Who invented dual-pivot brakes?



Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter Chisholm writes:

>> So everything is just improvements and nobody's really innovating anything?

> 'Everything' and 'nobody' and 'anything' are big words..

I think those words fall directly out of your claim that there are no inventions because there is
nothing new in technology.

> Most things these days seem to be improvements on existing designs, not genuine inventions. The
> auto was just an improvement of the horse drawn cart, but the internal combustion engine was an
> invention, IMO.

That sounds like sour grapes. Invention is the process of applying observed needs with an
appropriate mechanism to perform the task, be that by combining previously unrecognized synergies or
a claw hammer that can pull nails as well as drive them. The Wright Brothers combined a special
version of an internal combustion engine, with an appropriate flying machine to make a powered
aircraft with horizontal, vertical, and turns controls that no one had put together before. That was
a large series of inventions that required great scientific learning and practical skills.

You are stretching "improvement to existing designs" to extremes. Similarly a cell phone is only a
better two paper cups with a string between them in that respect. CD's are more than an extension of
Edison's wax cylinders.

Your complaint sounds vaguely similar to those who believe that garage mechanics know more about
cars than the engineers that design them.

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA
 
On 11 Jun 2003 12:57:49 GMT, [email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote:

>BUT rmember that the Wright Bros were 'garage mechanics', not engineers...

Actually, to steer this back on topic, they were bike wrenches. Not car garage workers.

Jasper
 
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> BUT rmember that the Wright Bros were 'garage mechanics', not engineers...
>

The Wright brothers may have also been bicycle shop proprietors, but they were some of the finest
engineers of their age - especially in their chosen field of aeronautics. They studied the latest
scientific research in the field, created experimental laboratory models and made thorough and
precise measurements to further scientific knowledge as necessary, and used sound engineering
methodology to transform scientific theory into practical applications. For example, they
performed many tests of airfoil shapes with scale models in a wind tunnel before building full
scale prototypes. They were far from the "tinkerers" that you imply. And if you can't tell the
difference ...

Mark McMaster [email protected]
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Qui si parla
Campagnolo) wrote:

> mark-<< but they were some of the finest engineers of their age - especially in their chosen field
> of aeronautics.
>
>
> << They studied the latest scientific research in the field, created experimental laboratory
> models and made thorough and precise measurements to further scientific knowledge as necessary,
> and used sound engineering methodology to transform scientific theory into practical applications.
>
> But they were not formally trained engineers, correct?? College trained engineers..

Two things are worth pointing out:

1) Regardless of their educational background, the Wrights took an exceedingly methodical and
scientific ("engineering") approach to the design and construction of their airplane. They built
numerous gliders to test their ideas, the already-mentioned wind tunnel, etc.

2) There were very few schools with an aeronautical engineering departments at the turn of the
century. Like none. The Wrights did the best thing under the circumstances, which was do the
research, correspond with the experts in the field (they talked to Otto Lilenthal and studied his
work with gliders), and figured out the math.

3) (bonus thing) They lived in an era, where, for better or for worse, formal education was rarer,
and self-taught students could and did regularly become experts and great contributors to
scientific knowledge. Nowadays engineering schools are easier to find, easier to get into, and
more accessible to more people (in the developed world, at least).

3) (Anever was good at math) Unlike most posters here in rbt (including myself), when confronted
with the technical details of an engineering problem in their field, they would understand the
problem, the associated math, and the ramifications of the problem at a level equivalent to
any engineer. They used the Scientific Method carefully, methodically, and in a way that would
have invited publication in research journals had they been so inclined (maybe they were; I
don't know) It is this engineering style and aptitude that separates the Wright brothers from
most of the people in this ng, not their Latin-inscribed wall candy.

> << They were far from the "tinkerers" that you imply. And if you can't tell the difference
>
> Geez, you can imply a lot from a 11 word sentence..
>
> Peter Chisholm

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
Replies
79
Views
2K
M