What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History (Johns Hopkins Studies in the History of Technology)

This is an essential read to understand some key differences between applied science and engineering. It further is important to understand the historical context on how engineers learned to handle complexity in a pragmatic way. Lessons that seem to get lost in many sub-disciplines and lack of lessons of improper planing seem to have to be relearned again.

As Prof. Vincenti points out in the preface, the people interested in the history of aviation may prefer to omit epistemological parts of the book. I must agree. The epistemological part (introduction of the book, introductions and conclusions of the chapters, 50 pages after the chapter 6) is too wordy to my taste. I can't say it isn't interesting (based on what I learned about differences between engineers and scientists I can say that I am engineer) but it is definitely not easy to read (with lot of redundancy and abstraction).The narrative part of the chapters 2-6 is other case. There are very interesting stories about:2. airfoil design and use (laminar flow, Davis's airfoil used in B-24 Liberator)3. flying quality specification4. development of control volume analysis (in Prandtl's aerodynamics)5. air-propeller test (by Durand and Lesley)6. development of flush rivetingThe notes in pages 259-318 contain also comprehensive bibliography to all stories.

Even though this book is about the nature of engineering, we read it in our strategy curriculum. It has transfer value for studying the essence of design. The author was 73 when he published this book after a life time of living and teaching the business. He then developed a passion for the history of technology which is what he finished up teaching at Stanford. The book unfolds in a continuous story telling style as Vincenti walks you though five case studies in engineering science from the pioneer era of aviation. The book is replete with substantial "front porch" gems of the engineering business. So much so that it warrants more than one reading to take it all in like Kuhn or Hawking. This same statement was made by Dr. Michael Jackson author of "Structured Design" and "Problem Framing". See [...]

I recommend it. Well written review of some historical topics to illustrate how aeronautical engineering knowledge develops and can be categorized. Some are quite fascinating in their own right, such as how we got flush rivets in the late 30s/WWII era, how assessment of flying qualities evolved during the same period, and problems in airfoil/planform design (using the B-24 as an example), from both a technical and "people" perspective.I tend to read just parts of books like this then move on, but it kept me engaged to the end. You don't need to be an engineer to get value from it, just interested in problems of aircraft design. If you like the history of design/development, all the better.

I am an instructional technologist dealing a lot with the design and development of products in a young technology, computer-based instruction. My technology is in its youth compared to other technologies that have become essential to our social and economic operations. I am interested in knowing the stages my technology will go through and the types of knowledge it must accumulate as it matures, which seems certain, given current interest and ferment.Vincenti describes how aeronautics technologies grew and went through their stages, and this has given me insight into my own. This is not a book of idealized process for implementing technology. It is s set of historical case studies, some of which Vincenti himself participated in, others of which he researched.The book is not easy to read, but I have found it very rewarding. It is full of technical terms and heavy technology. At the same time, if you pay the price in effort and study this book carefully, you will not be disappointed. You will see how technologies develop, and knowing this, you will be able to anticipate developments and needs in your own area of growth.

In-depth analysis.

I was expecting more theory and deep thinking - the book is more shallow than I thought, but interesting still!

W.G. Vincenti was an engineering researcher who wrote a book called "What Engineers Know and How they Know It", which I am trying to get my colleagues at the University to read, to understand how engineering research and engineering practice should fit together. Vincenti's basic idea is that engineering is not applied science - engineering has six categories of knowledge of which the last five are proper subjects for engineering research, as follows:1.Fundamental Design ConceptsThese are not scientific fundamentals, but instead the design engineer's axioms - a common idea of what the thing being designed is for, its operating principle, and its normal configuration.2.Criteria and SpecificationsEngineers may design artefacts to meet a need defined by others in non-technical terms, but in order to do so they need to transform the general, qualitative specification into concrete, quantifiable performance characteristics.3.Theoretical toolsThe theoretical tools of the engineer may be based in mathematics, science, or be peculiar to engineering. They provide ways of thinking about and analysing design problems.3a. Mathematical Methods and TheoriesThe mathematical tools least peculiar to the engineer may be based in pure mathematics, or sciences, but they have been simplified for application to a particular situation by introducing a set of approximations and assumptions which apply to only that specific set of circumstances. More particular still are the phenomenological theories which practitioners share about things too complex for scientific analysis, even if they have little scientific standing. At the far end of the spectrum are commonly held approaches to design of specific systems, used only because they seem to work, and no better method is known.3b. Intellectual ConceptsEngineers are less like philosophers than they are like scientists. They are not fussy about where they get their ways of thinking about a design problem from - anything which works is good.4.Quantitative dataEngineers need physical data to design things. They need descriptive knowledge, of how things are. They need prescriptive knowledge, of how things should be to ensure that the designed item meets the specified need.5.Practical ConsiderationsOne can have perfect knowledge in all previous categories and still be unable to design an artefact that works. One also needs know-how, usually obtained from long practice in the profession, and interaction with those who produce, commission and operate the artefact.6. Design InstrumentalitiesOr less opaquely, structured procedures for going about the design of an artefact, ways of thinking about design problems, and judgemental skills. Some of these can be taught directly, but professional competence in these areas comes only from practice.Vincenti then differentiates between seven ways in which engineering knowledge is generated (I know, he clearly had a lot of time on his hands. I am going somewhere with this....)1. Transfer from science2. Invention3. Theoretical engineering research4. Experimental engineering research5. Design practice6. Production7. Direct trialSo engineering research can generate new engineering knowledge in all categories other than practical considerations. Researchers know about, practitioners know how.

Vincenti's book is revelatory, one of the core texts in the engineering canon. All serious engineers should read it.

Read this in a park sometime ago, hard to follow at times, but well researched is the impression I got from spending time poring over what it had to offer. It sometimes read as if it has bizarrely, been constructed as one of those books built to spite someone. A bit of afters with past employees. That would be a shame, yet it's a good read nonetheless, for those that have little time to look at Corrie or Emerdale. I guess.

Nephew loved it