Separate the variables

In 1712, Thomas Newcomen patented the first practical steam engine. The defining feature of this and other early steam engines was that it didn't run on steam. Steam at little over atmospheric pressure was admitted to the cylinder, and them water was injected into the cylinder, condensing the steam and creating a vacuum that allowed the pressure of the air outside to push the cylinder down. It worked well enough, and its ability to lift large amounts of water over great heights allowed mining to be extended to greater depths, and the abundance of urchins in Cornwall to be finally put to good use (this is a historical fact). In 1765, James Watt, an instrument maker from Scotland filed a patent for a separate condenser, which created the vacuum in a component other than the cylinder, which meant that the cylinder didn't have to reheated after every stroke, and saved a considerable amount of coal, which meant more of the stuff that was dug out of the ground could be sent to London and traded for urchins (This fact is even more historical).

A statue of James Watt. Note that in real life James Watt was rarely covered in green moss, and that the pigeon was actually invented by Nikola Tesla.

What's interesting is that Watt didn't just bang his head on a kettle and think up the separate condenser. Watt had performed a series of systematic experiments to determine the property's of steam at the University of Glasgow to determine the properties of steam, with the intention of creating an engine that only used an amount of steam equivalent to the volume of the cylinder (Newcomen's engine, with its cylinder cooled from the condensing, would then condense admitted steam on the cylinder walls, meaning that more than a cylinder full of steam had to be used). Watt never documented how exactly he conceived of the separate condenser, but it is unlikely he was hit on the head with a kettle and it just came to him (that sort of thing only happens to fictional characters such as Doc Emmett Brown and Sir Isaac Newton). What I think is interesting is that for to accurately understand the effect of each property of steam- the pressure, temperature, dryness and so on- he would have had to ensure that the experiments design to test each one were not affected by the others. He would have had to separate the variables. Watt's separate condenser allowed one process to operate (the condensing), without interfering with another (the action of the piston). Is it possible that Watt was inspired by the need to separate the variables to separate the different process of the steam cycle into different components?
I don't know, I just thought that up one Sunday. Regardless of whether my hypothesis is true or not, it does reveal something about the nature of engineering. A truly successful machine is one that is understandable. Since most machines are pretty complex, it helps if each component only does one thing, so you can design it to do that and that only. This why shock absorbers absorb shock, and don't organise your taxes.
But being understandable is not the defining characteristic of a design, the defining characteristic is whether it works or not. Something that works quite well is a person's blood stream, blood flow delivers oxygen to where it is needed in the body, but it also acts as a coolant, redistributing the heat generated by different organs. This means that you don't need to maintain two different fluid systems with two different pumps, but it also means that the thermodynamics of the human body is much more complex, since the delivered oxygen increases the anount of waste heat which needs to be carried away, with the composition of the blood changing as oxygen is replaced by carbon dioxide. The reason this works is that the human blood flow was evolved rather than designed, and so there was no need to understand why it worked, only that it did work.
With the increase in computing power that came in the second half of the 20th century, the ability to document and analyse (and therefore design) complex systems increased greatly. Additionally, engineers are now starting to study living things to see how they work, in order to design better machines. It is possible that in the near future we will see a slew of new designs, featuring components that have more than one purpose, and that are well understood. It is also possible that this has already happened, and that I just haven't noticed. Either way, its what I'd do.

Whither NASA?

NASA, the people who brought you "The Moon Landing" and "Hey, is that a roast beef sandwich?" are planning to reboot the franchise with the highly anticipated "Moon Landing 2: In Space". Many people blame the recent down-turn of the former cult phenomenon on its insistence on focusing on the "Shuttle" aspect of the commodity, a move that drove away many when the Nixon Administration's plan for routine access to space failed to materialise, spin offs such as "doing science" and "actually we invented Teflon" (which they didn't, it just sort of happened in a bottle this one time) likewise failing to impress. not helping the problem is the fact that the series (of space projects) currently involves people with names like Michael Griffin and Andy Thomas, a far cry from the Harrison Storms and Virgil Grissoms of the golden age of space stuff (which-like most golden ages was the sixties).

So will a return to the roots of NASA bring people to the fold? The answer is probably not. Many similar cultural icons have sort a fresh audience by bringing in some retro chic. Part of the reason is that the current breath of fresh air isn't all that fresh, and is looking like it won't work very well.

NASA's current design for a man-rated booster, shown to scale with a cheap biro for comparison.

