Do you ever give thought to who was the smartest person ever? Or, compare one supposed historical genius with another? I am more inclined to compare them. The notion of intelligence and smarts has proven to be too difficult to quantify in this context to work out who the smartest is. A comparison though, I have found, reveals more about the way we choose to think and what we choose to learn so that we can be better at what we do.

So, in this article, I am going to compare two people history has decided are geniuses for two rather different reasons: Sir Isaac Newton and Leonardo da Vinci.

One of the things I find most remarkable about Newton is the story of how he solved for the Brachistochrone curve. This is because I am quite fascinated by the related isochronous curves and because of how quickly Newton found the solution compared to others at the time. It was a challenge set by Johann Bernoulli in a scientific journal for all those who read it. It seems that Newton did not read it because Bernoulli sent him a letter directly. While another requested one and a half years to find the solution, Newton found it on the night he read the letter (after getting home from work at The Royal Mint).

What strikes me about da Vinci is how he used the scientific method to find knowledge to help him with things as diverse as inventing machines for specific tasks and his painting. He got his hands dirty – literally. He would dissect people so he could then understand their form – allowing for better paintings. He also paid detailed attention to what he saw – using his studies of light to revolutionise the use of shadows to enhance the 3D effect in paintings. He never learned mathematics or Latin and never pursued any formal advanced studies. He was not part of the contemporary scientific community. But with the knowledge he gained, he evolved insights for ideas on mechanisms and inventions such as a strut bridge, an automated bobbin winder, a rolling mill, a tensile strength tester of wire and a lens-grinding machine.

While Newton invented the reflecting telescope, it is hard to imagine him making such advances in art or contemplating numerous types of mechanisms and inventions like da Vinci did. While da Vinci showed considerable scientific expertise, it is hard to imagine him deriving formulae for natural phenomena.
It is indeed as if each of them had powerful brains made for different things, and one could not expect one to also be good at what the other did.

But is this true?

If we go back in time further again, then we can consider Archimedes. He was definitely inventive. Think of things like: the Archimedes' screw, the compound pulley, a crane used to lift and drop attacking Roman ships, an odometer. He also came very close to inventing calculus without algebra and only geometry – making him all the more impressive.

Could Newton have achieved even more if he got his hands dirty? He did put on disguises to bust counterfeiters so he was the type to get visceral if needed – if only he put that ability to something scientific or technical.

What would da Vinci have achieved if he could have applied mathematics to his inventions for faster optimisation and assessment? He certainly had the mental capacity to learn and master mathematics – imagine if he could have used mathematics to find the most viable invention ideas to progress further.

Or, would they each have lost what made them unique and impressive?

We will never know, and each can, regardless, be very content with what they did achieve.

But it is hard to imagine any harm in them broadening their skills to augment those they already have.
​
And that’s the lesson for you as a global engineer. As you move from one role to another, think about the new skills you might need – and then develop them. Even now, think about skills that could help you just a little or might help in the future – and then develop them.

The first thing to note is that this is about replacing missile defence with laser defence. The reason? Drones!
Drones are so cheap to build, while still being able to wreak havoc and destruction, that missile defence is simply too expensive. It is noted that a Patriot missile costs one million dollars while a drone would cost about one thousand dollars. That means you need to be one thousand times more productive if you want to keep using missile defence.

From the above, as global engineers, we can note that the problem is framed as a challenge of attrition. The engineering goal is to design a solution that is more cost effective than the enemy’s. That means you can produce your defence longer than they can produce their offence.

Now that the frame is clear, we would like to understand how we got to this situation and the lessons that offers us (or, at least, the phenomena that is demonstrated).

This change has come about because advancing drone technology has provided a more cost-effective form of attack. This is not a surprise to those in the know – in 1997 (literally last century) a book by the title of Robot Warriors predicted things like this.

It was a result of peripheral technologies – mostly electronics, electric motors, and electric batteries – improving. As shown in book like How We Got To Now: Six Innovations That Made the Modern World and Hitting the Brakes: Engineering Design and the Production of Knowledge:

• These peripheral technologies made new technologies (drones) viable.
• These new technologies then put pressure on existing technologies (missiles).
• These new technologies also provide opportunities to advance other technologies (lasers).
• These new technologies potentially also benefitted from improvement in the same peripheral technologies.

This again shows, as I have argued in my book, that often engineering innovation is the product of the needs generated by other innovations. And sometimes, as engineers, we can think of ourselves as the tools that are guided by the innovation path as opposed to being the ones that need to set the path.

This can sometimes provide a freeing sense for engineers and it can also help guide you in your career.
But before we go into talking about career advice, a side note about military history and how it can help you be a better engineer. I want to note that I am not a person obsessed with the military and war. It is simply that because military history is so well documented, it is often possible for us engineers to learn about the way technologies have developed within the contest of evolving need as a result of tother technological developments. Thus, it provides a useful reference. So even if you are not a fan of war (and who really is?), then you can learn a lot from it to help you be a better engineer.

Now back to what we can learn from lasers replacing missiles and how that might guide us in our careers.
I should note that I am speculating here, but I am doing my best to leverage my expertise to provide something accurate.

