The Things We Make: The Unknown History of Invention from Cathedrals to Soda Cans

by Bill Hammack

Discover the secret method used to build the world…

For millennia, humans have used one simple method to solve problems. Whether it's planting crops, building skyscrapers, developing photographs, or designing the first microchip, all creators follow the same steps to engineer progress. But this powerful method, the "engineering method", is an all but hidden process that few of us have heard of―let alone understand―but that influences every aspect of our lives.

Bill Hammack, a Carl Sagan award-winning professor of engineering and viral "The Engineer Guy" on Youtube, has a lifelong passion for the things we make, and how we make them. Now, for the first time, he reveals the invisible method behind every invention and takes us on a whirlwind tour of how humans built the world we know today. From the grand stone arches of medieval cathedrals to the mundane modern soda can, Hammack explains the golden rule of thumb that underlies every new building technique, every technological advancement, and every creative solution that leads us one step closer to a better, more functional world. Spanning centuries and cultures, Hammack offers a fascinating perspective on how humans engineer solutions in a world full of problems.

A book unlike any other, The Things We Make is a captivating examination of the method that keeps pushing humanity forward, a spotlight on the achievements of the past, and a celebration of the potential of our future that will change the way we see the world around us.

Genres: Nonfiction, History, Science, Engineering, Technology, Audiobook, Design

272 pages, Hardcover

First published March 21, 2023

About the author

Make magazine called Bill a "brilliant science-and-technology documentarian", whose "videos should be held up as models of how to present complex technical information visually." Wired called them "dazzling." His work has been recognized by an extraordinarily broad range of scientific, engineering, and journalistic professional societies. From journalists he has won the trifecta of the top science and engineering journalism awards: The National Association of Science Writer's coveted Science in Society Award; the American Chemical Society's Grady-Stack Medal, and the American Institute of Physics' Science Writing Award--all typically given to journalists. From his engineering peers he's been recognized with the ASME's Church Medal, ieee's Distinguished Literary Contributions Award, ASEE's President's Medal, and the AIChE's Service to Society Award. He is a Professor of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering at the University of Illinois - Urbana. He may be reached at [email protected] or voice/text at 217-689-1461.

Reviews

[Pablo · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm an engineer, and I enjoy reading books about engineering - it's history, techniques, etc. This is usually the most enjoyable when the author is an engineer himself, as is the case here. This time, however, it didn't quite work out. I realize the subtitle was probably coined by an editor, but the blurb describes something that isn't what we get. What we get is an oddly-assembled collection of bits and pieces that almost read like leftover chapters from other books - what they call a "fix-up" in science fiction. The first half gives several short examples of engineering sucesses in early history, all to support the author's point - an excellent point, at that - that engineering isn't the applied science that everyone thinks it is. The engineering often comes first, with the science filled in later. He doesn't say so, buy maybe science is - ahem - applied engineering. Take that, Sheldon Cooper!

The second half changes course, with a small number of longer chapters meant to illustrate what has already been demonstrated. These chapters could've come from a longer collection of more in-depth histories of innovations, and do we really need ten pages of history of one man's work finding new techniques for ceramic dishes?

There are also cases where an editor seems to have popped in to add remarks that jar with the rest of the style and content, calling out the past's faults when it comes to the status of women and non-European races. They don't follow the author's point and only serve to interrupt the flow. They have their place, but it isn't here.

The author is a professor of engineering and focuses more on R&D than the rest of us in the field, as most engineers in my experience work on design or analysis, and later move into project or program management if they have the aptitude and inclination to advance. Instead of the longer chapters I mentioned above, some shorter examples in these areas might've been interesting.

All in all, it's an OK read but it doesn't quite satisfy. I enjoyed the main point, but it was a funny way to get there. I plan to check out some of his other titles next, to see what else he has to offer.

[Scottsdale Public Library · Rating 5 out of 5]

Entertaining in his approach and attainable in his explanation, this title is a great read for all curious minds! I absolutely love how Hammack describes science in ways anyone can understand. I also dig the illustrations.
Check out his Youtube channel, @engineerguyvideo." - Sara W.

Award-winning professor Bill Hammack describes what the engineering method is and what it isn’t, how engineering differs from science and how it is not "simply technology”. The stories he tells are interesting examples of how people have solved problems at different times based on their knowledge, resources, and culture. I especially like that he highlights a diverse set of people.

If you enjoy this book and/or if audios/videos are more your thing, check out Hammack’s website, engineerguy.com. -Stacy M.

[Dan Connors · Rating 4 out of 5]

Where did microwave ovens come from? How can architects be confident that buildings won't flood or get toppled over by winds? Why is the bicycle one of the most perfect machines ever invented? What's the REAL story behind the invention of the light bulb?


We take for granted so many things that make our lives easier. We assume that some brilliant scientist or inventor came up with an invention and right away it worked like it was supposed to. But there are many invisible steps that can take decades of painstaking trial and error before a breakthrough happens. How can we use knowledge of these hidden steps to make our own lives and the future better?


These questions and more are tackled by Engineer Guy and writer Bill Hammack in his book The Things We Make. If you've always been curious about how technologies and discoveries emerge, this is a fascinating look at what the author calls the Engineering Method.


The scientific method is a mostly theoretical exercise in building universal principles and theories from empirical observations and experiments. But the engineering method is much different- it is a real-world experiment using past knowledge and trial and error to solve pressing problems. Some call it applied science, but Hammack thinks of it as more as an art form.


