Pritchard, James; From Shipwright To Naval Constructor - Iowa State ...
Pritchard, James; From Shipwright To Naval Constructor - Iowa State ...
Pritchard, James; From Shipwright To Naval Constructor - Iowa State ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
18 <strong>James</strong> <strong>Pritchard</strong><br />
even though they may apply principles and use mathematics.78 Because<br />
Duhamel, in seeking best practice, seems to have captured a similar<br />
notion, it is worth elaborating on his ideas.<br />
Introducing his students to the profession of naval architecture,<br />
Duhamel, like countless engineers after him, pointed to the constraints<br />
of the material and economic world. Necessary requirements must be<br />
kept in mind-to find the shape of a ship's bottom, the height of the<br />
primary gun deck above water, and the ship's speed, steering, sail<br />
carrying, drift, and handling-all impose constraints. The "transcendent<br />
geometers" treated some of these conditions. Some sought the<br />
best curve to divide a fluid, but, though quite elegant, their methods<br />
produced shapes that cannot be applied to ships because they fit only a<br />
single condition. Others treated drift, but, since they supposed, in<br />
order to facilitate the solution, shapes that ships do not have, the<br />
exercise brought few benefits. Simple geometry, Duhamel wrote, is<br />
insufficient to resolve these problems with exactitude, and a "transcendent<br />
geometer" will do nothing useful if he is not a sailor. <strong>Constructor</strong>s,<br />
he concluded, have to abandon this route for the most part and confine<br />
themselves to observation and experiment.79<br />
Is this abandoning science? The short answer is, no. But as Duhamel<br />
proceeds, he describes a mode of conduct that is less than applying<br />
science and more in keeping with what engineers do. Observation and<br />
experiment must supplement the way of the geometer, but this path<br />
has as many difficulties. If a major defect is observed in a new ship, for<br />
example, it is difficult to know whether it comes from stowage. And, if<br />
not from stowage, it is difficult to learn the source of the defect. If ships<br />
were not so costly, one could multiply tests and try out shapes, but<br />
Duhamel adds that these approaches are impossible. One must be<br />
content with the ships at hand. Engineers work in a world of economic<br />
constraints.<br />
<strong>Constructor</strong>s have been both timid in their attempts and forced to be<br />
content to observe ships already built. Until recently, a constructor<br />
principally aimed to find a method to copy accurately the best ships in<br />
existence. Some established all dimensions on keel length; others em-<br />
ployed the midship beam. But, adds Duhamel, it is absurd to imagine<br />
that constructors actually observed any relation between one part of a<br />
ship and another. They could just as easily take the sternpost, wing<br />
transom, or depth of the hold. Thus appeared the secrets and mys-<br />
78Michael Fores, "The History of Technology: An Alternative View," Technology and<br />
Culture 20 (October 1979): 853-60. Fores claims that engineering is not a system of<br />
thought but "a process which makes useful artifacts and is most distinctive through the<br />
type of output which it produces" (p. 856).<br />
79Duhamel du Monceau (n. 71 above), pp. 52-54.