Because it has become a war of attrition, and the costs are now much lower (on a per unit basis), there will be an ongoing effort to make this laser technology able to fire farther and more frequently through more unfavourable weather conditions. Thus, allowing a single unit to take out more drones as they become ever cheaper and more numerous.

As laser technology advances, it will then eventually be able to destroy missiles (travelling at hypersonic speed) before they become a threat. Even as missiles likely increase their armour against lasers (and then lower their payloads). In such a world, missiles will become redundant – unless they are carrying a payload that has sufficient energy density to justify it (I am talking nuclear).

Therefore, if I were to be an engineer working in missile defence (or considering it), then I would be looking for alternate careers. Maybe drones or lasers. Unless I felt confident that I would secure work in this space as one of the soon to be rarer missile specialists.

This is indeed an excellent chance for you and other engineers (those with the global perspective) to watch how the situation progresses. Predicting what will happen and comparing that with what actually happens is a great way to tune this type of engineering intuition.

I have certainly made my predictions clear.

What about you: What do you think will happen? Do you think I am wrong? Would you stay with a missile manufacturer as an engineer? Do you think someone will develop a shotgun missile that will split and take out a thousand drones in one go? Would you argue mass production techniques will be applies to missiles to get their costs down? Is there something else? Have I underestimated the effects of improving laser technology?
​
Impress me with your ideas and predictions on what will happen.

The best of the best
Who is the greatest engineer in history? You might suggest one of the following:

• Imhotep – The world’s first recorded engineer and architect, who designed Egypt’s Step Pyramid of Djoser nearly 4,700 years ago.
• Leonardo da Vinci – Renaissance genius whose visionary sketches of machines, bridges, and flying devices anticipated modern engineering by centuries.
• Nikola Tesla – Pioneered alternating current and wireless power, reshaping how electricity flows through our modern world.
• Isambard Kingdom Brunel – Bold British engineer who transformed transport with his tunnels, railways, and pioneering steamships.
• Eli Whitney – Inventor of the cotton gin and a champion of interchangeable parts, laying the groundwork for mass production.
• Thomas Edison – Prolific inventor who brought practical electric lighting to the world and built entire systems around it.
• Archimedes – Ancient Greek engineer and mathematician who devised ingenious machines, from war engines to the screw pump, and laid down principles of mechanics still used today.
• Li Bing (3rd century BCE) – The Chinese engineer and administrator who designed the Dujiangyan Irrigation System, one of the world’s oldest large-scale water management projects, still in use today.

Who would you add to the list? Who do you think deserves the title of the greatest engineer? There is no shortage to choose from.
But the more important question is: how do I get to be that good?
First off, let’s note one thing: some of these engineers, while having great skill, experienced some serendipity. If Imhotep had been born some years earlier than he actually was, then there likely would have been no Egyptian empire to provide the resources needed to execute his vision. That means that there are possibly thousands of engineers who were just as great (when it comes to engineering skills and expertise), but they did not get to work on projects that would make them as well known.
I hope you do – for one thing it would mean that there are still great engineering projects for me to read about and talk about – but I also write these articles so I can help you become the best engineer you can.
So now let’s talk about the three attributes these engineers had – although, each probably had each attribute to varying degrees, and could have still benefited from further improvement.
Framing
Don’t always take the problem as given. Think about other ways you can bring about the desired outcome. In my book I talk about how a Formula 1 engineer took what all thought was an aerodynamics problem (where the gap under the car was too large for ground effects) and turned it into a suspension design problem (where the challenge became designing a suspension system that would lower under lighter aerodynamic loads, and return to the specified height for scrutineering).
The key to framing is twofold:

1. As I said, don’t take the problem as given – be willing to change it.
2. Take your time. Framing does not always happen in an instant so be ready to ponder on it for a while. Wrestle with the problem so you see if from all angles and then find the one that allows you to attack it.

Systemic thinking
We often get into trouble because of the things we don’t think of. When we implement our solution, we realise that it will cause another issue with a related system. So we want to prevent this.
But, there’s more. We can sometimes use those related systems to help solve our challenge. So we also want to look more broadly at any challenge we have to find opportunities, as well as potential issues.
To do this, think bigger. Don’t focus on only your own little challenge. Talk to others. Ask them what they have experienced. Go and see the location of the challenge (if you can). As you do all of these things, you will automatically spot potential issues and think of opportunities to explore further.
First principles
You have learned all that theory for a reason.
When you choose to use it – either through hand calculations, simulations, experimentation, guiding principles and so on – you can make specific changes to your proposed solution to:

1. Prevent failure.
2. Optimise the outcome.

Failures are clearly bad so you want to avoid those. And if you can provide and optimised solution, then you are indeed working like a great engineer.
So always think about the theory applicable to each challenge you face. And don’t be afraid to learn about more if you can or need to.
Over to you
You now know that the greats did – they framed, they thought systemically, and they used first principles – so you can work on doing that too.
If you want to learn more about each, then take a read of my book – I go over each (and other attributes of great engineers) in more detail.
Which attribute do think will be the hardest for you, and what will you do now to start working on it?