IV

August 28, 2012

engineeringdaze Tuesday - Numbers , , Leave a comment

A number of weeks ago, we introduced Tork, Caveman Engineer. He was the first engineer in history – make that pre-history. Later, we introduced Torkus, Medieval Engineer, who lived in the difficult time of the Dark Ages and tried as he could to make the world a better place to live, as engineers are made to do. This week, we will introduce yet another engineer from the past: Torkitus, Roman Engineer. Torkitus lived in the first century BC, when the Roman Empire was forming out of the Roman Republic.

The number important to Torkitus was IV, or to us non-Romans, 4. This was not an engineering term, but one that made Torkitus realize that contracting out engineering services was sometimes a good thing to do.

Torkitus was the best known, most well-respected engineer of his day, so much so that he was hired as the emperor’s chief engineer. But, the emperor had high demands on Torkitus. He gave him IV main tasks: I – build an aqueduct system that would bring water to the cities, from the mountain springs, and include indoor plumbing in that project; II – construct a road system that could support inter-region commerce and the movement of troops; III – design and build building with arches and columns; and IV – devise and construct defense and weapons for the military.

“Oh, that’s all?” Torkitus mused to himself, knowing that any one of the tasks would consume him. So he did what any understaffed government employee would do – he hired consultants. These engineers were all gifted and had to bid for the contracts, and, as Torkitus read the names of the winning engineers, he stated, “These are the engineers for whom the contracts shall be let – Marcus, Anthonium, Maximus, and you, Brutus.” (Not the best three words to end the meeting on.)

Torkitus then managed the major areas and the Roman empire flourished. All of this thanks to the engineer, Torkitus. His success was Rome’s success, which was good, because failure meant torture and a miserable death.

3

August 21, 2012

engineeringdaze Tuesday - Numbers , Leave a comment

3 is a number of simplicity and engineers use it to count the number of essential questions to ask when deciding to purchase an item. Here they are:
1. How much does it cost?

2. How long will it last?

3. Will it cause me to socialize with people?

The answer to 1. should be very little.

The answer to 2. should be very long.

The answer to 3. should be, “No.”

There is an expanded list we may cover in later posts, but these three pretty much sum it up. The implications are simple. The answers should be straight forward. No whimpy, “Will I feel better with this item?” If it is needed (which is really the first deal-breaker of a question) then the engineer will work through these three questions.
What could be easier?

156

August 7, 2012

engineeringdaze Tuesday - Numbers , , , Leave a comment

We are continuing our look at the Olympics here at engineeringdaze.com. 156 is not a number near and dear to engineers, but it is a number that came up in the Olympics recently and one that reminds me how engineers can have fun with the Olympics, and indeed, improve various sports.

Today’s sport to improve is basketball. The USA team scored 156 points against a quite inferior opponent in a recent game. This is in a basketball game where there are 8 less minutes than in an NBA game. The Olympic games are split up into four 10-minute quarters. After the first quarter the American team had 49 points. At that pace they could have scored 196 points, so scoring “only”156 was a sign they eased up in the last three quarters.

Scoring 156 points means the team averaged 39 points a quarter, and 3.9 points every minute. And that is with the other team also possessing the ball and scoring 73 points of their own.

This brings me to an idea I have had for a while about basketball and how the broadcast networks can make the game more intriguing to engineers. We are all about numbers – rates, ratios, interpolation and extrapolation. I propose that every 15 or 20 seconds throughout a game, an alternate scoreboard is kept that will extrapolate out what the score will be if the rate at which the teams are scoring is maintained. At the end of the first quarter of the game mentioned above, the score was 49-25. That translates into a final extrapolated score of 196-100.

People would greatly enjoy not only watching the score of the game, but the extrapolated score as it would be updated three or four times every minute. The announcer could say, “Even though there are only 3 minutes and 20 seconds gone in the game, at this rate the (team ahead) will be scoring 136 points! What a rate!”

Didn’t I say engineers could make this game more fun.

