My mentor at my first engineering job always scolded me about trying to be "too precise". He always told me: "it's not pharmacy". Years later I say this to every intern I have
I work in pharma, and let me tell you it's not always that precise here either. Certainly if I had a drug that came in 10.45 mg vials and someone filled some to 10.5 we'd accept that.
A mathematician, a physicist and an engineer are all tasked with measuring the surface of an irregular rubber object. The mathematician breaks the object up into different geometrical forms, measures it and sums it all in a series of equations. The physicist uses a combination of archimedes principle and shadow optics to get the volume and trace the outline of the object in a number of different positions then approximates the surface area in a sum. The engineer looks up the manufacturer's manual and reads the exact surface area directly.
I actually did this in a job interview for an engineering role one time. It was a small startup of primarliy physisists and I was interviewing for a ME role. The technical question was design a coupler betweeen two pipes of x and y size with a bunch of requirements for pressure, reactivity, hole pattern etc. Anyways I was looking at this problem, pulled up google, found the correct coupler for the hole patterns, checked the spec sheet for the other requirements and just sent him the link in the zoom chat. The interviewer spent about 5 minutes flabbergasted that I hadn't gone into some technical approach to designing and validating a coupler. He wrapped up the interview after about 10 minutes and just moved me on to the next round... I guess the lesson is keep it simple??
I will never forget the vector calculus professor I had who was talking about flux through a quarter cut of a spherical surface, and told us very bluntly and with a thick Asian accent to "integrate through Jew hat". The demographics of the room, being what they were, understood the shape he was talking about instantly and did not ultimately object to this manner of description.
I love that engineers will happily try things and iterate to find a functional solution; however, the perfectionist in me also appreciates how the curious among us will search for the answer that lies beyond a functional solution.
“Fast reaction” guidance calculations for when the Apollo 13 crew needed to make a correction burn was done so with slide rulers. Checked manually with humans pushing pieces of plastic against each other for approximate values. And they got home just fine. 😊
I can remember when I was in company during my masters and the task was to design and tune a controller fast in a day before the superior was flying. I had a plant model and the controller architecture was proposed. There were like 2 controller parameters to tune. I did trial and error tuning and after a few minutes I got the parameters. My superior came and asked me how I got to that parameters. He wasnt happy about my approach so he started to do the proper design method using pole placements and in the end after hour he ended up with parameters that happened to be the same as mine.
@@fablearchitect7645 No I didnt because it tends to lead to quite undampened oscillations. Also because I had the simulated plant model I wasnt very limited with physical reality.
I was just randomly scrolling and youtube recommended me this video and I enjoyed it and then I went to sleep so im probably sleeping right now or its the next day, very very nice
Nice video. The helix is not for strength though. Its because of the karman effect or vortex shedding. The helix makes the smoke stack not shake itself apart in certain winds.
@@Wizz15 Flow around a cylinder oscillates transverse to both the the flow and cylinder. If the frequency is close to the structures resonant frequency it will fail via fatigue or if the wind blows hard enough the oscillations overwhelm the structure
Randomly found this video on my recommendation page. I’m 18 years old, and for the first time, I’m in an engineering National graduate school in Morocco, first year. Going from school to national graduate school, things went from 0 to 100. I find everything difficult, and sometimes I question myself what I was thinking signing up for this university. when I review my subjects, I find it difficult paying attention even though I’m very intentionally trying to pay attention, but every 5 seconds, I zone out. I thought I’d seek an advice here knowing a lot of other people seem to also have come across this video randomly from their recommendations page as well
You are describing myself in year one college. I went from a poor high school in the mountains to a university and I was lost, poor grades, bad attitude, almost quit several times. Every time I tried to give up I thought about the rough life my parents had, father was a coal miner, mother was a waitress. I wanted more than that, so I stuck it out and it slowly got better and better and I grew up to be a scientist, got a good job, and had a great life. Find something you want to achieve and think about getting that. I wish you good luck.
