×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

What have we lost/gained
8

What have we lost/gained

What have we lost/gained

(OP)
Looking at thread 769-137240 reminded me of something that we used to do some years ago (late 1960s/early 1970s): I spent some time as an industrial engineer, in our office we had a calculating machine - huge desktop thing, mains electricity powered, nixie tube display etc. In lighter moments we used to have races - someone would write down a list of numbers and two people would race to add them up. One on the calculator thingy and the other person add them up in his (her) head. The mental arithmetic person would win more often than not. Today, when confronted with similar sums the first thing we do is reach for our calculators.

What have we lost or is it really a real gain allowing us to free our brains for other things?

What do other (older) folks think and what do the younger generations feel?

What other time saving devices have changed our working lives?

RE: What have we lost/gained

Digital camera (5 megapixels and up) + memory card (1 GB + computer with memory card/USB slot + server

When I as-build, I take pictures. A lot of pictures. For a control system panel (Rittal doublewide), about 25 - 50 pictures per side. When I get back to the office, it goes on the project drive.

Sure, the description, notes, documentation and drawings, etc, is great. But, usually, we miss something.

The pictures make it that much less likely to miss something. From anecdotal evidence, and some of my own expeiences, it cuts down on return trips by 50%-75% of the time, because of missed information.

RE: What have we lost/gained

3

When I was in high school (early 70’s) I could sum or average groups of 5 3 digit numbers in my head faster than I can now add them up on a calculator.

I have lost that ability either through aging or through disuse.

The trouble of doing these sorts of comparisons is that the people who raced the calculators (and often won) are now old enough that they most likely have lost the skill anyway and so cannot make the true comparisons. Those young enough to perhaps have this skill never developed it in the first place.

Mental abilities change over time from analytical skills to more pattern matching/memory skills. Thus as a junior engineer just starting out you have to calculate a beam size where us old farts have seen enough to have a good rough idea of the size of beam for most applications.

If my experience tells me that a W310 (W12 to my American friends) beam is about right and the program tells me that a W150 (W6) is needed then I know enough to check the data entry. A junior engineer will simply send it to the drafting department.

What has changed is that with computers designing the beams the junior engineers do not see all steps of the calculation. When I was a junior engineer I could see if I had made an error in my calculations or initial condition assumptions quickly because I saw every stage of the calculation.  I also had to return to the starting conditions several times in the course of the design so if in one set of calculations a finger error in entering the number would become apparent.

Now people enter the numbers once and have no checks on then until a beam size pops out of the other end of the program.

I’d say that computers make the process of designing and the grunt work much easier but the cost is that the engineer no longer has the same feel and degree of judgment that one gets by doing the work by hand.

Eliminates the small mistakes but allows you to make bigger mistakes faster.


Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com

RE: What have we lost/gained

The analogy is interesting, but totally irrelevant to modern engineering.  Averaging 5 3-digit numbers was never part of engineering.  The tools that we use today, allows us to run dozens of FFT's a day, something that would have taken weeks to do by hand or by calculator.  In fact, the FFT would have never been developed without the a sufficient fast computer to even make it worthwhile.

The bottomline is whether you prefer to be doing it by hand over the course of weeks or running in Mathcad or Matlab in less than a few minutes.

Does anyone seriously lament not using rocks to grind our wheat for our bread and cookies?  Could we have sent men to the moon with only pencil and paper calculations?  Even Apollo had an 1802 micro onboard for doing inertial nav.

This very discussion is made possible by that same technology.  Technology is totally neutral.  WE make with it what we will.  As wise Pogo once observed, "We have met the enemy and they are us."  If we've sped up and bypassed the roses, that's our fault, not the transistor's.

When I compare my 12-yr old needing to use a laptop in school because the lessons are taught over a WLAN, compared to using log tables when I went to junior high, there's really no comparison.  While it's academically interesting to understand and use log tables, I doubt that anyone would seriously propose going backwards to that as a good thing.

This is all about comfort zones.  There's a whole generation growing up that will have never used nor seen a 5-in floppy and possibly never even use a 3.5-in floppy, or even a vinyl LP.  

Embrace the change and use it to your advantage, but it's up to you to remember to smell the roses, although, you can certainly programm your PDA to remind you.  To do otherwise is to be a Luddite and lament the inability to go potty in a hole in the ground.

TTFN



RE: What have we lost/gained

I think one of the gifts of technology is that it allows us to chose.

If you want to program your PDA to remind you to smell the roses, or to program Aibo to smell it for you, that is the gift of technology.

If you want to be a Luddite, you can. If you want to go to the moon, you can.