0.45 vs. 0.233

July 31, 2012

engineeringdaze Tuesday - Numbers , Leave a comment

We continue with an engineer’s look at the Olympics by considering two numbers: 0.45 and 0.233.

These represent two margins of results in two different sports. The first one, 0.45 is the difference in seconds (a fraction of a second) between 1st and 2nd place in a swimming race, specifically, the 4x100m freestyle. It is a measurable phenomenon – time. We have the knowledge and ability to measure differences in two people or teams to far less than 0.45 seconds. This is a very specific number and method of measurement, and a specific quantity of measurement.

On the other hand, 0.233 is the difference in the score between two gymnasts, meaning one will make it to the finals and one will not. This brings up the question: o.233 whats? Points? Points of what? This number is not a discrete measurement of time or distance, but instead, it is a compilation of scores of “opinions” of judges. In the absence of being able to measure specific distances or times or weights or whatever, the engineer will consider the option of using a group of experts to score items and weigh the scores, comparing scores, throwing out outliers, etc. In that respect, the Olympics does that right.

But in a strict comparison between the two sports, the engineers will overwhelmingly choose the one where results are measured on an absolute scale and not left to opinion, even if they are experts. Give us track and field. We will take swimming or cycling, or rowing. But vary off the path of time, distance, or weight and venture into gymnastics or diving, well, the engineer will either fall asleep or stay up all night devising a better, specific measurement of those sports.

3

July 24, 2012

engineeringdaze Tuesday - Numbers , Leave a comment

Yet another fine number for engineers is 3. This number is intrinsic to many basic qualities of life as an engineer sees it.

3 is the number of points that define a plane, and, therefore, are the number of legs of a stable chair or stool.

3 is also the number of coordinate lines in, what else, 3-dimensional space. When engineers break down forces into components, there are 3 directions into which the forces are defined. They are called, in very technical terms, x-, y-, and z-coordinates. Creative? Maybe not. But powerful? Most definitely.

An engineer can explain so many thing by breaking down the vectors of force or velocity into its 3 coordinate directions. Why did his kid wreck the car? 3-dimensional coordinate analysis of the speed and direction of the car, and the 3-dimensional interaction of the forces between the car tires and the road, should adequately explain why the car left the road and hit the tree. Sure, the engineer Dad could simply say that his son or daughter was going too fast. But a far better explanation, and possibly a far better punishment, would be to have the 3 dimensional forces and velocities sketched out in a very detailed explanation of the movement of the vehicle. A finite element analysis could be added, too, just for the fun of it.

3 can be a very powerful number.

Y1K

July 17, 2012

engineeringdaze Tuesday - Numbers , , 1 Comment

A month or two ago, we focused on Tork, prehistoric engineer. This week, we will look in on descendant, Torkus, who lived around the turn of the first millennium. We call him Torkus, Medieval Engineer.

Torkus was likely the ancestor of computer engineers of today. We surmise this because, even though he worked on all things engineering (as far as it went back then), Torkus mad a lot of money by correcting a little problem he called – Y1K.

The year was around 990 AD when Torkus realized that the turn of the millennium was going to present a lot of problems to society. Torkus thought to himself, in an engineering, analytical way, “This is not like, say, 1000 years from now when it will turn from 1999 to 2000 AD. That should be an easy transition. What we have in front of us is the addition of an ENTIRE NEW DIGIT! We are not even sure about the ramifications. Calendar makers will have to pound out another digit in their metal calendars, adding time to their work. In fact, in ten years, every time the year 1000 AD will be written, there will be a 33% increase in labor. What kind of cost will that infuse into our fragile medieval economy? Chaos will ensue unless something is done about it.”

And Torkus had the answer. By adding a digit to the inscribing tools, and essentially reducing the effort needed by 33%, Torkus provided this to all the small little kingdoms and territorial leaders of the day and held off utter turmoil from engulfing the human population.

Y1K came and went without incident, and Torkus was hailed as a hero.

Then their was pestilence and plague.

