic particles..." |
| Incorrect definition of hadrons. The definition is: Particles which respond to the strong nuclear force. Such particles are made up of quarks: either three quarks of different kinds, in which case the particle falls into the baryon group, or a quark and its antiquark, making it a meson. The proton is a hadron of the baryon group (three quarks). New experimental evidence suggests there may be particles composed of five quarks. |
| Page 16: | "It is not uncommon for different scientists looking at the same phenomenon to reach different conclusions; this is what makes it difficult for laypersons to sort out the truth and risk relating to everything from medical procedures to global climate change." |
| Confusing wording that allows "risk" to be read as a verb: S/B "sort out the truth and the probability of risk relating to". |
| Page 16: | "The Torino scale [. . .] thus takes into account both risk magnitude and consequence, thereby enabling a more meaningful comparison of distinct events." |
| Confusing wording: Again, Dr. Petroski means the risk probability, but in the popular view the magnitude and the consequence of a risk can be very similar concepts. |
| Page 21: | "(To confuse things still further, he [von Karman] was also identified as the 'architect of the space age', but this is not the place to explore the distinction between engineer and architect.)" |
| Splitting hairs. "Architect" has a colloquial meaning that fits.1 |
| Page 23: | "True, the equations of space dynamics and orbital mechanics apply, but..." |
| Possibly confusing wording for the public. The equations of "space dynamics" are the same as for any other dynamics; it's all about knowing which terms are negligible. |
| Page 24: | "The space travel theorist Hermann Oberth spent two decades working on a mathematical characterization of the various factors that affect a rocket's trajectory, finishing his work three years after Goddard's practical success. In other words, the rocket came before the mathematical solution to the problem of rocket flight." |
| The Russian Konstantin Tsiolkovsky developed the mathematics of space flight long before Goddard launched his rockets. Tsiolkovsky even foresaw the need for multi-stage rockets. See Who Was First? |
| Page 41: | "Although the dialogue suggests that the video clip is ridiculing engineers, I got the distinct impression when viewing it that the animated video was not necessarily presenting engineers—or even engineers-to-be—in a negative light." |
| It's unfortunate that Dr Petroski viewed a truncated copy, because the full copy would have left no doubt that it honors the engineer. In that version, the doctor goes on to say that if an engineer loses The Knack, it means disaster. And then he... Oh, just watch the full video. Clearly, the creators of this video think having The Knack is pretty neat. |
| Page 52: | "There obviously was no mature rocket science before there were rockets; that notoriously difficult engineering science did not lead but followed the design and successful flight of engineered rockets." |
| Again, Tsiolkovsky was first with the mathematics. |
| Page 91: | "It will take a lot of concerted effort, and a commensurate amount of patience—on the part of scientists, engineers, law- and policy makers, and the public alike—in dealing with obstacles, setbacks and bumps in the road to true energy independence and any other grand goal that is so much more easily stated than achieved." |
| Missing hyphen: S/B "law- and policy-makers". |
| Page 111: | "In spite of, or perhaps because of, their arrogance in the wake of the Manhattan Project and under the Bushian paradigm, scientists—especially physical scientists—became the well-established arbiters of federal R&D policy in the post-World War II years." |
| Was it arrogance? |
| Page 113: | "In other words, any 'immediate, direct influence' of basic scientific research on technological development was small, if not miniscule." |
| This assessment by Project Hindsight seems to miss the point. Expecting immediate benefits from pure research is like those cures shown in Star Trek when Dr. McCoy injects his new serum and the blemishes instantly fade from the victim's face. |
| Page 119: | "Both R&D and D&R are really linked segments of a long and continuing line of interdependent activities and results. Perhaps we should speak of R&D&R or D&R&D, or even longer strings of D's and R's and &'s, as if they were parts of an industrial genome." |
| Or maybe just D&D. Got wizardry? |
| Page 122: | "According to Lomborg's analysis, 'spending an extra dollar cutting CO2 to combat climate change generates less than one dollar of good, even when we add up all the economic and environmental benefits'." |
| Favorably citing Bjorn Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus indicates that Dr. Petroski has not looked very deeply into that organization or its director.2 |
