Landmarks in Mechanical Engineering (review)

Intended as a kind of sightseeing guide for mechanical engineering historians, buffs, and practitioners, Landmarks in Mechanical Engineering lists 135 sites associated with significant accomplishments in mechanical engineering. Arrangement is by type of innovation; subjects include pumping, mechanical power production, electrical power production (further broken down by water, steam, internal combustion, etc.), power transmission, minerals extraction and refining, manufacturing facilities and processes, food processing, materials handling and excavation, environmental control, research and development, communications and data processing, biomedical engineering, and various kinds of transportation, including water, rail, road, off-road, and air/space.

The sites were selected by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) History and Heritage Committee, which began meeting in 1971 to “administer its recognition program through a grassroots nomination process” (p. xiii). Local sections of ASME nominated their favorite sites, which were considered by the committee for inclusion as landmarks. The criteria for selection are described in a single vague paragraph, which includes “survival” as a qualifying factor, although several artifacts included in the book have not, in fact, survived and are represented only by plaques. The “grassroots” nomination and selection process has resulted in inevitable biases and omissions, some of which are egregious.

The book’s most glaring defect is the gap between geographical good intentions and actual coverage. Despite its claim to international representation, of 135 entries, only eight are outside the United States. The United Kingdom has three entries; Australia, France, Switzerland, Germany and Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory, have one each. An additional landmark is shared between China and Alameda, California. If the intention was to recognize mainly landmarks in the United States, why include any from elsewhere? Including only a tiny number is an insult to the many nations that have made significant contributions to mechanical engineering. Oddly, then, U.S. sites were selected even when the text mentions non-U.S. sites as having older or larger examples of the same technology (pp. 70, 73, 106, and 280). It is sometimes unclear why one U.S. example has been chosen over another; why, for example, include the Interborough Rapid Transit System in Manhattan but not the older Boston subway (p. 258)?

Second, there are no nonwhite inventors or engineers among the many heroic (all male) engineers profiled in the volume. There are three references to women: two in photographs in which women appear as admirers of the technology (pp. 19 and 239), and one to women staff at the Rotating-Arm Model-Test Facility in Hoboken, New Jersey (p. 321).

Third, the book emphasizes large, capital-intensive machines in industrial settings. Traditional fascination with gigantism is exhibited in several machines that are included only because they are the largest of their kind, some so huge that they were impractical to operate and obsolescent within a few years. Examples are the “Big Brutus” mine shovel (pp. 138–39), the Creusot steam hammer (pp. 159–60), and the Quincy Mining Company No. 2 mine hoist (pp. 193–95). The authors admit that large size was a factor in their selection of landmark nominations (p. xv), and they suggest that in future editions they might include some artifacts remarkable for their smallness.

More baffling are the vast lacunae in technological coverage. For example, only two consumer products are included—the Evinrude outboard motor (pp. 224–25) and the Edison phonograph (pp. 336–37). There are eighteen entries for rail transportation (pp. 235–81), but none for automobiles, buses, bicycles, or motorcycles. Trucks are represented only by the Jacobs engine brake retarder (pp. 288–90). The Sikorksy helicopter is included, along with two rocket entries and a launch vehicle, but no fixed-wing aircraft of any kind appear (pp. 294–305). Agricultural technology is omitted entirely, and food processing is represented by a gristmill, the Anderson-Barngrover continuous rotary pressure sterilizer, and the FMC citrus juice extractor (pp. 177–84). Biomedical engineering has exactly one entry, for the...