I would recommend concentrating on mathematics in the beginning. Make sure you understand at least single variate calculus inside and out. Multivariate calculus is also very important but it reuses a lot of stuff from singlevariate calc. Almost every model in physics is based on a firm understanding of calculus. Thats what I wasnt doing in the first year and it really made the rest of my degree hell because I didnt really understand the heart of the models. Once I went back to start from the bottom it all clicked. Also if you need help understanding physics then i would recommend Young and Freedman university physics book. Its an amazing book and it has an instructor manual with very detailed solutions for all problems. If you really understand the mechanics part then you will see that there is a lot of reuse in electromagnetism and thermodynamics. You just have to understand momentum and work. Also for me the game changer was going running at least once a week. Or just an excercise where I have to consistently push through the urge to stop.
I had the same experience. Coffee helped me against zoning out. Doing the practice tasks alongside the lectures helped me understand the lectures better and so follow them more easily.
At first i was thinking, oh no, what did the engineer do. The mathematican does the logical thing, use the formula for a helix. But by the time we reached the end, the engineer did the obvious thing. Model and measure. Really shows the advantage of the 2 methods. Technical analysis and Rapid prototyping. Scientific method for what we understand vs Empirical method for what we don't.
The first page talks about Curvature and shows the equation we learn in vector calculus. Very interesting to see practical applications! Thank you for sharing.
I think a lot of people don't love engineers cause they pay attention to the minutia that bores the hell out of everybody else. But this stuff is how our modern world is built. I think of myself as having an engineering mindset- it fascinates me to a further degree than most. But there are limits. I have a few copies of the magazine 'Racecar Engineering'. One issue outlined the aerodynamics of an F1 spoiler which allowed Ferrari to restore about 80% of the down force lost when tunnel cars got banned. I absolutely was unable to finish the article. It was as dry as anything I'd ever read.
I imagine it somewhat went like this... "Damnit, gotta be a bit smaller." The next day... "You know what, this is good enough. It'll do." Thanks for sharing this though, it's really nice.
@@therealenzyme1954 Except they generally don't. CAD programs use completely different mostly purely algebraic methods for that task. And the ones building final applications don't even bother with that: they just have libraries with readilly made procedures like "create line equation", "create circle equation", "create spline equation sequence", "find intersection pounts between objects defined by equations", "compose rotation matrix", "apply transformation matrix", et.c. One of my old programming teachers used to say that "life is too short to solve differential equations". When you get into a situation when you have a task of creating something that must 100% be done and preferably on time you quickly realize that it is indeed true and you really start to appreciate multiple workarouds and shortcuts people have created to be just good enough for their specific jobs.
a mathematician and an engineer are walk into a bar. They both notice a pretty girl across the room they both want to talk to her so the engineer proposes a bet: he who gets to the girl first gets to talk. they both sprint towards her and are kicked out of the bar the end. ...i forgot the original joke
Bro ..i was just thinking about a episode from tbbt in which leonard points out at piece of paper saying "sheldon ,this is the riemann shape whoch you got you into caltech "...and this popped out ..dayumm
The engineers' method is not generalizable though. They'd have to futz around with a new model for each new kind of smokestack, whereas the professor can just plug new values into the same formula.
I am in no way demeaning the professor, I am a scientist not an engineer. I just thought it was such a cute story how a person that had probably never heard of differential geometry came to basically the same answer.
@@lkapitan8232 it's a bit weird since it seems like engineering schools aren't sure whether to teach this or not. For example, I was taught this in 2nd year whereas the new programs don't teach this anymore.
well, engineer obtained this from experiment. Mathematician had a formula. Formula can be applied to another size of stake. experiment must be done again. however, experiment may be done with paper and scisors, in small scale 😊
just did something similar in order to design a spring wound around the path of an Archimedes' spiral, easy to do if you know parametric equations, then you can just get a huge table of x,y,z values and slap that into a cad program.
Thats the shortest book ive ever seen on Riemannian Geometry! Id recommend Lee's smooth manifolds book (2nd edition) to give you the tools needed to really dive into this course!