Engineers tackle problems where there are many unknowns. The main tools at their disposal are rules of thumb that have been passed down for generations like how tall you can build a structure before it collapses, how to make porcelain in a kiln, or how to boil water to generate electricity. Hammack describes the engineering process as "using rules of thumb to solve problems with incomplete information".


Incomplete information means there will be lots of mistakes, but it also means that engineers are at the forefront of knowledge, and the first step of the process, trial and error, can eventually bear fruit. The second step, building on past knowledge, allows them to learn from the mistakes of those trials and improve them into things that work better and better. And the third and final step is the most crucial one- embracing trade-offs. In any endeavor of the real world, there are trade-offs. Things work better when more time and money are spent on them, but at some point time and money run out, and engineers have to figure out what the optimal or "good enough" level is. Creation is thus game of balance, and the more aware we are of the trade-offs (price versus working conditions, efficiency vs environmental damage), the better we can make choices that make sense.


Everybody knows that Thomas Edison was credited with the invention of the light bulb. But the reality was that the process of producing sustainable light was a long process that involved 20 prototypes by other inventors before Edison came along. The glowing thread that makes a light bulb work, its filament, took many years of experimentation with hundreds of materials before one could be found that burned long and bright. Edison borrowed from the work of others in finding this filament, and relied on others to perfect it so that his invention could be mass produced. Focusing on one man and his "genius" invention gives short shrift to the many others who helped engineer the incandescent bulb and loses the story of the engineering method and how it worked here like it does in most other cases.


Hammack closes with the story of the microwave oven, and how its invention was a fluke when someone noticed his candy bar melting when getting close to a microwave device. The real story starts in World War II and involves the use of these shorter waves to be used in radar devices called magnetrons. Magnetrons were top secret and used extensively by the British to detect Nazi aircraft to great effect. After the war ended, their side benefit of producing heat was explored by engineers at Raytheon to create large commercial ovens that heated up meals quickly. It took many years and many trials and errors to finally come up with the household necessity we all use today- the personal microwave oven. In addition the heating discovery ended up having many industrial uses that few are aware of.


Engineers have to consider real-world problems and real-world restraints, sometimes in urgent situations to produce workable solutions. They have to consider climate, labor supply, existing knowledge, energy sources, raw material availability, and time in order to come up with products that will actually perform as desired. It reminds me of politics, known as the art of the possible, where politicians and bureaucrats try to design real-world programs that work for large, diverse groups of people. You can see the engineering method almost everywhere- in parents using trial and error to raise their children, in professional sporting teams experimenting with player positions and chemistry, or with doctors trying different drugs on patients and juggling the trade-offs between benefits and side-effects.



Here are some of my "aha" moments from the book.

1- Enzymes can be engineered through something called directed evolution to produce a multitude of benefits including improved pharmaceuticals, green energy sources, and environmentally friendly chemicals. Chemical engineer Frances Arnold won the Nobel Prize doing just that.

2- Tall buildings are expected to sway with the wind. They are engineered to withstand 100 year winds, a mathematical concept that is a statistically derived guess, and might become obsolete in an era of climate change.

3- Most of the electricity that we enjoy come from steam turbines and rely on the simple process of boiling water to work. Coal, oil, and nuclear all involve heating the water so it can do its thing.

4- The engineering of technology can be seen as a battle between techno-utopians, who think any and every new things is ultimately a good thing, and techno-pessimists, who worry that by opening Pandora's box we are creating more bad than good. Knowing the trade-offs is essential to keep things from getting out of control (see artificial intelligence for example)


This is an informative and interesting book, and full of interesting stories from history that made me think.

[Denis Vasilev · Rating 4 out of 5]

Разбор отличий инженерного подхода от научного, на исторических примерах. В конце резюме размышлений и более четкое описание метода

[Ameet · Rating 3 out of 5]

it was quite interesting in parts; I learnt many new things. This is not just a collection of stories about engineering triumphs. There is supposed to be a common thread that weaves through the stories which is aimed at deciphering and unfolding the gestalt of an engineering mindset.
It does outline these traits, in a round about way, at times. some of the observations are astute.
for example. if engineering is "applied science", then is carpentry "applied hammering" or music "applied pitch".
Story about charles parsons was quite interesting and so was the lone inventory chapter on invention of light bulb.
The chapter on ceramic, I felt, was all over the place and personally did not find it interesting. I also failed to see the principle behind that.
Overall, a quickish read, interesting anecdotes. But not any staggering insights.

[George · Rating 3 out of 5]

Summary
We are all familiar with the scientific method: observe, theorize, experiment, and repeat. This algorithm is humanity's most effective tool for understanding the universe. However, Bill Hammack introduces readers to what he calls the "engineering method." While it's commonly believed that scientists create knowledge and engineers apply it, Hammack argues that this perspective greatly underestimates the engineer's role in discovery. He asserts that engineers must be the ultimate pragmatists, unable to wait for perfect knowledge. Instead, they often operate by "rules of thumb" that push the boundaries of what is known. Hammack illustrates this through various examples, from the thickness of cathedral supports to the invention of the O-ring. Unlike scientists, engineers are constrained by cultural contexts, limited resources, and, most critically, the need to deliver solutions within time constraints. A compelling example is the '100-year wind' concept, where engineers must design structures, such as skyscrapers, to withstand rare but severe events predicted to occur within the next century. The challenge is that we often lack a century's worth of wind data for an area, forcing engineers to rely on modern "rules of thumb," involving complex, yet pragmatic, statistical predictions based on limited or incomplete data. The crux of Hammack’s argument is that while a mathematician might balk at the imprecision of these methods, engineers must proceed not in a world of perfect knowledge, but in one driven by experiential understanding. Often, the only way to answer a question is to build the answer.