| Page 125: | "In its early days, nuclear power came under the authority of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, which both promoted and regulated the industry. But in the 1970s the political landscape changed with the growing awareness of environmental impacts of technologies of all kinds and the seeming conflicts of interest within the AEC." |
| Dr. Petroski "seemingly" has no qualms about an organization charged with promoting the industry it regulates, holding the conflict of interest more apparent than real. |
| Pages 125-6: | "The 1979 accident at Three Mile Island—even though it resulted in no significant release of radioactive material—completely changed the playing field and had a chilling effect on the industry. New plants that were in the planning stages were put on hold and many were canceled. The effect was to last for three decades, sending the country into an energy tailspin from which it has not yet recovered." |
| Calling TMI an accident understates the systemic problems involved. And where is the evidence that the plant's meltdown triggered any sort of "energy tailspin"?. |
| Page 139: | "And, because the stream turbines are underwater, their installation draws much less opposition attributable to ruined views or disturbed tranquility than do massive wind tubines that tower and hum over the water." |
| Missing space; S/B "under water". And tell me Dr. Petroski is not biased against wind. |
| Page 161: | "Global warming, climate change, greenhouse gases, carbon footprint, the ozone layer: these phrases have been prominent in headlines, some for at least the last decade or two. Are they distinct causes, effects, beginnings, or ends? Or are they all related? Are they natural phenomena, or are they caused by human activities like burning fossil fuels? Should we be concerned about them and change our ways? Or should we just shrug each of them off as another Chicken Little scare? How much do we know about all this? These are questions for science, both natural and political." |
| Yes, and the scientific questions you raise about these phenomena have largely been answered. So why raise false doubts? |
| Page 162: | "There are too many examples of clear objectivity and honest admissions of insufficient knowledge in National Academies reports to claim they are blatantly biased, but there are subtle indications in the written record that some things are assumed to be true that perhaps should only be stated as possibilities or probabilities. Consider the opening paragraph of the Understanding and Responding booklet, the very title of which implies that climate change, that is, "global warming," is a fact to be understood and responded to:" |
| This sounds like it came from the Denialist playbook. Fortunately, Dr. Petroski's book includes too many examples of clear objectivity and honest acknowledgements of reality for me to number him among the contrarian crowd.3 |
| Page 164: | "Also, without an ozone hole through which to escape, greenhouse gases would accumulate below the ozone layer and trap additional heat." |
| This garbled statement contains a kernel of truth. Ozone also traps heat, so if it is restored over Antarctica, less heat would escape into space there. |
| Page 167: | "While questions remain unanswered, there does appear to be sufficient evidence to be concerned about climate change and to take certain measures to mitigate it..." |
| In fairness, I point out that Dr. Petroski here accepts the reality of climate change. But it seems a grudging acceptance, and does not excuse his earlier statements casting doubt on that reality; for they can easily be seized upon by cherry-picking Denialists to further their absurd campaign. |
| Page 189: | "But to bring structural protection up from Richter 7 to Richter 8 standards can be enormously expensive, disproportionately more than the difference between the simple numbers 7 and 8." |
| Yes, because going from a Richter 7 quake to one measuring Richter 8 means a tenfold increase in energy. Surely Dr. Petroski knows this basic fact. Not mentioning it here is clumsy writing. |
| Page 201: | "Because it was so hot, high-voltage power lines had stretched and drooped more than usual, and one in Ohio is believed to have touched a tree..." |
| This implies that the high ambient temperature directly caused the power lines to sag. That's incorrect; it was because the hot weather impelled so many people to use air conditioners (along with other devices consuming electricity) that high current demand heated the lines, making them droop. |
| Page 219: | "These amounts are not likely to cover the cost of research and development for such a demanding new product, but..." |
| Technically, it's not the product that's demanding: S/B "such a demanding new product specification". |
| Page 266: | Index errors: For "global warming" the pages listed are "80, 143-4, 156, 161, 162-3, 164, 165". |
| One of these is wrong, and at least two more were missed: S/B "80, 144, 156, 161, 162-3, 164, 165, 210, 224". |
To contact Chris Winter, send email to this address.