I'm confused... why are we measuring the speed of a helix, and why is the answer to that just feet, instead of feet/second? And why are we calculating the radius of the helix if we are already given the radius at the start? (I am not a mathemetician)
I think it's similar to the "pitch" of the threads on a screw/bolt. Speed is just the terminology that's been accepted for how far down the shaft the helix has to travel to make a full rotation, something like that
Cool thing is that the mathematician doesnt need to do a whole other round of guessing if there was a slight variation in the initial conditions or parameters. The answer will always work if a mathematician can generalize it.
You can spend 200 hours thinking about how to do something, or you could just give it a try. Unless lives are at stake, then take the 200 hours. Obviously.
The eng kids at my university have the unanimous respect of every other major because of how difficult this stuff is. Especially because this is the best (and hardest) university for engineering in my country. Keep at it!
And yet us engineers are being trashed by the economy and corrupt college system. Thank god i can study abroad and japan is activly looking for skilled work immigrants including stem majors
Hardly needed a Prof of of anything to work out the helix. I did an apprenticeship in structural steel and welding in the 70s and learned how to calculate, develop and fabricate screw conveyors. This strake is the same principal. Oh and no calculus required. Just basic high school trig.
A bit of a whippersnapper question for you, has apprenticeship declined as an entry to your profession? Or have you noticed any changes between the earlier days and today that you think would benefit the younger generations?
@@skachor Thanks for your question but I can't really answer. I was working in the trade for 18 years then went into engineering. That was 32 years ago and for the last 25 I have run my own business in mechatronics. So I'm a long way from that trade these days. Merry Xmas :)
@@1r0nb1rd Now you're asking. I haven't done this for ages. You've got me curious to recall. Can't do it now cos I've had a few drinks. If I remember to, I'll get back to you tomorrow.
If you join industry after school, you will find out what I did. Engineers build the actual products that you dream up. They are critical for making tech companies run.
This is a pretty poor way to view other fields. They all work together to advance us further - if you don't respect one STEM field then you shouldn't respect any.
My mentor at my first engineering job always scolded me about trying to be "too precise". He always told me: "it's not pharmacy". Years later I say this to every intern I have
Funny, I used to tell my group the same thing, I had to get products out the door and they wouldn't let go because it was not "perfect"
same with programming
stop trying to under stand the fundamentals of electricity and chemistry when youre just makin a gosh darn game
I work in pharma, and let me tell you it's not always that precise here either. Certainly if I had a drug that came in 10.45 mg vials and someone filled some to 10.5 we'd accept that.
thats cool and all but i wont let you build my house xdd
"someone has to do the shit we make up"
~ an architect, probably
A mathematician, a physicist and an engineer are all tasked with measuring the surface of an irregular rubber object.
The mathematician breaks the object up into different geometrical forms, measures it and sums it all in a series of equations.
The physicist uses a combination of archimedes principle and shadow optics to get the volume and trace the outline of the object in a number of different positions then approximates the surface area in a sum.
The engineer looks up the manufacturer's manual and reads the exact surface area directly.
That a good one, thanks.
After being unable to find the right spec sheet, the engineer dips the object in a vat of paint, and measures the weight of the vat before and after.
Personally, I'd dip it in water and find the volume and hope nobody noticed
@@skachorthat is the archimedes principle
I actually did this in a job interview for an engineering role one time. It was a small startup of primarliy physisists and I was interviewing for a ME role. The technical question was design a coupler betweeen two pipes of x and y size with a bunch of requirements for pressure, reactivity, hole pattern etc. Anyways I was looking at this problem, pulled up google, found the correct coupler for the hole patterns, checked the spec sheet for the other requirements and just sent him the link in the zoom chat. The interviewer spent about 5 minutes flabbergasted that I hadn't gone into some technical approach to designing and validating a coupler. He wrapped up the interview after about 10 minutes and just moved me on to the next round... I guess the lesson is keep it simple??
"in this book that i bought, ahem." Sale at the archive.
I actually do own a hard copy of this book, but found this PDF copy on a Russian website, of course, so I could make the video.