Thoughts
There exists a fundamental debate in philosophy between scientific realists, who believe that science describes the universe as it truly is, and scientific instrumentalists, who are agnostic about the relationship between scientific knowledge and "True knowledge," focusing instead on the utility that scientific knowledge provides. Bill Hammack clearly aligns with the instrumentalists, as do most of us, whether we realize it or not. While we can endlessly debate the foundations of knowledge, the reality is that we rely on a world built from our limited perspectives and knowledge to navigate life. Hammack’s work underscores this pragmatic reliance, reminding us that the things we make are often the best answers we have in a world of imperfect information.

[Russell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nicely-written, compact book on the process of engineering, illuminating the tradeoffs between cost, function, durability, and others as it examines dozens of objects in our lives. Hammack illustrates each of the topics he addresses in engineering through well-chosen specific products, often showing that their progres from scientific discovery to final product is anything but linear.

[Angela Skees · Rating 4 out of 5]

Full disclosure: I won a copy of The Things We Make: The Unknown History of Invention from Cathedrals to Soda Cans by Bill Hammack in a Goodreads giveaway.

Did you like the PBS show "How it's Made"? If you answered yes, this book might be for you.

Totally out of my normal range of what I like to read, I nonetheless entered the contest for the snappy title and potential content. It reads like a thesis paper - sometimes very deep, perhaps a bit wordier than the average person might like - but with a good amount of humor and an excellent story telling vibe.

It's like a series of evening chats with a very smart professor friend. So while I enjoyed the book overall, I found it necessary to take it a few pages at a time, reading over my lunch breaks, in order to actually finish it. That being said, I know several people who would probably love it, and you might be one!

[Karl Tomkins · Rating 1 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book till I saw the words cisgender. There is no such thing. When you start buying into silly ideologies in a book about engineering, I loose interest quickly.

[Gregory Eakins · Rating 3 out of 5]

We have a responsibility to understand that there is and never was anything inevitable about engineering. There is no “must.” Which means that we have the responsibility to control it. Simple stories create an image of technology shaping our lives with a ruthless logic all its own, a great whirlwind of innovation that sweeps through our world, granting blessings and sowing havoc as we and technology blindly interact with each other. This is only half true and, because of this, dangerous.

As an engineer, it's always exciting to find a book written on engineering. The vast majority of technology books focus on the science and scientists rather than the engineers. They get all the glory, and we plod along in the background to make their discoveries useful. Enter The Things We Make, a book revealing the people and methods driving the inventions and engineering innovations over the years.

Hammack tells some stories from engineering history, starting with middle-ages archetecture, going through cloth, photography, clocks and the "rule of thumb" commonly used to get where you need to go. The stories are for the most part, rather interesting, although Hammack gets long in the tooth in the second half of the book, as he really belabors some points.

There seemed to be an out of place focus on the contributions of women and minorities in this book that distracted from the point more than it helped.

In the end, while a mildly enjoyable read, I can't help but feel that I didn't quite understand the point of what Hammack was digging at. The odd pacing and the disorganized collection of stories never quite hit a stride here, so the common thread or lesson never shined through.

[Ian Mewhinney · Rating 4 out of 5]

An awesome book on the history of engineering. I have been following The engineerguy on youtube for a while, so I was glad this popped up on libby. Great narration from Jonathan Todd Ross on the audiobook. Great overview of history of the engineering method vs the scientific method throughout history even back to the Romans. A bit dry at times, but continually interesting, this goes back to building with stone that has far stronger stability than they would ever need; to today with skyscrapers that are made of steel that sway in the wind but are designed to withstand a wind stronger than a 100 year maximum estimate. It really shows you the great standards in place for engineering, and why it will continue to improve as we learn more about applied sciences. 4.1/5

Summary:

For millennia, humans have used one simple method to solve problems. Whether it's planting crops, building skyscrapers, developing photographs, or designing the first microchip, all creators follow the same steps to engineer progress. But this powerful method, the "engineering method", is an all but hidden process that few of us have heard of—let alone understand—but that influences every aspect of our lives.

Bill Hammack, a Carl Sagan award-winning professor of engineering and viral "The Engineer Guy" on Youtube, has a lifelong passion for the things we make, and how we make them. Now, for the first time, he reveals the invisible method behind every invention and takes us on a whirlwind tour of how humans built the world we know today. From the grand stone arches of medieval cathedrals to the mundane modern soda can, Hammack explains the golden rule of thumb that underlies every new building technique, every technological advancement, and every creative solution that leads us one step closer to a better, more functional world. Spanning centuries and cultures, Hammack offers a fascinating perspective on how humans engineer solutions in a world full of problems.

Perfect for readers of Adam Grant and Simon Winchester, The Things We Make is a captivating examination of the method that keeps pushing humanity forward, a spotlight on the achievements of the past, and a celebration of the potential of our future that will change the way we see the world around us.