10

July 10, 2012

engineeringdaze Tuesday - Numbers , , 4 Comments

To continue with the basics, an engineer can’t get any more basic than 10. Base ten is what we use in scientific notation and in the metric system. It is no wonder that people typically say, “On a scale from one to ten, what did you think of…”

10 is the basic of basic, other than, maybe, 1, but let’s not get into an argument about that now.

Just being the root of the metric system, 10 gets my vote as being one of the all time great numbers, possibly the greatest. We have discussed the power of 10 before, and covered the number 1000, but the these have their roots, literally and figuratively, in the number 10. In fact, if you bring up the number 10 to an engineer, he will have an affinity for the conversation, even if he doesn’t know why. That number is so powerful and ingrained in the engineer’s wiring.

For non-engineers, try it next time you, say, see a bunch of cute bunnies. There are 8 or 9 of them. But tell the engineer there are 10 of them, and he may well listen to you go on about how cute they are. Otherwise, if he thinks there are 8 or 9, the whole aesthetics thing just won’t sink in.

620

June 26, 2012

engineeringdaze Tuesday - Numbers , 3 Comments

Technically, the 620’s, are all good numbers for engineers. Why? Is it because 620 represents some perfect constant that is representative of some natural phenomenon that engineers can use for the good of society? Could it be because the numbers in the 620’s are all used to calculate forces, or movement that can be of benefit to our way of life, since that is what engineers do?

No. The 620’s are where engineers, and you in particular, can find library books about engineering as arranged by our friend, the Dewey Decimal system. This is a great number to remember. Next time you are in your local library, go to any of the books from 620 to 630, and start perusing. Books on civil, electrical, and mechanical engineering will abound. Fascinating books about wastewater treatment facilities, engines that run on alternate fuels, and the joys of electric currents are there to be explored.

620, and more broadly, the 620’s are a nice number for engineers.

The Power of 10

June 19, 2012

engineeringdaze Tuesday - Numbers , Leave a comment

This number is not so much of a number as it is a notation, or a concept. It is understood as “the power of 10”, frequently called scientific notation. The engineer will consider this a wonderful number/notation/concept. It makes discussing and writing very, very large and very, very small numbers in a much easier manner.

So, say, you are in a discussion with a friend about the speed of light. You could say, “Well, the speed of light is known to be 299,792,458 meters per second, in a vacuum, of course.” But, that might lose people with that seemingly huge number, not to mention the time it takes to say that number. So, instead, round it off a bit, and say, “Well, the speed of light is known to be approximately 3.00 x 108 meters per second, in a vacuum, of course.”

And, instead of saying, “Obviously, the wavelength of light emitted by a carbon dioxide laser is 0.0000106 meters,” you might want to say, “Obviously, the wavelength of light emitted by a carbon dioxide laser is 1.06 x 10-5 meters.” Actually, when dealing with this, you probably would use the term, 10.6 micrometers, but, you get the idea.

Use the exponents of 10 and fit in with the crowd.

8

June 12, 2012

engineeringdaze Tuesday - Numbers , , 2 Comments

8 is not a number near and dear to the engineer, but it is a number that helps define the engineer. From data derived by the Center for Extrapolated Data, 8 is the average number of times a year that an engineer will actually tell his wife, “I love you.”

Most non-engineers (NE) reading this will consider this to be way too low for a good, working relationship, and, I guess from all those relationship books – written by NE’s – sure, that is probably true. A wife typically needs many more words of encouragement and endorsement of love. But in the engineer’s mind, he told her when they got married, and he would tell her if anything changed, so the 8 a year are above what is needed. However, in at least a meager attempt to accommodate this non-logical necessity of using these words of emotion, he acquiesces and uses these words on wildly emotional days like their anniversary, her birthday, Valentine’s Day, and around the holidays at the end of the year. Notice that that is only four times. So the other four are far and away extra ones. Think about it.

As the engineer’s mantra goes, “Engineers don’t feel. Engineers think.”

But, he can learn to adapt. Sort of.

Older Entries Newer Entries