@@lkapitan8232 Could you... you know... tell us this russian site
wink wink
@@lkapitan8232 you could give us its name...
Of the site...
I will never forget the vector calculus professor I had who was talking about flux through a quarter cut of a spherical surface, and told us very bluntly and with a thick Asian accent to "integrate through Jew hat". The demographics of the room, being what they were, understood the shape he was talking about instantly and did not ultimately object to this manner of description.
Funny enough, while learning the same subject in Hebrew we also called it that
it takes a re to get re ed
next video ,why I hate Engineers
"GONE WRONG⁉️"
I love that engineers will happily try things and iterate to find a functional solution; however, the perfectionist in me also appreciates how the curious among us will search for the answer that lies beyond a functional solution.
“Fast reaction” guidance calculations for when the Apollo 13 crew needed to make a correction burn was done so with slide rulers. Checked manually with humans pushing pieces of plastic against each other for approximate values. And they got home just fine. 😊
To clarify, THEY were just fine. The getting home part itself was anything but just fine.
I can remember when I was in company during my masters and the task was to design and tune a controller fast in a day before the superior was flying. I had a plant model and the controller architecture was proposed. There were like 2 controller parameters to tune. I did trial and error tuning and after a few minutes I got the parameters. My superior came and asked me how I got to that parameters. He wasnt happy about my approach so he started to do the proper design method using pole placements and in the end after hour he ended up with parameters that happened to be the same as mine.
Did you use the Ziegler Nichols tuning approach?
@@fablearchitect7645 No I didnt because it tends to lead to quite undampened oscillations. Also because I had the simulated plant model I wasnt very limited with physical reality.
I was just randomly scrolling and youtube recommended me this video and I enjoyed it and then I went to sleep so im probably sleeping right now or its the next day, very very nice
i just read this. im gonna watch the video and go sleep
Thanks for watching and I wish you good sleep
I too was randomly scrolling to this UA-cam reccomendation and I’m currently sleeping right now. I’m sleeping
did you wake up
Im the video, youre not scrolling, this is awake.
Nice video. The helix is not for strength though. Its because of the karman effect or vortex shedding. The helix makes the smoke stack not shake itself apart in certain winds.
That is interesting, now I have to look that up. Thanks
Huh, you learn something new every day.
Is this to avoid resonances, or is that an entirely different situation?
@@Wizz15 You're correct. There's quite a nice article on the subject on wikipedia btw.
@@Wizz15 Flow around a cylinder oscillates transverse to both the the flow and cylinder. If the frequency is close to the structures resonant frequency it will fail via fatigue or if the wind blows hard enough the oscillations overwhelm the structure
yup; it takes a special kind of attention to detail to love engineering.
Randomly found this video on my recommendation page. I’m 18 years old, and for the first time, I’m in an engineering National graduate school in Morocco, first year. Going from school to national graduate school, things went from 0 to 100. I find everything difficult, and sometimes I question myself what I was thinking signing up for this university. when I review my subjects, I find it difficult paying attention even though I’m very intentionally trying to pay attention, but every 5 seconds, I zone out. I thought I’d seek an advice here knowing a lot of other people seem to also have come across this video randomly from their recommendations page as well
You are describing myself in year one college. I went from a poor high school in the mountains to a university and I was lost, poor grades, bad attitude, almost quit several times. Every time I tried to give up I thought about the rough life my parents had, father was a coal miner, mother was a waitress. I wanted more than that, so I stuck it out and it slowly got better and better and I grew up to be a scientist, got a good job, and had a great life.
Find something you want to achieve and think about getting that. I wish you good luck.
@@lkapitan8232 Thank you. i'll keep this in mind
I would recommend concentrating on mathematics in the beginning. Make sure you understand at least single variate calculus inside and out. Multivariate calculus is also very important but it reuses a lot of stuff from singlevariate calc. Almost every model in physics is based on a firm understanding of calculus. Thats what I wasnt doing in the first year and it really made the rest of my degree hell because I didnt really understand the heart of the models. Once I went back to start from the bottom it all clicked. Also if you need help understanding physics then i would recommend Young and Freedman university physics book. Its an amazing book and it has an instructor manual with very detailed solutions for all problems. If you really understand the mechanics part then you will see that there is a lot of reuse in electromagnetism and thermodynamics. You just have to understand momentum and work.