[Gijs Limonard · Rating 4 out of 5]

the author makes the case for ‘the engineering method’ (and I believe he makes an excellent point); the heuristic (rules of thumb) approach in situations of incomplete information (also called; the real world); knowledge is gained as practical needs arise and people start looking for creative solutions; trial and error (and eventually success), a rich imagination and persistence in the task at hand will deliver useful insights and real life applications; rather a process of attentive ‘tinkering’ than an effort of merely armchair ‘thinking’. As such new knowledge is more often a result of technological development than the other way around.

[Riley McKenzie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I loved this books goal of demystifying the rolls and thought processes of an engineer. This book makes a great point about the distinction of science and engineering, those being science is a tool and engineering is a practice (or way of life?). Also talking greatly about the idea of "Best" and how that shifts and changes depending on who's making the solution and how that affects the overall cultural significance of a thing. Like a bicycle or film stocks made for specific people and not being inclusive to others. Really interesting book and lots of fun stories about everyday things we interact with.

[Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book explains the engineering method, which is often misunderstood. It's supported less by scientific research, and more by trial and error and tested rules of thumb, than many realize. It's full of interesting case studies. There was some unnecessary and eye-roll-worthy egalitarian asides, but not enough to ruin the book.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

I LOVE books like this. This is a look back at historical accomplishments with a goal of understanding how and why various activities worked. The author describes how engineers work with knowledge and available resources to build effective solutions to contemporary problems.

[Cassandra Joseph · Rating 2 out of 5]

A little blah, but some useful, interesting information on how things came about and were engineered

[Kat Dixon · Rating 3 out of 5]

A nice love letter to engineering.

[Krystal Dario · Rating 4 out of 5]

as someone who is interested in engineering, this book had a great message and great ideas that i agree with, and was entertaining in most parts!! though, the chapter about josiah wedgwood just felt a bit confusing and all over the place at times, but overall this is a great non-fiction book!

[Jim Kownacki · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great read.

[Jung]

Learn the secret to the world’s most amazing and ordinary inventions

How did the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Incas, Egyptians, and every other civilization around the world build structures that even today make us hold our breath?

Their secret? The engineering method.

Some of the masters who led these massive projects could barely read and write. They didn’t have access to the hardcore data and science now available at the click of a button, but by using the engineering method they were still able to create some of the world’s most impressive feats of craftsmanship.

And it’s possible to apply these same principles to your own life.

So, in this book The Things We Make by Bill Hammack, you’ll find out exactly what the engineering method is and how to use it. You’ll see how it’s been implemented to build cathedrals, decide the shape of a soda can, and even win world wars. And by delving into these examples, you’ll begin to understand the theory’s deep relationship with other scientific disciplines and how its application can provide solutions to some of life’s most pressing challenges.

By viewing the world through the lens of the engineering method, you’ll stop seeing the things around you as objects or processes and, instead, as creative beauty and engineering marvels.

-

Understanding the engineering method

When a master mason in thirteenth-century Europe appeared on the scene of a construction site, he was treated with the utmost respect. His skill and vision were always a cut above the rest, but all that glory would fade if you compared his ability in math with engineers or architects of today. Yet, the mason was still an absolute master of his craft. The evidence is in structures like the Saint-Chappelle in France, Girona Cathedral, and countless other structures across Europe.

To build soaring cathedrals with ample space inside the buildings, Christian architects used the pointed arch model that Muslims had learned from Indian Buddhist temples. Easy as it was to copy, it required shrewdness to avoid the massive walls of the cathedral collapsing in on themselves. Thin walls would be suicidal but thick walls would reduce the space inside the cathedral and occupy more land.

So, how could they build solid expansive cathedrals that still remained safe? They went back to an old but genius technique: they used a rope.

They draped the rope over the arch, folded it into three equal parts, and used the markings on the rope to divide the arch into three, every third physically marked on the cathedral. Then they measured the distance from a marked spot to the wall of the arch, and extended it by an equal measure, giving them the precise thickness that would sustain that particular arch.

Through this reliable rule of thumb, the architects obtained the thickness they could build into their walls.

While building the walls they’d keep a look out for cracks, and if they found any, they’d reinforce them with tougher stone. A mason in possession of high-quality stone would cut three inches from his already strong wall, while another with less luck would add three inches of stone for greater strength.

Trying to achieve their goal with limited resources, limited time, uncertainty, and no precise knowledge about the nature of their materials, the master masons of Europe applied old rules of thumb in creative ways. That’s the engineering method, and that’s the process all great products have in common.

They used what they’d learned as apprentices, the knowledge they’d gathered from personal experience, and their intuition to make important decisions, all the while knowing they might make mistakes along the way. The important thing was that they made sure to learn from them.

It’s like covering the center of the board in a chess game; you might not win, but you increase your odds of winning by first setting yourself up nicely. You find shortcuts. Every field or culture uses rules of thumb obtained from sheer pragmatism and engineers build on it to advance humanity.

But before taking that leap, they must first know what it is they’re aiming for.

-

How engineers decide what’s best

Ordinary tools and tasks must be produced and performed in ways that provide the best value. So how does an engineer decide what’s ideal?

Consider Henry Dreyfuss, the industrial designer who transformed homes and offices with everything from clocks, telephones, thermostats, pens, and other practical appliances.

