It has been already remarked that the boldness of young engineers is very apt to be inversely as their experience, not to say their want of knowledge, and it is only by a strong and determined effort towards conservatism, that a true balance is maintained in judging of new schemes.
The life of George Stephenson proves that notwithstanding the novelty and great importance of his improvements in steam transit, he did not "discover" these improvements. He did not discover that a floating embankment would carry a railway across Chat Moss, neither did he discover that the friction between the wheels of a locomotive and the rails would enable a train to be drawn by tractive power alone. Everything connected with his novel history shows that all of his improvements were founded upon a method of reasoning from principles and generally inductively. To say that he "discovered" our railway system, according to the ordinary construction of the term, would be to detract from his hard and well-earned reputation, and place him among a class of fortunate schemers, who can claim no place in the history of legitimate engineering.
Count Rumford did not by chance develope the philosophy of forces upon which we may say the whole science of dynamics now rests; he set out upon a methodical plan to demonstrate conceptions that were already matured in his mind, and to verify principles which he had assumed by inductive reasoning. The greater part of really good and substantial improvements, such as have performed any considerable part in developing modern mechanical engineering, have come through this course of first dealing with primary principles, instead of groping about blindly after mechanical expedients, and present circumstances point to a time not far distant when chance discovery will quite disappear.
(1.) What change has taken place in the meaning of the name "invention" as applied to machine improvement?—(2.) What should precede an attempt to invent or improve machinery?—(3.) In what sense should the name invention be applied to the works of such men as Bentham, Bodmer, or Stephenson?
CHAPTER XLI.
WORKSHOP EXPERIENCE.
To urge the necessity of learning practical fitting as a part of an engineering education is superfluous. A mechanical engineer who has not been "through the shop" can never expect to attain success, nor command the respect even of the most inferior workmen; without a power of influencing and controlling others, he is neither fitted to direct construction, nor to manage details of any kind connected with engineering industry. There is nothing that more provokes a feeling of resentment in the mind of a skilled man than to meet with those who have attempted to qualify themselves in the theoretical and commercial details of engineering work, and then assume to direct labour which they do not understand; nor is a skilled man long in detecting an engineer of this class; a dozen words in conversation upon any mechanical subject is generally enough to furnish a clue to the amount of practical knowledge possessed by the speaker.
As remarked in a previous place, no one can expect to prepare successful designs for machinery, who does not understand the details of its construction; he should know how each piece is moulded, forged, turned, planed, or bored, and the relative cost of these processes by the different methods which may be adopted.
An engineer may direct and control work without a knowledge of practical fitting, but such control is merely a commercial one, and cannot of course extend to mechanical details which are generally the vital part; the obedience that may thus be enforced in controlling others is not to be confounded with the respect which a superior knowledge of work commands.