Also for me the game changer was going running at least once a week. Or just an excercise where I have to consistently push through the urge to stop.
I had the same experience. Coffee helped me against zoning out. Doing the practice tasks alongside the lectures helped me understand the lectures better and so follow them more easily.
At first i was thinking, oh no, what did the engineer do.
The mathematican does the logical thing, use the formula for a helix.
But by the time we reached the end, the engineer did the obvious thing. Model and measure.
Really shows the advantage of the 2 methods.
Technical analysis and Rapid prototyping. Scientific method for what we understand vs Empirical method for what we don't.
The first page talks about Curvature and shows the equation we learn in vector calculus. Very interesting to see practical applications! Thank you for sharing.
@@dhickey5919 you're welcome, thanks for watching
I think a lot of people don't love engineers cause they pay attention to the minutia that bores the hell out of everybody else. But this stuff is how our modern world is built. I think of myself as having an engineering mindset- it fascinates me to a further degree than most. But there are limits. I have a few copies of the magazine 'Racecar Engineering'. One issue outlined the aerodynamics of an F1 spoiler which allowed Ferrari to restore about 80% of the down force lost when tunnel cars got banned. I absolutely was unable to finish the article. It was as dry as anything I'd ever read.
love seeing excerpts of books like this! thanks for sharing :]
@@john.dough. you're welcome
I imagine it somewhat went like this...
"Damnit, gotta be a bit smaller."
The next day...
"You know what, this is good enough. It'll do."
Thanks for sharing this though, it's really nice.
Was probably once true, but nowadays engineers will build CAD drawings to determine this stuff.
And some engineers (the ones who actually know differential geometry and have PHDs) program the CAD software
@@therealenzyme1954 That is my answer when people say things like that.
@@therealenzyme1954 Except they generally don't. CAD programs use completely different mostly purely algebraic methods for that task. And the ones building final applications don't even bother with that: they just have libraries with readilly made procedures like "create line equation", "create circle equation", "create spline equation sequence", "find intersection pounts between objects defined by equations", "compose rotation matrix", "apply transformation matrix", et.c.
One of my old programming teachers used to say that "life is too short to solve differential equations". When you get into a situation when you have a task of creating something that must 100% be done and preferably on time you quickly realize that it is indeed true and you really start to appreciate multiple workarouds and shortcuts people have created to be just good enough for their specific jobs.
@@therealenzyme1954 Based.
a mathematician and an engineer are walk into a bar.
They both notice a pretty girl across the room
they both want to talk to her so the engineer proposes a bet:
he who gets to the girl first gets to talk.
they both sprint towards her and are kicked out of the bar the end.
...i forgot the original joke
Yooooo Frank Morgan was my Prof at Williams College. One of the GOATS!!!!
Im finishing my first year of civil engineering and can confirm this.
We just opt for practical solutions
This is the first screen cap I've seen of someone working on a chrome book.
@@sud9320 it's the only computer I use now, so easy and fast
Bro ..i was just thinking about a episode from tbbt in which leonard points out at piece of paper saying "sheldon ,this is the riemann shape whoch you got you into caltech "...and this popped out ..dayumm
The helix is not for structural support, but to prevent damage that could be caused by vortex shedding on a smooth cylinder.
The engineers' method is not generalizable though. They'd have to futz around with a new model for each new kind of smokestack, whereas the professor can just plug new values into the same formula.
I am in no way demeaning the professor, I am a scientist not an engineer. I just thought it was such a cute story how a person that had probably never heard of differential geometry came to basically the same answer.
@@lkapitan8232 it's a bit weird since it seems like engineering schools aren't sure whether to teach this or not. For example, I was taught this in 2nd year whereas the new programs don't teach this anymore.
its nice to see the random stuff i saw in cal 3 having real world use.
well, engineer obtained this from experiment. Mathematician had a formula.