Not sure what body type to design for in the 1930s, he compiled data from the US Army of what ordinary men and women of the time looked like. From these he made products for the “average person,” and boy did he strike gold!

While his designs didn’t suit everyone, they fit most. Anyone could pick up and use the model 302 desk telephone because it was designed for the average distance between the mouth and the ear. And it was the same for his Honeywell thermostat. His measurements became the industry standard.

But it’s important to remember that engineers never design in a vacuum. They’re informed by their culture, so their inventions carry inherent biases. However accurate these American standards were for most Americans of the time, they might not have been the best standard in another culture where people are built differently or have different resources at their disposal.

Circumstances, resources, and knowledge might also vary, so an engineer’s solution in another country might look quite different, and rightly so. The same goes when you take into account, race, age, gender, and countless other factors. For example, when crash test dummies are modeled on males, they exclude women and children. What about a game controller designed for the use of both hands? Or staircases instead of ramps? These aren’t ideal for people with disabilities.

Office temperatures designed to accommodate men will freeze women who have a 35 percent lower metabolic rate. It’s the same with internet algorithms, mostly engineered to suit what their creators are most likely to input, or voice recognition software that struggles with foreign accents.

The notion of “best” even challenges our notion of equality. Most people would agree it’s fair to allocate the same number of toilets to men as women in an office. Now consider that women spend double the time men spend in the toilet, and the ideal starts to flounder.

It’s this engineering mindset that inspired Georgena Terry to design her own bicycle using Henry Dreyfuss’s data on women. The women who’ve tried her bicycles say they don’t hurt their necks and shoulders as much as other bikes. That’s because women’s upper bodies are proportionately longer than those of men, and their center of body mass differs. Terry shortened the distance from the seat to the handlebars and then narrowed the handlebars. These changes make it possible for women to ride upright. Through this clever application of the engineering method, she’s gone on to sell millions of bicycles.

To an engineer, the best solution is the one they can manage under the circumstances, so they keep pushing the boundaries to find better and more inclusive solutions.

-

How engineers deal with limited resources and uncertainty

A senior official who traded wine in Carchemish, a city-state around the Turkey-Syria border in the seventeenth century BCE, received an order of 18,000 bottles of wine from the neighboring king of Mari.

If delivered, he’d make three times his cost. Using a conventional boat down the rough Euphrates River to Mari was out of the question, but a road caravan would leave them at the mercy of armed bandits.

They needed a solution fast, so they turned to a kelek, a 50-foot square raft made from large tree trunks and protected by inflated goat skin. With the remaining room left on the raft, they filled the space with live donkeys.

When the kelek docked at Mari, the crew delivered the wine and then sold all the raft’s wood at a premium because good wood was rare in Mari. Then they dried and packed their precious goat skins on the donkeys and rode them back to Carchemish.

That’s some piece of engineering genius. Inventors and makers are always struggling with limited time, energy, materials, and circumstances out of their control. To solve problems, they need vision, agility, and knowledge of their environment and circumstances.

The materials around you should determine what you make. If you have wood, you use wood. The shape and form of a car are adapted to the kind of fuel it uses, and as fuels start to evolve – as they are now – there’ll be a steady evolution of the forms cars and machines take.

The role of the engineer is to weigh all the variables to predict the best possible outcome, making trade-offs and fine-tuning the process along the way.

The soda can is a great example of one such trade-off. More cuboid cans fit into a given space than cylindrical ones, but sharp edges would be weak and more likely to break. The cylindrical can’s curved surface is stronger and uses less material, so the engineer opts for the stronger can which still manages to stack like a cuboid because of a well-designed top.

No solution-seeker ever has the perfect circumstances or resources, but there are always clever ways to solve a problem.

-

The role of science in engineering

When Navy ships lined up for official review at Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee, they weren't ready for Charles Parsons. He’d made his way into the lineup through some high-level connections – a risky bet, but when it came down to it, his ship came from behind to beat the most formidable Navy ships of the day.

So how did Parsons’s steam turbine engine become the standard? And why do we still use it to generate most of the electricity we consume today from coal, gas, and nuclear plants?

Parsons’s childhood was steeped in mechanics. His father, William Parsons, had machines lying all over the family compound in Ireland where Parsons frequently saw glassblowers and blacksmiths at work. William Parsons was an astronomer who at one point even owned the world’s largest telescope, the Leviathan.

Charles Parsons was one of the first engineers who graduated from college with a mastery of math and physics, and he used that experience to find solutions for his steam turbine.

He wanted to design a faster, more efficient steam engine that used less coal, needed less material, less maintenance, and made less noise. Time spent on the problem produced a reasonable hypothesis. If he slowed down the speed at which steam flowed through a turbine just enough, his engine would have time to extract more energy from the hot steam.

So who did he turn to?

Parsons studied the work of nineteenth-century scientists who’d already cataloged the properties of steam. To decipher the exact relationship between steam properties and machines, he turned to the work of William John Macquorn Rankine, the founder of thermodynamics, and other prominent scientists who’d published on the subject.

Using this knowledge, he began to understand what was possible and what would waste his time. Knowing that, Parsons was able to trial experiments that would quickly take him to a solution, and eliminate wasted time on guesswork.

It still took a decade, but through trial and error, he finally built a system that could slow down the passage of steam just enough to extract more energy.

In other words, he used science to find reliable rules of thumb. You see, engineering isn’t just applied science; it’s a creative process that involves more than knowing your math.