Is this really what the NASA of old, the NASA we cared about, the NASA that made us sit down in front of the TV with all the family, was all about? Not really. My NASA, the one I knew in primary school was better than that, it pushed the boundaries, it was Fonzie, not Pottsy. So what made the big N what it was, and what can make it great again? I figure three things.

1. Stop being a nerd: Seriously, leave the science to the geeks, NAS. Tin Tin went to the moon too, but he left it to Professor Calculus to find out what all those snazzy rocks meant.

2. Get a job. Hey NASA, you know that Obama guy that everybody likes? He wants to stop "ML2:IS" and give the money to school kids! Do you remember back when you were called NACA, and you made all those ducts and things? Do you remember how that impressed people? And you know all that stuff for the flying car that you've got down in the basement? Well I think that would really impress people! People really like you when you give them a flying car!

3. "ML2:IS" sounds kind of cool, but it needs to be FASTER, or FURTHER, or RED or something. We've all seen the Moon, its dull and grey, but you know what movie people really liked? Total Recall. You should do something like that, or something.

I think if NASA did that, they could be the darling of public access television, or at least get a parade.

P.S They should totally hire me

And Hello!

So that was the first post of my new blog. Did you like it? I thought it was awful, but you liked it right? Aww thanks! Now I can keep writing and it might even get better than it already is (if that's possible!). I'll be updating when I have something to talk about, which may take a while. I'm guessing that most of the people reading this know me, so if you have any suggestions just tell me at lunch (also,I didn't check before publishing, so there are loads of spelling mistakes). Here is a list of upcoming topics:
-Concorde or Citroen DS: which is sexier?
-My love/hate relationship with Jeremy Clarkson
-Michael Costa, a shouting match
-Why science is exciting again (aka things you already know about, but with more exclamation!!!!!)
-The ten best names for things that engineers built
cheers
me

History's Lessons Lost

Once upon a time (it was 1833), an engineer with the epic name of Isambard Kingdom Brunel was hired to build a railway. The railway was going to go from London to Bristol, but being the type of person to live up to his name's epicity, Isambard (can I call him Isy? no?) decided it wasn't epic enough, and had to go all the way to New York (except by then it was actually a boat). Even that wasn't epic enough, and so the Great Western Railway was built to a gauge of 7' 1/4", instead of George Stephenson's more common "coal gauge" of 4' 8 1/2". The reasoning was that the wider gauge would make for more stabe trains, allowing them to travel much faster than previously thought possible. Even the promise of epic speeds was not enough, and Isambard decided that to make things really epic he needed some truely inovative locomotives. They had names like Hurricane and Viper and had wheels ten feet high and had geared speed reduction at a time when gears were mostly found in clocks. They were all terrible. After spending too many late nights keeping the shambling wrecks on the rails, Brunel's deputy went over his head, and had the company directors appoint him superintentant of locomotives, allowing him to create a set of standard designs with a high number of components common to all the locomotives in the fleet.

Isambard Kingdom Brunel, shown with his characteristic stove pipe hat, gag cigar, higher-than-thou pants, and gigantic chains

(uselessness not pictured)

Meanwhile, pretty much evryone else had caught the railway mania, and lines were pushed ahead all over the place. The problem was that Brunel's choice of a different gauge to that of Stephenson had forced everyone else choose too. In 1845 a Royal commision was formed to decide on a standard gauge for the country, and settled on 4' 8 1/2", which was used by most other countries in the Northern hemisphere, and had by then was called the 'standard gauge' by almost everyone (and still is, by the way).
So eventually, all the experimental apects of the Great Western Railway were eliminated, since the ability to connect with the other railways around it and use well known common machinery was more profitable, whether the standards they used gave the best performance or not*.
This a trueism that has been demonstrated time and time again on railways around the world for the last 200 years (I'll be explaining why in a later post). Unfortunately, it has to be re-learnt every few years or so. At the moment the Iemma government wants to construct an East-West Metro to serve the rapidly growing outer suburbs of Sydney. Granted, a Metro offers cheaper construction (it only has single deck carriages), its lighter, and its quicker for passengers to get on and off. But it is also totally different to every other public transport system in Sydney, so while Metro trains might be able to run on the existing network, it will never be completely compatible, and will thus will never be part of an "integrated transport solution" that everybody wants to talk about. Neither will the existing monorail and light rail, which have so far gone either in circles or out to a park.
Ultimately, any technology needs to be considered in the context of the world around it, rather than in the confines of the feasability study. Lets hope that the folks in charge of Sydney's brand new trains get up and take a look outside.


*as it turns out, a wider gauge didn't offer that much greater stability, but did prevent the use of tight curvature. Likewise, all of Brunels original locomotoves were technological dead ends.