I think that is what we gain - choices.

RE: What have we lost/gained

"Eliminates the small mistakes but allows you to make bigger mistakes faster."

Bigger! Faster!! MORE!!!!

Yippee!!  Hooray for Choice!  

Really though, good point.



RE: What have we lost/gained

I think so.  

100 yrs ago, half of us would have already died from TB and the like.  Most of us would have been slaving away in factories or doing some sort of manual labor.  

Certainly wouldn't have had time to post messages on the internet winky smile

TTFN



RE: What have we lost/gained

I'd have been dead from appendicitis at the age of 9...

RE: What have we lost/gained

I'm often reminded of the Amish rejecting "modern technology" in favor of horse and buggy technology--what makes the 1880's state-of-the-art techlology "good" and later technology "evil"?  

We're doing the same thing here if we say that log tables or being able to add a column of numbers in your head is somehow "better" than Mathcad (not counting v12) or Hysis.  

I love Rick's quote that technology "Eliminates the small mistakes but allows you to make bigger mistakes faster."  

If I choose to use a program to facilitate an engineering task, I don't in any way abrogate my obligation to ensure that the decision does not result in harm to people.  I address this duality by carefully verifying the results of some sample calculations before I blindly accept that a new program can do the job I've assigned it.

David

RE: What have we lost/gained

(OP)
Is it not true that modern technology (or even old technology as well) is a tool helping us bring our visions to fruitition in the best possible way. It may be true that computers take away the feel of the calculation but surely one gets a feel for the result as experience grows.
What really counts are the brains within the person bringing out the ideas and hence technology is a real gain.

Incidentally IRstuff, I was born in the same UK village as Ned Ludd was reputed to have been born. Not in the same era of course and nor do I share his ideals.

RE: What have we lost/gained

"When I compare my 12-yr old needing to use a laptop in school because the lessons are taught over a WLAN"

What kind of school is that? Appliance-user Middle School? What happens if the batteries die and there's no outlet nearby?

Dude, it's the K-12 set that needs pedagogues and blackboards.

RE: What have we lost/gained

A colleague of mine mentioned that it would've been interesting if a group took the same decision as the Amish, but in the mid 70's.

No offense intended to any Amish here...

"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go past." Douglas Adams

RE: What have we lost/gained

There are some things we lose with technology.  Already mentioned is the ability or a certain level of skill to do arithmetic in your head.  I wasn't hired to do arithmetic though.

RE: What have we lost/gained

i'd bet that you, UcfSE, aren't paid to make mistakes, and i'd bet you've made a few ...

that's not a dig, just an observation that some things we do aren't exactly what we're paid for.  a quick mental sanity check (that would be a check that is performed quickly and done mentally rather than some of the other literal interpretations of that phrase) could find a problem rather than believing in the infailability of the computer (and the data entry human).

i think it is a fairly general trend to accept computer output as "gospel" rather than questioning it.

off soap box !

RE: What have we lost/gained

I was just doing a calculation that seems germane to this discussion.

For a compressor you can figure the temperature rise across a compression cylinder pretty easily.  Converting that to a rate of heat transfer required in the interstage cooler is pretty easy too.  Then I (incorrectly) converted that number to horsepower--I got an answer higher than the total engine output.  Because I've been messing with compressors since a "horsepower" was defined as "the work that can be done by a $2 horse in an hour" I realized that something was wrong and fixed it (I needed to calculate the required air flow on the cooler side to match the heat removed and then calculate the fan hp needed to push that much air).  

A program that tells you that the cooler load is bigger than the compression heat load would be caught by any competent engineer, but not necessarily by a competent programmer.  When it is an intermediate step, a 30-40% error will often never be displayed or caught, you just get wrong answers.  That is why I always manually verify the results of a program before I trust it.

David

RE: What have we lost/gained

To err is human.  Everyone makes mistakes, that should go without saying.  

My point was I need to have experience engineering, not doing long division or poking numbers in a calculator all day.  I accept doing error checking, code checking, checking the software output, checking connections by hand and so on and on and on is all part of my job.  If I am hired to dig 100 10-yard holes, why use a shovel if I have a back-hoe?  I'm not saying don't check your numbers, I'm saying work smarter, not harder.  You only have so much time to learn and do, spend it doing the things that you don't have a machine to do for you.  That does not mean don't check the machine.