Other scientists had access to the same knowledge and data, but they didn’t venture into the creative space that inspired Parsons to predict the future. Science made it possible for him to get to the finish line faster, just like a hammer helps a carpenter make chairs.

But having a hammer doesn’t make you a carpenter.

Following his successful stunt at Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee, Parsons’s steam turbine was adopted by the British Navy, and soon became the global standard for power generation. His engine was one of the systems adopted to power the Titanic.

But this leaves us with another question: If Charles Parsons relied on past knowledge to create new rules of thumb, who then should take credit for the invention?

-

There’s no such thing as a lone inventor

One of the greatest rivalries in tech happened between Thomas Edison and Hiram Maxim. Of course, Edison eventually came out on top, he’s the one whose name you remember. But it wasn’t that simple.

Thomas Edison had invested time, men, and the financial resources from his investors into making an electric light bulb. He succeeded, but his incandescent bulbs would shine only for a few minutes before sputtering out. Every time the filament would burn out.

Edison, Maxim, and their contemporaries had advanced the knowledge they’d inherited, but it became apparent the single most pressing problem of the electric light bulb was to find a filament that could withstand the heat.

Meanwhile, Maxim had made great strides in modernizing filaments. And together with Lewis Latimer, a young African-American inventor, successfully designed a bulb that could last up to 40 hours.

Edison hated Maxim’s success on the light bulb, and Maxim hated that people thought he’d stolen Edison’s idea, but neither would have made the progress they’d made without the knowledge they’d learned from previous generations or the teams they relied on.

The story of the lone inventor is fascinating and easy to tell, but it doesn’t do justice to all the hard work of the collective and their contributions to life-changing inventions. There’s no such thing as a lone inventor.


-

The complexity of innovation

The microwave oven has an even more complex story. During World War II, the British developed a high-frequency short-wave emitter called a magnetron to improve the detection of Nazi fighter planes. The advanced magnetron was portable, and it was clear it would change the course of the war if mass-produced. But the British hadn’t found a way to mass produce them, and even if they could, they lacked the raw materials. The Nazi blockade around the British Isles meant raw materials couldn’t be received at the rate that they’d need them.

So the British found a way to smuggle their model across the Atlantic to America, where Percy Spencer, a scientist and engineer, found an affordable way to mass-produce the magnetron with cheaper materials. Percy Spencer, an employee at Raytheon, a radio and vacuum tube production company, started working on the project in 1940.

Spencer’s version of the magnetron not only helped defeat the Nazis, but it also changed the way we eat. The magnetron, in transmitting short waves of high frequency, generated heat. It was essentially a microwave oven. Some soldiers used the device to warm themselves during the war, but the dominant story tells of how the magnetron melted Spencer’s chocolate bar and led him to invent the microwave.

After the war, chunky versions that could fully cook food in only minutes were adapted for use by restaurants. But in order to adapt the microwave to a smaller version for home use required even more affordable materials, materials which would only work if the energy source was adapted to their properties. So when choosing the materials, Spencer and his employer Raytheon sacrificed the cooking speed of at-home microwaves, but this was a trade-off that microwave users didn't actually mind.

The story of the microwave shows how complex innovation can be. The at-home microwave was never the goal, yet the world ended up with an invention it never knew it needed.

-

People with a depth of knowledge in their field can push boundaries when they apply creative solutions to current problems. To tackle these problems, they can use available resources and wade through uncertainty and error to discover what the best possible outcomes should be.

But remember, the “best” possible outcomes don’t always work for everyone. Engineers always subconsciously carry their motivations and the influence of their culture with them, but luckily a good understanding of the history and contributions of people from different backgrounds helps them appreciate the tools they use.

Going forward, you’ll no doubt appreciate engineering as an art, a discipline capable of using scientific evidence to create new rules of thumb and, when those rules become obsolete, pushing the boundaries further for the advancement of humanity.

Who knows, you might even use the engineering method to find shortcuts in your own life!

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

Never have I read a technical book that held my attention so consistently for lengthy periods. Bill makes the drama of creation truly palpable. I find myself wishing that I'd had the opportunity to study under Bill Hammack during my undergraduate training in manufacturing engineering. Carry on, Bill, to grander heights!

[Sarah Shafer · Rating 4 out of 5]

I went into this one knowing it's fully not my usual thing... but I actually did really enjoy it! a bit dense, but very interesting, on the whole. if you're interested in engineering and creative processes, I definitely recommend. :)

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had never really understood the difference between science and engineering, but this book did a great job of explaining exactly this. Bill Hammack tells great stories and gives clear explanations to make points, and he does this with well-paced, compelling writing and some great illustrations. At the beginning of the book, I felt that Hammack was being defensive about engineering but by the end of the book, I understood where he was coming from. The tone of the book is conversational and I felt as if Hammack was talking to me over coffee. With Hammack’s crisp writing style, I could have read a longer book. Thank you to Netgalley and Sourcebooks for the digital review copy.

