Top 30 Henry Petroski Quotes

I emphasize that virtually every engineering calculation is ultimately a failure calculation, because without a failure criterion against which to measure the calculated result, it is a meaningless number.

I’m a firm believer that no matter how small an object is, you can find interesting things out about it and its history.

All conventional wisdom has an element of truth to it, but good design requires more than an element of truth – it requires an ensemble of correct assumptions and valid calculations.

An over-reliance on past successes is a sure blueprint for future failures.

Science is about knowing; engineering is about doing.

Everything we do is designed, whether we’re producing a magazine, a website, or a bridge. Design is really the creative invention that designs everything.

No design, no matter how common or seemingly insignificant, is without its adamant critics as well as its ardent admirers.

The definition of ‘safe‘ is not strictly an engineering term; it’s a societal term. Does it mean absolutely no loss of life? Does it mean absolutely no contamination with radiation? What exactly does ‘safe’ mean?

Failure is central to engineering. Every single calculation that an engineer makes is a failure calculation. Successful engineering is all about understanding how things break or fail.

Read and write with a sensitive ear. The craft of writing is very important. Practice the craft.

Engineering is achieving function while avoiding failure.

Companies selling a product play down its vulnerability and emphasize its robustness. But only after technology leaves the dock is it really tested. For human operators in control of a supposedly infallible system, complacency and overconfidence can take over, and caution may be thrown to the wind.

The space shuttle was designed, at least in part, to broaden our knowledge of the universe. To scientists, the vehicle was a tool; to engineers, it was their creation.

It is really want, rather than need, that drives the process of technological evolution.

Because they are so humbled by their creations, engineers are naturally conservative in their expectations of technology. They know that the perfect system is the stuff of science fiction, not of engineering fact, and so everything must be treated with respect.

As long as there are things to wonder about, there are stories to be written about them. That makes me happy, because writing about things seems to be my thing.

If I could go upstairs and write every day, I would be happy. I don’t need recreation.

Failures are much more dramatic than successes, and people like drama. I think this is why automobile races draw such crowds. People expect spectacular crashes, which we tend to find more interesting than cars just racing around the track. The same is true of bridges, buildings, or any structure or machine.

Indeed, an engineer designing a structure is not unlike an artist painting one. Both start with nothing but talent, experience, and inspiration. The fresh piece of paper on the drawing board is as blank as the newly stretched piece of canvas.

My first book, ‘To Engineer Is Human,’ was prompted by nonengineer friends asking me why so many technological accidents and failures were occurring. If engineers knew what they were doing, why did bridges and buildings fall down? It was a question that I had often asked myself, and I had no easy answer.

For as long as I can remember, I have been fascinated by things large and small. I wanted to know what made my watch tick, my radio play, and my house stand. I wanted to know who invented the bottle cap and who designed the bridge. I guess from early on I wanted to be an engineer.

Design is nothing if not decision making.

Because every design must satisfy competing objectives, there necessarily has to be compromise among, if not the complete exclusion of, some of those objectives, in order to meet what are considered the more important of them.

Although engineers want always to make everything better, they cannot make anything perfect. This basic characteristic flaw of the products of the profession‘s practitioners is what drives change and makes achievement a process rather than simply a goal.

Relying on nothing but scientific knowledge to produce an engineering solution is to invite frustration at best and failure at worst.

Many of the familiar little things that we use every day have typically evolved over a period of time to a state of familiarity. They balance form and function, elegance and economy, success and failure in ways that are not only acceptable, but also admirable.

It seems to be a law of design that for every advantage introduced through redesign, there is an accompanying unintended disadvantage.

Successful engineering is all about understanding how things break or fail.

Luxury, not necessity, is the mother of invention. Every artifact is somewhat wanting in its function, and that is what drives its evolution.

We can’t simply blame the engineers when things go wrong because, no matter how well they plan, things don’t always go according to plan.