Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by spekcular 1476 days ago
The top review on Amazon is devastating:

"The author purports to provide a blueprint to restoring a technological economy after a TEOTWAWKI event, but some his listed sources are from the realm of science fiction. Not an encouraging start.

He goes on to pretend that he knows more than he actually does. It's as if he skimmed a few sources but only superficially understood them. How else can he suggest that a collapsed society go direct to building blast furnaces, ignoring the bloomery method of reducing iron ore that provided mankind with workable metal for two millennia as a cottage industry? Then he goes on to suggest that we build Bessemer converters to decarbonize the pig iron. Does he not know that the Bessemer converter is all but obsolete? Did he miss the chapter about the (chemically) basic refining furnace, which is a lot easier to build?

He quotes a lot of interesting chemistry, then throws up a real laugher when he gets the simple and universally known formula for black powder exactly backwards!

While the book skims quite a potpourri of technologies we use today, he omits almost entirely the tools needed to implement them. Knowing how an electrical generator or motor is assembled is all well and good, but where will the impoverished builder get copper wire? Or the special steel sheet necessary for laminating magnet cores? Or the tooling for punching out the laminations?

He never even began to address the fundamentals of machine tools, on which about 99% of our modern technology rests, and without which you cannot build even an 18th century economy. .

As a high school science project, this would rate a solid C for effort, and something less for the end result."

5 comments

I read so many glowing reviews of this book on Mastodon and so I opened it up. I felt the same way as the above Amazon reviewer. The book just felt shockingly naive. His book was driven by his personal vision/ideology moreso than any actual accordance with scientific or social scientific learnings. If you're suffused deeply enough in the ideology I'm guessing Dartnell is evocative, but if you're skeptical, Dartnell doesn't do nearly enough work to convince you otherwise and often makes you giggle and lose faith with his inaccuracies (like the formula for black powder lol) and impractical takes.
Sounds like we need a wiki for this stuff. If we managed to get a bunch of engineers contributing, we really would have a guide for rebooting civilization. Maybe include a button to print out the whole thing.
Appropedia is basically this, wiki of "Appropriate Technology", a term for tech that is well suited to the needs and resources of its users

https://www.appropedia.org/Welcome_to_Appropedia

You could be ambitious and fund the effort with a nonprofit. Maybe a Foundation of some kind.
Why?

Can anyone really foresee a collapse of civilization which somehow renders all our technology useless and unrepairable, but somehow leaves access to computers and printers available?

I mean it's great to imagine if you want to be a pretend-prepper but the reality is that there will be millions of tons of food in the ground, tens of thousands of pounds of seeds available, oil, gasoline, kerosene, millions of cubic yards of fresh water. Lots of electrical generators, small and large, pretty much anything you need has already been built. etc, etc. You want to build a small house? Get materials from a large building!

We don't need a post-apocalyptic civilization to know how to refine cast iron, we need them to know how to repair diesel engines.

>Can anyone really foresee a collapse of civilization which somehow renders all our technology useless and unrepairable, but somehow leaves access to computers and printers available?

No but I can foresee a number of different collapses of civilization which render almost all computers useless within a relatively short amount of predictable time and the ability to connect those computers before they become inoperable to printers where one would print out numerous copies of the books.

But also, imho, it would be a compelling way to learn how the stuff of civilization actually works.

Maybe I'm weird but it's always sorta bothered me that if I accidentally went a thousand years back in time, I wouldn't know how to restore any significant modern technology. In the same way it used to bother me that I didn't know how to make stone knives and fire without matches, the most basic technologies of human history. Learning how and doing it made me feel like a more complete human being.

OK, maybe I misunderstood the post, but I still stand by my last statement. We don't need to recreate the Industrial Revolution, we just need to be able to repair and use the stuff that's already built.
Sounds like an opportunity for a 2nd edition!

If Amazon commenters filed pull requests rather than potshots, the world would be a better place. :)

Sounds like, if you want a capable materials, mechanical, chemical and electrical engineer to write your pull requests, you'd need to pay them a salary they request. (Them in plural, because it is unlikely to find a single individual good at everything.)

Software people like to say that software engineers is super complex and difficult. On the other hand, an enthusiast occasionally makes great FOSS contribution by filing a pull request. For some reason, that is?[1] quite rare in many other forms of engineering. If it is only because of capital cost differences of building things in physical world vs building in software world (which affects stuff like learning by experimentation), maybe we should acknowledge they are a part of reason why building things in physical world is complex and difficult.

[1] Or looks rare, I may be mistaken.

That's the beauty of actual pull requests: that fat red X immediately saying a test case number 172 out of 42345 didn't pass, i.e. you're talking gibberish mister.

The beauty of publishing is that paper is patient and it may take literally centuries until someone draws a fat red X on point 172, that the Bessemer (or whatever) idea was always absolute and utter gibberish!

This is true both for the book, for the review you cite, for the comment you wrote, and for this comment of mine. It's nice to pretend you have a compiler-for-the-reality in your head that keeps predicting right every time, where in contrast with a true compiler you are wrong almost every single time.

The author isn't sharing the profits, why should people do the work writing his book for him.

If he hosted it on GitHub that would be a different story.

It's called altruism.

The reviewer is under no obligation to, but if they feel strongly enough to write a detailed review, presumably they feel like a better written book would be valuable.

For a Cub Scout project, I built a DC electric motor out of nails, tape, and wire.

No special steel sheet.

How many horsepower?
Yep I bought it and was very unimpressed. Very weak.