[Angie Boyter · Rating 3 out of 5]

3-
A lunchtime listen. I liked the overal theme very much, with chapters on the various aspects of developing products, but the book was very uneven. Sometimes it definitely seemed to talk down to the reader, assuming, for example, that the reader might not understand some simple graphs or data. At others, it too often went unnecessarily far into the details of a design, unnecessary to make whatever the point is about design or invention, in ways that only a nerd like my physicist husband would love.
The second aspect that inhibits my enjoyment (and my husband's, too) is the delving into racism and sexism in design. Some of it is interesting, like racism in designing color photography, and, as a small woman, I can very much agree with the issue of designing all kinds of things for male bodies and ignoring gender differences. Unfortunately discussion of racism and sexism is in EVERYTHING to the point of being trite and extremely annoying, EVEN IF IT IS VALID. Can I never get a break from it?
Overall a disappointing read,almost a 2.

[Jeremy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Eh. This meandering book about engineering told a few stories in depth about how a product was developed, making the point that it is generally not a single inventor, but a process involving lots of people and ideas and time. Mildly interesting at times.

[Mark Henkel · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Things We Make is a book that will unintentionally explain the tension between the characters on the long-running TV series, "Big Bang Theory," of Scientist Sheldon Cooper and Engineer Howard Wallowitz. The former routinely condescended and mocked the latter for "only" being an Engineer, but the latter would often demonstrate how problems actually do get solved, even when science does not have the answer (yet).

Indeed, this book will explain the difference between the scientific method versus the engineering method. The book demonstrates its assertion that,

QUOTE:
the RESULTS of engineering are not the products of science.
The scientific method creates knowledge;
the engineering method creates solutions.

...The engineering method is
USING RULES OF THUMB TO SOLVE PROBLEMS
FOR WHICH THERE IS INCOMPLETE INFORMATION."
UNQUOTE (from Page 208).

I am reminded of yet another popular TV show (but back from the 1980s), called MacGyver that turned the character's name into a new VERB in the US lexicon! That is, to "MacGyver" something is to craft an amazing solution out of only the available limited resources at hand. That is a perfect example of what the author of this book is teaching about this "engineering method." As the author wrote early on in the book on page 19,

QUOTE:
"Solving problems
using rules of thumb
that cause the best change
in a poorly understood situation
using available resources."
UNQUOTE.

That is the very essence of "MacGyvering."
It is the engineering method.

It differs from the scientific method by not having "the luxury" of time for discovery because engineering seeks to solve proplems... NOW - even when they don't have things scientifically proven yet.

Additionally, the book also adamantly teaches to not accept the myth of the "lone inventor" being the one genius who solved the problem. Such innovations are the results of a long string of discoveries along the way. Citing rather long-winded examples from the lightbulb to the microwave oven, the author makes a very good point and proves it well.

The only distraction I found was some of the chapters were mostly just the story of such a single innovation, wrapped between a chapter opening and a chapter conclusion, simply to declare that the story proved the opening and conclusion. Nevertheless, the author did successfully prove his points.

I read The Things We Make: The Unknown History of Invention from Cathedrals to Soda Cans from March 21 through April 1, 2025. (No, this is not an April Fool's Joke!) Just under 2 weeks, I took 12 days to read this book.

Including my usual noting the Notes, underlining, and making margin notes and commentary, it took me a total of 555 minutes to read in entirety: 9 hours and 15 minutes.

I had received this book from my beloved bride as a gift on her last living Christmas, December 25, 2023. Since she breathed her last breath peacefully in my arms over 9 months ago (as I write this on April 1, 2025), The Things We Make is now the 15th book I have read since that final day with her earthly physical presence - all 15 of which were gifts from her.

This book has fully opened my eyes to what engineering is really all about - and it increased my admiration and respect for the field. Now I understand much better what both of my two (now deceased) grandfathers did for work. One was a physical engineer and the other was an electrical engineer. I always respected the genius of both men in my youngest years of life, but now I "get it" even more. For that, I am grateful to this book and its author for writing it.

For anyone interested in learning more about engineering, I certainly recommend this book. I first heard of this book from the positive book review of an engineer friend. I am glad I followed their recommendation indeed. And I pass that baton on to others herewith.

The premise and message is eye-opening indeed. Even though extremely detailed, bibliographed, and endnoted, I found the long-winded singular stories in a number of chapters to sometimes feel distracting in their seeming (albeit relevant) digression.

For these reasons, I cannot give this book even a 4 Star rating.

The Things We Make: The Unknown History of Invention from Cathedrals to Soda Cans
by Bill Hammack, Ph.D.
is a 3-Star book.

[CreativelyRed · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was interesting and maybe a little dry. It focuses on how engineering has transformed the world through reimagining things. I liked the stories yet found it hard to follow the author’s thought process jumping at times.

[Predrag Ilić · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The Things We Make: The Unknown History of Invention from Cathedrals to Soda Cans" by Bill Hammack takes readers on an enlightening and captivating journey through the often-overlooked history of human invention. In this meticulously researched and well-crafted book, Hammack sheds light on the ingenious minds and remarkable creations that have shaped our world, from the grandeur of cathedrals to the ubiquity of soda cans.

One of the standout features of this book is the author's ability to make complex and technical subjects accessible to a broad audience. Hammack's background as an engineer and science communicator is evident in his clear and engaging writing style. He effortlessly conveys the intricate details of various inventions, making them not only understandable but also engrossing for readers of all backgrounds.

The book is structured chronologically, starting with the construction of cathedrals in the Middle Ages and progressing through time to more contemporary innovations like the soda can. This approach allows readers to trace the evolution of human creativity and problem-solving over the centuries. Each chapter provides a deep dive into a particular invention, revealing the science, engineering, and human stories behind it.

