# Engineering explained

Engineering is implementing [science](science.md) to address legitimate [problems](purpose.md). To that end, engineering doesn't always [look good](engineering-design.md), but great engineering is profoundly reliable.

More than anything else, engineering employs heavy amounts of [math](math.md) and physics for its design, with its constraints represented by the universe itself. Most of the *[inspiration](mind-creativity.md)* for engineering is pulled from [nature itself](science.md), and is usually driven by the [culture](people-culture.md) surrounding the engineers' work.

Sometimes, [bad systems](mgmt-badsystems.md) can cut corners financially on a product's design, which *always* yields a terrible experience because the product will break quickly and [irreparably](https://adequate.life/fix/), which can often happen when an object becomes a mere commodity. On the other hand, [competition](economics.md) can allow the best engineering to surface if the users actually *care* about their product.

Some of the most creative engineered components involve finding ways to get objects where you want them to be, but with severe physical constraints or absolutely zero direct ability to interact. Most of the [sciences](science.md) involving the most extreme discoveries (e.g., astronomy, quantum physics, geology) advance from this type of development.

At the same time, if we don't use it we forget about it. Social trends across the large-scale of history often depict how people discover things, then re-discover them centuries later, then promptly forget them when the [technology](technology.md) is no longer necessary or a better technology serves their purposes. Even when there is *copious* documentation on the subject, [trade secrets](legal-ip.md) prevent the specialist from communicating *all* their methods.

Above everything else, emgineering *could* be classified into only two domains, though it subdivides into many more:

- [Materials engineering](engineering-materials.md): the [physical objects](science-chemistry.md) used to build stuff
- [Mechanical engineering](engineering-mechanical.md): the [interaction of those physical objects](science-physics.md) with each other

## Standards

When two people speak with each other, they need to have an agreement on [language terms](language.md). Otherwise, the entire conversation won't mean anything.

Ideally, most standards wouldn't be necessary, since the [design](engineering-design.md) would incorporate it. However, this isn't always possible:

- Engineers often are so practical that they don't always indicate how the mechanism fits together without a wall of [documentation](language-writing-documentation-cs.md).
- Some things are so complex that there's no way *whatsoever* to clearly and simply communicate it.

Standards do make life easier, but they take training to memorize and understand the [jargon](language.md), and engineering has an endless wall of [specializations](jobs-specialization.md) with a vast codex to draw from:

- [Electrical engineering](engineering-electrical.md)
- [Engines](engineering-engines.md)
- [Weaponry](engineering-weapons.md)
- [Cooling and refrigeration](engineering-cooling.md)
- [Vehicles](engineering-vehicles.md)
- [Large structures](engineering-structures.md)
- [Genetic engineering](engineering-biological.md)
- [Factory design](engineering-factory.md)
- [Waste management](engineering-waste.md)
- [Computer science](computers-hardware.md)

Further, many other domains have flavors of engineering associated with them:

- [Management](mgmt-1_why.md)
- [City planning](politics-city.md)
- [Country management](politics-country.md)

Often, [standards](standards.md) can halt technology improvements, especially when the standards are established early. In those situations, a *new* standard or protocol will replace the old one if it becomes too unwieldy, but will often require workarounds until then.

At the same time, setting standards too *late* will be difficult, since the standard will have to accommodate that the entire body of users/engineers will be habituated toward multiple conventions that sprung up in the absence of a standard.

Unfortunately, one of the perverse incentives of a well-standardized product will include maladaptive practices like planned obsolescence. Some products are so well-configured for failure that they're likely to fail precisely within *one month* after a multi-year warranty.

## Techniques

There are a wide variety of standardized techniques to craft objects, especially tools:

- Heat treating exposes metal to extreme heat, then the cooling process brings the chemical bonds of the metal closer together and makes the metal harder.
  - Liquid nitrogen treatment simply goes farther with the treatment process into sub-zero temperatures, and can be done asynchronously (i.e., you can do it at home with your tools).
- Drilling engages a screw-shaped bit at high rotational velocity to penetrate a surface and create a hole.
  - While it's common practice for DIYers to train a hole with a smaller drill bit, the tip is the load-bearing component and is therefore *much* more heavily treated than the rest of the bit.
- Sanders and grinders use a rough surface to remove material from a broad surface.
  - Sanders use sandpaper on wood.
  - Grinders use dense metal or diamond, and are typically used for metal or plastic.
- Broaching uses a long, narrow attachment with teeth on one side to remove material.
- Skiving involves slicing a block of metal *very* precisely along the surface at a slight angle, then lifting it up to create a fin, and repeating to create an array of fins.
- Welding uses an extremely hot object (like a blowtorch) to melt a connecting part of two pieces of metal.
- Sintering involves heating metal until it's close to its melt point, then pushing it together and letting it cool.

## Complicated

Engineering ideas are conceptually simple. However, this overview is for the sake of [understanding](understanding.md) for *non*-engineers.

However, they are *not* simple in practice. To quote and abstract the late [Hyman G. Rickover](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover):

- An academic structure almost always has the following characteristics:
  1. It is simple.
  2. It is small.
  3. It is cheap.
  4. It is light.
  5. It can be built rapidly.
  6. It is very flexible in purpose.
  7. Very little development is required, and it will use off-the-shelf components.
  8. It's in the study phase, and isn't being built now.
- However, a practical structure has the following characteristics:
  1. It is being built now.
  2. It is behind schedule.
  3. It requires an immense amount of development on seemingly trivial items, with corrosion in particular being a major problem.
  4. It is expensive.
  5. The above-stated development problems mean [it takes a long time to build](mgmt-2_projects.md).
  6. It is large.
  7. It is heavy.
  8. It is complicated.

[Theory](imagination.md) *frequently* breaks down in the face of [reality](reality.md). This doesn't mean the theory was necessarily wrong, but theories are typically not precise enough. Theory, however, isn't useless because it's how our minds [create anything](creations.md) in the first place.

## Tradeoffs

Most engineering has to wrestle with severe tradeoffs, with the result being a balance based on the quality of materials the engineer can use and time hyper-obsessing about precise design requirements.

The laws of fluid dynamics indicate all aircraft get 2 of 3 factors:

- Fast
- Safe, which is necessary for commercial aircraft
- Maneuverable, which is necessary for remote areas

Further, fluid dynamics laws give every watercraft 2 of 3 factors:

- Fast
- Dry, which is necessary for passenger watercraft
- Maneuverable, which is necessary for turbulent waters

In any landscape except plains with no human settlement, every projected rail line can only fulfill 2 of 3 requirements:

- Cheap
- Straight, which is necessary for high-speed rail
- Flat, which is necessary for freight

Typically, [projects](mgmt-1_why.md) involving any human task gives 2 of 3 possibilities:

- Cheap
- Fast
- High-quality

Military vehicles give 2 of 3 possibilities:

- Firepower
- Armor protection
- Mobility

Money can often push the limits, but only to a specific point, and it'll simply make the thing constrained to being prohibitively expensive.

On every dimension of [computer design](computers.md), these same tradeoffs express themselves within the abstract as well.

## Additional reading

- [Scan of the Month](https://www.scanofthemonth.com/)

Simple Mechanical

- [Animated Knots](https://www.animatedknots.com/)
- [Mechanical Movements](http://507movements.com/)
- [How a Mechanical Watch Works](https://ciechanow.ski/mechanical-watch/)

Advanced Mechanical

- [Mechanical Engines](http://animatedengines.com/)
- [How Gears Work](https://ciechanow.ski/gears/)
- [How Internal Combustion Engines Work](https://ciechanow.ski/internal-combustion-engine/)