Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
Synopsis of Chapter 5 Aluminum Cans and Failure
The chapter titled ‘Aluminum Can and Failure’ explores the subject of engineering from an invention perspective. The narration redresses failure as integral in the progression in the field of engineering. As the text commences, the author, Henry Petroski recounts the genealogy of the challenges in advances in the field of engineering while enlisting the application of the concepts that resulted in failure during the experiments. The description categorizes failure differently from the view held in other spheres. According to Petroski, the shortcoming marks the commencement of advances in engineering. He uses the phrase failure is the common uniting factor in engineering then differentiates the professional (engineer) from a technician. The explanation enlightens audiences of the duties of an engineer and the significance of failure. Petroski creates a perception that contrasts the view held by a significant majority seeking to pioneer innovations in sciences. Chapter 5 categorizes different types of failure and their approach to their manifestation in engineering. The author alludes that the expression of failure in environmental engineering differs from the developments in other engineering. The text reiterates that innovation commences as the imagination that guides the journey of failure. Petroski alludes that engineers envisage possibilities before experimenting the same as the case in computer engineering.
A significant section of the introductory part describes failure from a technical perspective. The author describes the dynamics that ought to guide the view of failure. He then quantifies nontechnical failure using the case of incompatibility of design. He claims that the design of environmentally-friendly innovation commences is, an expression of failure. The text uses the example of an aluminium can. According to the account, the inability of the engineer to produce an invention of the same that serves the intended purpose at a lower cost is a form of failure. A larger part of the section titled the ‘aluminum beverage can’ on page 91 recounts the history of the creation of the aluminum beverage can that proved difficult to open. The narrator enlists such an experience as a form of failure. He proceeds to explain the advances that prioritized the durability of the can while overlooking the difficulty opening the same. The subsequent section analyzes the flexibility of the material and many other concerns that influenced the choice of aluminum over steel. The accounts cite malleability that ensured that the can could serve numerous functions. Subsequently, the manipulation of the resources to create seams and hollow shapes also contributes to its consideration in the creation of a beverage can. The section integrates the image of different types of cans.
Image of different types of cans
Steps in forming aluminum can body
The presentation proceeds with the explanation that the ease of estimation of the extent of the thinness of the materials, and the convenience in opening the cans to pour liquids into the materials as some of the issues that influenced its design. There is also an assertion that the designers of the aluminum can had to balance costs with functionality concerns in the design in the early stages. The research that followed led to the conceptualization of the complexity related to the use of the material that engineers sought to redress as a failure. The writer related the engineering experiment with the experience of Galileo in his discoveries. The accounts of the advances in the design of the aluminum can describe the different types of failure. The writer enlists the possibilities as liquid spoil, compression, wrinkling, popping out, and split open, among many other challenges. The issues related to the sealing and pressuring in the functionality of the can. The texting examines that possible failure. The accounts integrate a graph outlining the advances in the adoption of aluminum over steel from the early seventies to the late nineties. The description of the engineering in the US in 1993 dominates page 96 that explains the technical complexities that led to the preference for aluminum. The concern includes thickness, the drawing process, and the weight that affected the production of the same in large quantities. The unique attributes of the can be failing to hurt the face but be strong to support the pressure of a person standing on its makes the section interesting. The caption followed by an account of concerns in opening the can. The practical limits of the building design. The author compares the design of the can to the analogy of a skyscraper, which is also an engineering design. He implies that structural creativity is an integral aspect of engineering.
Graph of advances in the use of can
The environmental concern of the seventies features as part of the discussion that commences on page 98 (Petroski). The author describes the challenges for the use of a pop-top can as a failure of engineering. He mentions risk to consumers as children then describe the invention of Daniel Cudzik of Richmond, who influenced patenting in the US. The section that follows enlist the combination of solutions that seek to improve the functionality of the can. Reynold aluminum action in Fort Fierce Florida played a role in consideration of the design’s viability. Discussion on issues with patenting feature in the narration focusing on the advance of the seventies. The reliability of the supply of the material for the use in manufacturing the can equally feature as a subject for the discussion on design failures. The author ties the subject to environmental challenges by citing the consideration to recycle the can as an idea that guided innovation that later encourages engineering to design a lighter can. The professionals considered the option of thinning the material. Other areas considered in the adjustments were the reduction of the can tops and the diameters of the same resources. Coca-Cola then engaged in experimentation with the use of the can that resulted in the popularization of the use of the same by beverage manufacturing companies.
Image of patenting process
The text concludes with a reiteration of the ideas described in the introduction that a failure is a form of experimentation that marks the commencement of design. The author describes the dimension of engineering as integral in innovation in manufacturing that resulted in the design and distribution of beverage cans. He then focuses on the can. For the most part of the section, the author describes the consideration that guided the advances in innovation such as ergonomics, aesthetic functionality, and environmental concerns that ought to define the approach to conceptualizing engineering. As a result, the review of the chapter facilitates the comprehension of the meaning of failure from an engineering perspective. The reader then uses the same to gauge the advances in the creation of the beverage can as experimentation with failures.
Work Cited
Petroski, Henry. Invention by Design: How Engineers Get from Thought to Thing. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1996.