Choosing a Path in Engineering: Balancing Design and Fundamentals

  • Thread starter Thread starter jactrigga
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Design
AI Thread Summary
Engineers often find that while only a small portion of their university education is directly applied in design work, understanding fundamental principles is crucial for effective problem-solving. The ability to apply math and physics in practical scenarios is essential, yet many engineers struggle to do so without real-world experience. Higher-level learning is necessary to refine and optimize designs, as initial concepts may seem simple but can become complex in implementation. The gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application highlights the importance of continuous learning beyond formal education. Ultimately, a solid engineering foundation is vital for success in design engineering.
jactrigga
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hi, I'd like to know if any engineers out there use what they've been taught at university or is it the fundamentals that are important? I neither hate nor love physics/maths but I love design...how does that work out if i was to chose a path in engineering?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
I probably used 10% of my degree when working in design. That's not to say the rest wasn't needed. You need to be able to understand the fundamentals to be aware of what effects you might be dealing with. Besides, in this day and age you won't get an engineering design job straight out of school without having a good engineering degree. Treat maths and physics as tools you can use to realize your designs, and you won't go far wrong.
 
In my experience, the higher end learning is needed to refine and optimize designs. To get a rough design concept usually doesn't need too much in the way of analysis. That is what most classes in engineering are. Analysis of a given system/thing.

One thing I will also say is that there is a lot of extra learning involved with design that is not taught in colleges.
 
Lots of engineers do not apply the math and Physics they should have learned in college to their designs...
It is obvious when it comes to either make them work or trying to keep them working. It takes a lot of experience and talent to know how to apply the fundamentals in creating a design. There are a LOT more design engineers then there are GOOD design engineers.

Much of what is learned in an undergrad degree only applies APPROXIMATELY to the real world, the trick is to learn what the approximations mean and how to fudge them to get to the real world.
 
One thing that never ceases to amaze me is how seemingly simple processes or designs can be terribly complex to implement. It seems that entire concepts require little more than the back of a napkin, whereas a proper design for the same may keep you busy for years or even decades. In the end it all comes down to good physics and engineering; and lots of it.

Also, you learn the fundamentals while attending the university. Without the education you will probably never get past napkins.
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...
Back
Top