RE: What have we lost/gained

And, I think that part of working smart is to not repeat the same mistakes and/or reduce the possibility of making the those mistakes, particularly, if we are tired from the night before. winky smile

Technology provides that possibility.  While there is almost an undercurrent of anti-computer sentiment, we should note that many programs and tools such as Mathcad and TKSolver provide transparent unit conversions.  Once a unit conversion is defined, it's essentially impossible to make a conversion error when using that conversion.  I don't have to check it; I can spend that time doing the next analysis.  While that makes me dependent on that tool, I'm more effective and productive overall.

The same analogy can be applied to CNC.  You could certainly drill holes and rout by hand, but why would you?  You're bound to make mistakes and you have to check each and every hole and feature for correctness to spec.  

TTFN



RE: What have we lost/gained

I don't think that we've lost anything due to computers or any other form of automation technology. The bad engineers will always be bad and the good engineers will always be good. Its not hard to tell one from the other and computers have nothing to do with this.

RE: What have we lost/gained

along the line of the thread topic ... we've clearly lost many techniques for doing analysis (just about nobody uses graphical methods for solving beam bending moments, tho' they can be very usefull to quickly describe the moment s in a beam) 'cause we've got better tools (and maybe better education).

personally i laugh where on TV shows like Star Trek (TNG) the captain can sit down at any console an thinks every detail intiminately, or can discuss the esoteric details of some technical minutae with the resident expert.  i doubt that anyone can have that bredth and depth of knowledge.  woudl the captain of an aircraft carrier be able to fix one of his (non-gender specific) planes ?

RE: What have we lost/gained

Would and could, but shouldn't.  

We used to have a general manager like that, able to crank PDE solutions at age 70.  He was quickly blindsided and broadsided into retirement by GMs interested in the bottom line.

TTFN



RE: What have we lost/gained

I am a younger engineer (5yrs out of school) so I can't speak to how things use to be in the old days.  I think technology is a good and bad thing.  The good is that you can use a program such as mathcad to perform calculations and limit the possibilities for errors along with present the design in a format much better than my chicken scratch.  The bad is that now everyone thinks that they can design things with programs and templates.  I have noticed that some people will automatically switch to using a program such as a FE analysis program to design something as simple as a single tier anchor wall.  I think that before anyone uses a program to design anything they should be forced to show that they can perform the same calculation by hand (or at least a dumbed down version), and be able to show they understand where the differences from the hand calculations and the program come from.


I think that what has been lost is the ability to differentiate between people that can design and people that can't design.  Let face it there are a great number of people out there with a degree that just plain and simple do not have the ability to be a competent design engineer.  A degree and a license doesn't make a designer, it is just what is required to show minimum competencey.  Minimum competencey and a black box computer program, that you do not understand what is happening, will surely produce errors.

RE: What have we lost/gained

There's really nothing new in that.  30 yrs ago, we were running SPICE on a time-shared computer over a 300 baud modem.  And the EXACT same comments would come up about engineers who couldn't tell if the SPICE results were correct or not.

TTFN



RE: What have we lost/gained

I really miss writing software in FORTRAN IV to produce graphs on a line printer using * as the datapoint.

Not.

Fun at the time though.

RE: What have we lost/gained

IRstuff,

I remember collecting SPICE prints from the VAX cluster at university. Usually about 20' long on fanfold paper, each sample point being an 'x' or '*' character printed using a ribbon bereft of ink. Terrible things to interpret! pSPICE made things much nicer, apart from the data-munching virus on many of the lab PCs.

----------------------------------
  I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy it...

RE: What have we lost/gained

What! You got printouts?!!!




actually, we did too, but we had to download the file from the time shared computer and print it locally.

TTFN



RE: What have we lost/gained

I once was asked to check a very complicated "rail-structure interaction" analysis for a long, multi-span railroad bridge.  The engineer did the analysis using the latest and greatest software with all the bells and whistles.  The rail clips were modeled using nonlinear springs.  The deck, bearings, piers, and even the pile foundations were all carefully simulated.  The analysis filled several binders.  There were colorful graphs and charts all concluding that there needed to be an expansion joint in the rails.

It took me only 5 minutes to check all of this.  I just took the length of the bridge times the coefficient of expansion times the temperature change and got the same answer.  The engineer failed to step back and remember that the axial stiffeness of a bridge deck is usually many, many times greater than the bending stiffness of piers.  I agree with MrMojito - if there were no computers, this engineer would probably would have done something equally screwy.

RE: What have we lost/gained

yep... there's student in my son's class, when confronted with my son's volcano project, that used a smoke generator piped in from the bottom, exclaimed, "That's too technical."

TTFN



RE: What have we lost/gained

I read IRstuff's reference to log tables, and agree somewhat, but there is an advantage to understanding the basic origin of some of these things.