Formula can be applied to another size of stake. experiment must be done again.
however, experiment may be done with paper and scisors, in small scale 😊
That "HELLO" felt so human-like. You know what I mean
Keep up the good work
Thank you.
just did something similar in order to design a spring wound around the path of an Archimedes' spiral, easy to do if you know parametric equations, then you can just get a huge table of x,y,z values and slap that into a cad program.
Never would have thought that the math of a spiral would be so complex, that surprised me
Thats the shortest book ive ever seen on Riemannian Geometry! Id recommend Lee's smooth manifolds book (2nd edition) to give you the tools needed to really dive into this course!
Indeed it is short, too short, Thanks for the book recommendation.
I'm confused... why are we measuring the speed of a helix, and why is the answer to that just feet, instead of feet/second? And why are we calculating the radius of the helix if we are already given the radius at the start? (I am not a mathemetician)
I think its just thr mathematical way or tool of solving it, theyre really not solving for a speed. It only aids in getting the necessary arc lengths
What the reply said, that is also how I understood it.
I think it's similar to the "pitch" of the threads on a screw/bolt. Speed is just the terminology that's been accepted for how far down the shaft the helix has to travel to make a full rotation, something like that
I understand they wanted to get unwrapped plate shape in order to weld on a cylinder. Today, one can find it quickly using cad tools.
How close we can get and then even closer :D
Interesting video.
I wonder, who calculated structural strength calculation 😊
That is a very good question. See reply below from FirstBurns
Cool thing is that the mathematician doesnt need to do a whole other round of guessing if there was a slight variation in the initial conditions or parameters. The answer will always work if a mathematician can generalize it.
You can spend 200 hours thinking about how to do something, or you could just give it a try.
Unless lives are at stake, then take the 200 hours. Obviously.
I wonder how this would apply in the design of an auger.
I would assume it would be very similar
The speed? I see it as the slope.
This is not that groudbreaking and I can see many engineers reaching a similar conclusion.
Are you using the Mega OS distro?
I don't know what that means.
@@lkapitan8232a Linux distribution apparently
This is a Chromebook
@@lkapitan8232they thought you were using a Linux distribution
@@FunctionallyLiteratePerson ah k
The eng kids at my university have the unanimous respect of every other major because of how difficult this stuff is. Especially because this is the best (and hardest) university for engineering in my country. Keep at it!
Just experiment.
Nice though 🙂
Engineer and mathematician discovers generative design circa 100 B.C.
And yet us engineers are being trashed by the economy and corrupt college system. Thank god i can study abroad and japan is activly looking for skilled work immigrants including stem majors
Hardly needed a Prof of of anything to work out the helix. I did an apprenticeship in structural steel and welding in the 70s and learned how to calculate, develop and fabricate screw conveyors. This strake is the same principal. Oh and no calculus required. Just basic high school trig.
A bit of a whippersnapper question for you, has apprenticeship declined as an entry to your profession? Or have you noticed any changes between the earlier days and today that you think would benefit the younger generations?
@@skachor Thanks for your question but I can't really answer. I was working in the trade for 18 years then went into engineering. That was 32 years ago and for the last 25 I have run my own business in mechatronics. So I'm a long way from that trade these days. Merry Xmas :)
@@1r0nb1rd Now you're asking. I haven't done this for ages. You've got me curious to recall. Can't do it now cos I've had a few drinks. If I remember to, I'll get back to you tomorrow.
As a physics student I don't consider engineers very highly
As an engineering student, you haven't even found dark matter yet so be quiet while we build you a probe to find it
I changed from science to engineering. You know why?
Scientist = starving artist. Engineer = well paid housepainter.
There are universities which offer a degree in Engineering Physics.
If you join industry after school, you will find out what I did. Engineers build the actual products that you dream up. They are critical for making tech companies run.
This is a pretty poor way to view other fields. They all work together to advance us further - if you don't respect one STEM field then you shouldn't respect any.