4 ms·

> Can people today really expect to understand how things were built a 100 years ago? Yes. This can be done. The same as today, 100 years ago designs were bas

by yiyus 9y ago

> Can people today really expect to understand how things were built a 100 years ago? Yes. This can be done. The same as today, 100 years ago designs were based in calculations of the bridge response to the expected loads. Today, we know better what are those loads and how to calculate the response of the structure, but it is the same process. Construction itself has also changed with the years. We have ways to asset materials and machine them that are way ahead of what we had 100 years ago, we can assembly the bridge with much more precision, and the efficiency of our tools has vastly improved, but the principles are the same.

gambiting 9y ago
Hmmmm. You might be right, but I'm just thinking about what I read about difficulties replicating the Saturn V rockets, which obviously were built much later than 100 years ago, under extreme scrutiny of top-of-the-line engineering of their time, and yet, we can't build them again from original blueprints. The issue seems to be that despite having extremely detailed blueprints a lot of the actual assembly was left to skilled welders and technicians on site, and they used techniques which were not documented. So You can look at the blueprint, you can look at the actual remaining Saturn-V rocket, and still have no idea how two elements were welded together to withstand launching into space, because it's just not documented anywhere. The person who did the weld is long dead, so in a way, an extremely important element of assembly is lost and has to be replicated by experimentation. I'd imagine it's the same with bridges - blueprints might say that a column of specific durability was used, but it won't say how it was made, and therefore you won't know what can break inside it. Edit: corrected Atlas to Saturn V
- aninhumer 9y ago
  The other factor I read regarding the difficulties of resurrecting the Saturn V engines, was that they used a lot of mechanical feedback control systems to regulate fuel flow etc. Modern engineers can understand them in theory, but they'd just use a micro-controller for anything that complicated, so they don't have the same fluency in those systems as the original engineers.
- lostboys67 9y ago
  Bridges are a lot simpler than a Saturn 5 :-)

by yiyus 9y ago

gambiting 9y ago

Hmmmm. You might be right, but I'm just thinking about what I read about difficulties replicating the Saturn V rockets, which obviously were built much later than 100 years ago, under extreme scrutiny of top-of-the-line engineering of their time, and yet, we can't build them again from original blueprints. The issue seems to be that despite having extremely detailed blueprints a lot of the actual assembly was left to skilled welders and technicians on site, and they used techniques which were not documented. So You can look at the blueprint, you can look at the actual remaining Saturn-V rocket, and still have no idea how two elements were welded together to withstand launching into space, because it's just not documented anywhere. The person who did the weld is long dead, so in a way, an extremely important element of assembly is lost and has to be replicated by experimentation. I'd imagine it's the same with bridges - blueprints might say that a column of specific durability was used, but it won't say how it was made, and therefore you won't know what can break inside it. Edit: corrected Atlas to Saturn V

aninhumer 9y ago
The other factor I read regarding the difficulties of resurrecting the Saturn V engines, was that they used a lot of mechanical feedback control systems to regulate fuel flow etc. Modern engineers can understand them in theory, but they'd just use a micro-controller for anything that complicated, so they don't have the same fluency in those systems as the original engineers.
lostboys67 9y ago
Bridges are a lot simpler than a Saturn 5 :-)