One of the book's strengths is its emphasis on the "unknown" history of invention. While many books focus on famous inventors and groundbreaking discoveries, Hammack uncovers the stories of lesser-known inventors and the often serendipitous nature of invention. He demonstrates how these overlooked individuals and their innovations have had a profound impact on our daily lives.

Another highlight is the inclusion of historical illustrations, diagrams, and photographs that complement the narrative. These visuals provide valuable context and enhance the reader's understanding of the inventions discussed.

However, a potential drawback for some readers may be the level of technical detail in certain sections of the book. While Hammack does an admirable job of simplifying complex concepts, there are moments when the text may become dense, especially for those with limited scientific or engineering knowledge. Nevertheless, for those who enjoy delving into the intricacies of invention, this may not be a significant issue.

In conclusion, "The Things We Make" is a captivating and informative exploration of the unsung heroes of innovation and the inventions that have shaped our world. Bill Hammack's passion for science and engineering shines through in every page, making this book a rewarding read for anyone curious about the history of human creativity and ingenuity. Whether you're an engineer, a history buff, or simply a curious reader, you'll find something to appreciate in this thought-provoking journey through the unknown history of invention.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

From the earliest times of our 60-year marriage and family life, I've found joy in building and creating structures and furniture, for our home and for our gardens. My skills and collection of tools have both grown over the years, but I proudly look at furniture I built 50 years ago still in use in our daily life today. Though I've always considered the label DIYer derogatory, I admit to full recognition that my skills and practices have never been perfect. I've frequently thought in my more complex projects to thinking, "well, if I was a real engineer I'd have drawn this all out ahead of time and made precise measurements and cost estimates."

Not long ago I heard an actual professional engineer talk about how relatively recent in history written plans and complex mathematics were developed. Cistercian cathedrals were designed and constructed without them; even earlier than that, all of the marvels of Roman engineering were done without plans. How would they have made mathematical notations using Roman numerals and no decimals or fractions?

The engineering process that was used is now described as empirical engineering--trial and error, based on experience accumulating over time. So that's been my process through the years--aha!, I've been doing empirical engineering!

How comes Bill Hammack, a professor of engineering with a series of informative, entertaining, clever videos on YouTube, one of which I happened to stumble across--classic story in these days of oceanic information available online. Chapter 1 of his book How We Make Things is How to build a cathedral without mathematics, science, or a yardstick..

Great stuff.

Three key strategies of the engineering method: applying trial and error, building on past knowledge, and accepting tradeoffs to arrive at an optimal solution to a given set of challenges.

Using historical examples from cathedrals to Wedgewood ceramics to microwave ovens, Hammack weaves a great story of the history of how we arrive with the world we live in today. Most compellingly, he shows how all great inventions are the end result of countless years of trial-and-error improvement by people over generations of time. Edison be damned, the electric lightbulb was the result of a long line of curious problem solvers.

All of this story of inventions is really prelude what he seems to really want to say and show--engineering is distinctly different from science and is deserving of our respect and admiration for what it accomplishes in our daily lives.

This is great reading, engaging and human, with mind-expanding stories on page after page. His YouTube channel is effective in its use of audio-visual aids; his book accomplishes the same level of magic through words alone.

[Scott Pearson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Engineering is a vocation that usually doesn’t get the deep treatment in modern literature. Popular portrayals often play off an inventor’s brilliance and introversion, but don’t poke around in depth about what made an innovation successful. Instead of one distinct epiphany to an individual, inventions often follow a series of efforts by a community. These efforts often include many failures and halted efforts. Society has less tolerance for these difficulties and prefers a story of narrow adulation about the triumph. In contrast, Bill Hammack chronicles in this history how engineers actually use science, economic pressure, and group contributions to propel technology forward.

This book describes, in detail, how nine technologies developed over time. Popular lore parodies most of them individual efforts, but in truth, these inventions grew out of more complicated and nuanced histories. Hammack brings out the human side while describing the nitty gritty of how these feats were accomplished. He highlights the engineer’s role in the venture, over and above the scientist. Concepts span many domains of engineering, including electromagnetics, electricity, statistics, and construction.

As a criticism, some of this book falls into a trap of engineering pride that denigrates other professions like scientists. That’s a common pitfall among many professions, admittedly, especially among their teachers, but it counts as a weakness nonetheless. Also, as a shortcoming, Hammack struggles to bring out a central narrative that spans the nine chapters. Each chapter tells an interesting story in and of itself, but contrary to what we’d expect in a history, the nine works taken together don’t really add too much more than they would individually. Perhaps an additional chapter on how Hammack’s understanding of how the engineering method evolved historically (instead of the “rah rah engineering!” refrain) might provide a more impactful conclusion for a broader community.

This book’s subtitle is frankly inaccurate. This book provides a history of methods of innovation through case studies. This history is not necessarily “unknown” but rather not often discussed. Nonetheless, it can serve two types of readers most directly. First, it can inspire younger engineers and engineering students about their profession’s breadth, depth, and impact. Second, it can enlighten non-engineers, like myself, who work with engineers around the problems that technologies solve. Specifically, it can teach us how our colleagues think to solve problems. Such human understanding is critical for many of today’s problems which require team science and interdisciplinary knowledge. I’m certainly more inspired to continue to invent in my work from Hammack’s historical narratives.