Using logs to manipulate number in symbolic math equations is all you need to perform many tasks, but what about understanding the underlying principle of using sticks of wood to perform multiplication.

The underlying principles are hidden to someone using the log table, but that underlying principle may be the creative key when it comes to solving new problems or solving old problems in new ways.

We never know what’s going to be useful.

I'm a licensed airplane mechanic and that's what I did part of the time going through school.

One night we were doing an engine change on a fairly complicated turboprop aircraft. This particular engine relied on all sorts of mechanical monkey motion to operate and it took quite a bit of rigging. One of the required adjustments was a serrated plate that set the angle of an arm within certain limits. No one had a protractor.

I was a student then, and I knew that if I traced coffee cup circles and folded them a certain number of times I could definitely say this wedge of paper represents X degrees and this wedge of paper represents Y degrees. I adjusted the plate between the two angles and knew for certain I was within limits. The engine checked out fine on run up.
We got the aircraft back on the line for morning flights because we didn’t have to wait for day shift to go buy a tool.

You might want to argue dimension calibrations issues, but as a responsible and experienced A&P, I had no trouble signing for my work.

We cannot keep everything in our heads but I am very hesitant to discount the value of any understanding.


RE: What have we lost/gained

I don't think that that's the issue.  There are, and were, always people who can't or won't understand legacy developments and theory.  They were around when the Greeks first worked in geometry and they are still around.  

As Pogo observed, "we have met the enemy and they are us."  Humans, as a whole, are simply not interested in in math and science.  They don't understand the desire to know, and learn, and label those who seek knowledge as "geeks" or "Mr. Peabody's."

Regardless of the "tool," in question, there will always be those that fail to understand the tool and its history.  

TTFN



RE: What have we lost/gained

I worryingly find that many of the above posts question the fallibility of computers - Surely these things are infallible!

Seriously though - I've never discovered an actual computer error. I have discovered many many input errors and a great deal of inappropriate modelling. I would have thought that junior engineers would be better at this stuff, but I've not seen the evidence to support this.

We would probably all agree that computer analysis needs to be checked, but how do we do that without recourse to 'old' techniques.

As a structural engineer I possibly have the advantage that a proportion of my design work is still done using hand calcs, so the ability is not truly lost.

RE: What have we lost/gained

"I've never discovered an actual computer error"

You don't remember the Pentium bug?

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: What have we lost/gained

I don't remember the Pentium bug.

However, most bugs and viruses, worms, etc. do exactly as they are written.

I have also found that most of my codes do exactly as I have coded it. Unfortunately, the way I coded it is often not what I was hoping it would do - but that is another thread.

With regards to computer error, they do happen. Many people include poorly written code that do not function as they wish under "computer error" when it should be "programmer error". Yup, this is me.

Or, they don't like the way a piece of code is written (because it doesn't work the way they think it ought to), and call it computer error. Yup, this is my users/clients.

Or, they make a mistake (either in coding, data entry, end user usage error), and call it a computer error. Yup, my users/clients are sometimes as dumb as me.

A true computer error would be, for example:
- failure due to overheating (external heat, not computer generated heat) - the space heater too close to the chassis
- magnetic corruption caused errors - I have no idea where the magnetic source was, but I am pretty sure it caused it smile



RE: What have we lost/gained

The Pentium bug was incorrect floating point division if I remember correctly... a case of a *real* computer error...

RE: What have we lost/gained

The Pentium bug I believe hit some of the early pentium chips and was to do with floating point calculations. There was a scare at the time that calculations done using those chips would be in error. We had, I think five pentiums at the time and many 486's.

As a check we ran the analyses done on the pentiums through the 486's and found no errors at all. Maybe we were lucky. We did do 'sanity check' calculations anyway and they had not indicated any gross errors. But that is of course the point - We only check for gross errors. There are not suitable means of checking the detail which do not rely on the very same technology!

RE: What have we lost/gained

As a former professional software developer, I have produced my share of "pentium bugs".

In truth, it is I, the programmer, who is at fault, and not my "computer".

That thing with the magnetic corruption, that was not me - I blame that on the "computer bug".

RE: What have we lost/gained

The Pentium bug was due to incorrect firmware codes, so it was still a programming mistake.  The error, as reported at the time, occurred only with certain combinations of inputs:
http://support.intel.com/support/processors/pentium/fdiv/wp/

Since it effectively did what it was misdesigned to do, it was not really an operational error.

TTFN



RE: What have we lost/gained

I remember one Engineering Manager who managed to create that most useful of objects, the write only memory.

Killed the chip stone dead.

Ho hum.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer chap...

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources