Was Engineering Less Expensive a Century Ago? 8

[flash3780]

I was thinking to myself the other day: the Wright brothers were able to fund the design and build of their experimental aircraft with the revenue from a small bicycle shop. They built prototypes, a wind tunnel, and even hired a master mechanic to build a new type of engine for them.

I'm not sure that one could accomplish the same feat today. Perhaps this is because bicycles have become both less expensive and less popular (in relative terms). But, it seems as though the cost of building stuff is higher than it was back then.

Thomas Edison was able to finance his first inventions while working as a telegraph operator for Western Union.

Samual Morse invented the telegraph while working as an artist.

It seems like this it has become more difficult to invent things - or, rather, to finance invention. Perhaps someone has some historical perspective here? Has the cost of invention gone up significantly?

 

[KENAT]

Maybe, but also many of the things to get invented today are more complex, because to some extent the 'simple' stuff has often already been done.

For instance:

Just coming up with a plane that could fly 120 ft with assisted launch into a favorable wind was a big deal when the Wrights did it.

However, if some home builder did the same thing today no one would be impressed. Home builders still create far better performing aircraft in their garages (albeit rarely building the engine etc.) but it's just not a major achievement as it's already been done.

Instead now the impressive thing is getting into orbit or something which is several orders of magnitude more tricky.

For starters, one would have to find projects of similar scope and complexity in relation to extant state of the art for both then and now.

Then you'd have to look at some 'cost of living measure' like median pay, or median price for various commodities etc.

Then you could compare and contrast away.

Now, if you look at some of the gadgets folks like the late Billy Mays sell 'As Seen on TV' then maybe you'd get a fairer comparison and it does seem like it takes lots of $ to get something into production and marketed etc.

However, if instead you go to a craft fair and see some of the stuff they turn out, then cost of entry to the market maybe isnt' so high.

I'd be interested if there is an answer, you'd hope with the advancements in analysis and knowledge that it might be cheaper to do it now, as you hopefully need less trial and error, but maybe not.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[drawoh]

flash3780,

The Wright Flyer could be built cheaply even now. Even its engine would be cheap. By modern standards, it is a crappy airplane with a crappy engine. We have come a long way since then.

JHG

 

[GregLocock]

I think a homebuilder would struggle to develop and build a better aircraft given 1905 technology and knowledge to use. No power tools, no good theory for airfoils.

The modern homebuilder is able to use a fantastically refined technology, from pop rivets to electronic ignition, that have required decades to develop.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[flash3780]

Maybe, but also many of the things to get invented today are more complex, because to some extent the 'simple' stuff has often already been done.

I wouldn't be to quick to make that statement. You also have to weigh in the fact that stuff that seems simple today hadn't been figured out at the time. Invention required quite a bit of trial and error - and they didn't have the internet to research what others had done. Even libraries were limited in what they could offer - I'm sure there wasn't a huge demand for books on Tresca's theory of metal yielding in the local library in Dayton when the Wright Brothers were coming up with their design.

These days I think that we get away with fewer prototypes since our tools and reference materials is much better. Still, it seems like those prototypes cost a bit more - even though machines have become more accurate and engineering requirements from a century ago would be much simpler to achieve.

To put things into perspective: some folks from the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) tried to create a replica of the Wright Flyer back in 2003 and ran into all kinds of difficulty trying to re-figure-out what the Wright Brothers figured out. Now, they had sponsorship from Ford. The Wright Brothers had a bicycle shop.

 

[flash3780]

Here's some details of the efforts to rebuild the Wright Flyer:

http://ns97.webmasters.com/*wrightexperience.com/httpdocs/edu/index.htm

The "crappy" engine was revolutionary. No one had ever before built an engine so light.

 

[berkshire]

I think the thing being missed here is that the Wright brothers were largely using sweat equity, they only had one employee working full time on the project, and the rest were casual laborers hired on an as needed basis. There are many inventors who do the same today, I work for one of them.
Having achieved partial success in getting a flight, they then spent another eight years defending their patents. before they were able to get into production with their aircraft.
Which they only produced for 10 years before being bought out by GM.

B.E.

 

[IRstuff]

Why limit it to this previous century? Just consider the transition from Bronze Age to Iron Age; some old geezer bitterly complaining about how you need these new-fangled high temperature furnaces to do any metalwork, and how much easier it was to make bronze objects.

At the turn of the last century, one could build a radio out of bits of flotsam and jetsam. Now, you need a billion dollar factory to crank out even an obsolete Pentium 4 processor and motherboard components. However, with those same parts you can do more than Fermi could have possibly imagined.

Moreover, there are millions of people inventing new apps daily; that's something that would have been unheard of 100 years ago. Few people had sufficient non-work time 100 yrs ago to indulge in something like writing the next big iPhone app.

TTFN

FAQ731-376
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize

 

[brandonbw]

For some reason this made me think of Phone apps and online Facebook games as an example of being able to engineer something for a reasonable amount of money.

I can think off the top of my head of someone who helped me modify my car was working on a program in CUDA to make perfect length headers for any car with relatively little initial measurements. From what he told me there wasn't anything like it that existed. Before my Porsche was stolen he was going to prototype his idea on my car. That was knowledge of a hobby, combined with his Mechanical Engineering background, combined with trying to figure out how to make something even better. The only thing that would cost is the metal to make the headers for my car and his time.

An airplane is probably a bad example since so much of that invention has been worked out. But who knows what someone could do if they tried to make a single piece that much better on their own time?

B+W Engineering and Design
Los Angeles Civil and Structural Engineering

http://bwengr.com

 

[blacksmith37]

Of course the technology /information base has been dramatically expanded, but : I think the big fundamental change has been shysters, er, lawyers. Any developement now must include "How does this expose us to lawsuits". And the closely related "Does this conform to codes, standards, and commonly accepted practises?"
I have heard a medical doctor say that aspirin could not be developed today because of side effects which would be the basis of lawsuits.

 

[flash3780]

Software is indeed very inexpensive to develop. Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and others have made huge leaps in technology with the last several decades. Even most electronics can be built with a relatively small investment, since there is so much competition in the electronic components markets.

Perhaps I should restate my premise; what I was getting at was that it seems like the cost of manufacturing (identical) parts is higher now (in relative terms) than it was a century ago. For example, the Wright Bros designed and built an engine - all custom. Perhaps this was made possible by the fact that their bicycle shop had the required tools available? I know that they had the engine block cast at a local foundry. However, it seems like it would be quite expensive to undertake a similar venture these days. I'm sure it took quite a few trials to get their engine working correctly. Maybe their bicycle shop was very successful to start with.

It's not that people don't invent things anymore - invention most likely happens more now than ever before. All that I'm getting at is that it seems more expensive to make stuff - and hence more expensive to invent mechanical things than it was a century ago.

Maybe not, but perhaps someone has some perspective. Berkshire mentioned sweat equity - perhaps rather than $$ it took long nights working running milling machines, drills, and lathes to manufacture the parts for the Wright Flyer.

I read that Thomas Edison was fired from his night-shift job at Western-Union for spilling battery acid on his boss' desk while working on an invention. Maybe it's not more expensive to make mechanical stuff today, but rather people who invent things tend to have the required tools available to them - bought for some other purpose - and do the majority of the manufacturing themselves.

Or they can get a government grant or sponsorship from the Smithsonian Institute like Robert Goddard.

Certainly, information is more accessible today. I don't think anyone can argue with that. Also, development of the micro-computer has led to huge, rapid advancements in electronics and programming. It seems like advancements come rapidly when development costs are low (as in the computer) but are much slower when development costs are high (as in automobiles). It would be very difficult to, for example, invent a new type of automobile today due to the expense of merely producing a roadworthy vehicle, let alone a vehicle with substantial changes or improvements.

 

[IRstuff]

But, that's always the case. Just consider the development of the microprocessor; in the late 60s, a few guys could design a microprocessor that handled the navigation functions for the Apollo Lunar Lander. Just 20 years later, a 32-bit microprocessor required an army of guys to do the same functions. However, the end product price is radically different. The 1802-style processor on the Lunar Lander cost several thousand dollars in production. The 80386 was something like $500 in production. The cost of the production line for the 1802 was probably on the order of $2 million. The 386 required a plant that cost something like $200 million.

So, even in the case of something developed less than 50 yrs ago, the cost to do something similar is going to be higher. But, the level of functionality and the commensurate complexity is much higher as well.

40 yrs ago, you could contemplate doing a tuneup on your own car with hand tools and feeler gauges. You can't do that today without a truckload of diagnostic equipment.

But, so what; you're not going to do the same things. The time is different, and the world you have now is a direct consequence of all the things that happened heretofore.

TTFN

FAQ731-376
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize

 

[drawoh]

Software is indeed very inexpensive to develop...

Back in my Commodore_64 days, I used Paperclip as my word processor. Paperclip was written by a 16 year old boy as a school project. I do no know if he brought in additional developers for the later versions.

Imagine one person writing a current quality word processor today. We have added so many bells an whistles to these things that one person can no longer do the design.

JHG

 

[thruthefence]

"The Wright Flyer could be built cheaply even now. Even its engine would be cheap. By modern standards, it is a crappy airplane with a crappy engine.We have come a long way since then"

Maybe not

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123170874

 

[KENAT]

In fairness, how many times did the original crash and get rebuilt?

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[msquared48]

A century ago I wasn't here, so I guess the answer is no.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask

 

[monkeydog]

100 years ago we did not have the tools at our disposal we have now, like SAP, Systems Engineering, Requirements Flow Downs documents to make you did you job right.

Yup, can't imagine anything being cheaper 100 years ago.

 

[drawoh]

thruthefence,

Trivial Pursuit question:

What pilot was involved in the first ever fatal airplane crash.

I believe it was Orville.

JHG

 

[berkshire]

""1908: During flight trials to win a contract from the U.S. Signal Army Corps, pilot Orville Wright and passenger Lt. Thomas Selfridge crash in a Wright Flyer at Fort Myer, Virginia. Wright is injured, and Selfridge becomes the first passenger to die in an airplane accident.""
1909 September 7 -- Eugene Lefebvre dies while testing a new French-built Wright airplane. He is the first pilot to die at the controls of his craft.


I think this may answer your question.
B.E.

 

[brandonbw]

I still use my example of a friend trying to build a better Car header(s) by using the CUDA programming language instead of building and flow testing, building and flow testing, building and dynoing, building, and dynoing, etc. This has to be much cheaper to design than it was 15 years ago.

But I guess so much of modern technology has had so long to build on old technology that it would only be more complicated and expensive to design.



B+W Engineering and Design
Los Angeles Civil and Structural Engineering

http://bwengr.com