Is Engineering Physics the Missing Link Between Physics and Engineering?

[ElectroPhysics]

Let us talk about Engineering Physics. I think it is the time to start a subforum with title "Engineering Physics" under the PhysicsForums website.

 

[omicron]

Maybe u should put this in the feedback forum. Who knows they might create one.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, will someone move this to Feedback.

IMO you don't need an Engineering Physics subforum. General Physics and General Engg. are sufficient for this. Most physicists with any engineering ability visit both sections (I imagine).

 

[jcsd]

Engineering is for scoundrels and physics is for gentleman and never the twain shall meet, beisides which as has already been pointed out we already have two forums which adequately cover the area.

 

[Gokul43201]

Engineering is for scoundrels and physics is for gentleman and never the twain shall meet...

A true gentleman would not corrupt a beautiful line, so I'll excuse your callousness.

I'm sure jcsd meant " ...and ne'er the twain shall meet..."

 

[ZapperZ]

A true gentleman would not corrupt a beautiful line, so I'll excuse your callousness.

I'm sure jcsd meant " ...and ne'er the twain shall meet..."

You two are WAY too educated for your own good! :)

And I agree... we should have a new forum only if there is a clear need for one. We should not just have one just for the sake of having one. The physics-engineering crossover is and has been adequately served by existing forums.

Zz.

 

[quantumdude]

Engineering is for scoundrels and physics is for gentleman and never the twain shall meet,

My BS is in Engineering Physics.

beisides which as has already been pointed out we already have two forums which adequately cover the area.

I agree with that. Eng Phys is not a subject in itself, but an amalgamation of several subjects. As I describe in my 3rd Jounal entry, it is a general "pre-grad school" major. I took upper level courses in nuclear engineering, electrical engineering, and physics. The NE and EE are required, and you can use your electives for whatever you want (materials, more NE or EE, physics, etc...)

 

[ElectroPhysics]

IMO you don't need an Engineering Physics subforum. General Physics and General Engg. are sufficient for this. Most physicists with any engineering ability visit both sections (I imagine).

In my openion engineers are not good in designing details. That is why we hire physicists and mathmaticians for that purpose. Small organizations and espacially those located in developing countries can't afford large quantity of employes belonging to different fields. I think Engineering Physics can fulfill that requirement. PhysicsForums should discuss Physics as a major subject and as long as engineering is concerned it should be discussed in Physics frame of reference under Engineering Physics category.

You can disagree with my last sentence.

 

[Phobos]

I can disagree with your first sentence too. :)

 

[quantumdude]

In my openion engineers are not good in designing details. That is why we hire physicists and mathmaticians for that purpose.

Not in the American educational system. At my school engineers take at least 2 courses in design, with working deliverables required to pass the course. Scientists and mathematicians take zero design courses.

That is because design is not science, and neither is it mathematics.

 

[ElectroPhysics]

I can disagree with your first sentence too. :)

Let me be more specific. Suppose an engineer has to put a ferrite transformer in his design. He normally does so by taking an already designed transformer with known turns ratio ,current ,voltage and frequency specs etc. He on the other hand can't put formulas to make his own transformer. Thus his design depends on the available transformer specifications. This is the case for a small organization here. As long as a larg organization is concerned, the same thing is done by applied Physicists and mathematicians and they know the formulas and materials for their requirement better than engineers. Do you still disagree with me and not recommending Physicists and mathematicians for that purpose? What do you say about the proverb, jack of all master of none? Do you recommend Physicists and mathematitians for university lecturership only? What do they do in engineering firms in your country? Do they do what engineers already know better then them?

 

[quantumdude]

Let me be more specific. Suppose an engineer has to put a ferrite transformer in his design. He normally does so by taking an already designed transformer with known turns ratio ,current ,voltage and frequency specs etc. He on the other hand can't put formulas to make his own transformer.

He can if he went to my school.

 

[Chronos]

Engineering is for scoundrels and physics is for gentleman...

Scoundrels? Those pretty formulas that work perfectly on paper do not always translate smoothly into reality. Mother nature is a much harsher master than any journal referee. Engineering is to science as art is to autocad.

 

[Integral]

Let me be more specific. Suppose an engineer has to put a ferrite transformer in his design. He normally does so by taking an already designed transformer with known turns ratio ,current ,voltage and frequency specs etc. He on the other hand can't put formulas to make his own transformer. ..?

Humm... who designed the off the shelf transformer... an engineer. Seems you need to think a little deeper about this.

 

[ElectroPhysics]

Your guys r not replying my following questions : )

What do you say about the proverb, jack of all master of none? Do you recommend Physicists and mathematitians for university lecturership only? What do they do in engineering firms in your country? Do they do what engineers already know better then them?

 

[quantumdude]

Your guys r not replying my following questions : )

Your assertion about engineers not being able to work with the equations underlying their designs is incorrect. At my school, all EE's take a course called Fields and Waves in which they learn to solve Maxwell's equations in both integral and differential form, and they learn how to apply them to electromagnetic circuits. I don't think my school is too much different from other American schools in that regard.

 

[Moonbear]

Your guys r not replying my following questions : )

What do you say about the proverb, jack of all master of none? Do you recommend Physicists and mathematitians for university lecturership only? What do they do in engineering firms in your country? Do they do what engineers already know better then them?

I don't know what that proverb has to do with anything here, so have no idea how anyone could possibly answer it.

No, physicists and mathematicians can get jobs other than at universities, if that's what your second question is asking. Though, they have to be in applied fields, not theoretical, as far as I know.

I don't know if engineering firms hire mathematicians and physicists. It doesn't seem that common. Engineering firms hire engineers. I really don't know for certain, because all the folks with advanced degrees in math or physics who I know and who have gone on to jobs in industry (though not purely engineering firms) rather than academics, also have undergraduate degrees in engineering. I don't think they'd have gotten those jobs without the engineering/applied background.

I don't know what your last question means if it's not to imply engineers don't have sufficient math and physics knowledge to do that in their jobs?? If that's what you're saying, then that has been answered by the engineers here.

It seems the degree requirements for an engineer in the US are quite different from where you live. This is what everyone here is telling you, yet you continue to ask questions that assume the degrees are equivalent in two completely different educational systems.

 

[russ_watters]

Let me be more specific. Suppose an engineer has to put a ferrite transformer in his design. He normally does so by taking an already designed transformer with known turns ratio ,current ,voltage and frequency specs etc. He on the other hand can't put formulas to make his own transformer. I had only 2 EE courses and I could do it (I'd need to look up the equations though...)

If an electrical engineer couldn't design a transformer, equations up, he would never make it through his second year in college. The fact that in practice he doesn't need to in no way implies that he never learned how.

What do you say about the proverb, jack of all master of none?

It depends on what you mean - in my view, an engineer must be the master of all trades. Take my job, for example: I design air conditioning systems for buildings. In actuality, most of the design work is done by our draftsmen/designers - we send them to a 6 month course in designing systems and they learn a little of the basics necessary to design the system and they become quite good at it. But they don't know the theory, the fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, mechanical dynamics, etc. And there are times when these things are needed.

Practical knowledge alone will get you through 90% of the work in my job: the other 10% is much harder and requires knowing the theory.

In college, the vast majority of engineering coursework is theory - only about 10% (ehh, maybe 20%) is practical.

Do you recommend Physicists and mathematitians for university lecturership only? What do they do in engineering firms in your country?

It of course depends on the type of firm, but there are few physicists and mathematicians (relativeley speaking) in engineering. A physicist (depends on what kind) would probably be able to learn my job without much trouble, but the skills would not fit well.

Do they do what engineers already know better then them?

Engineering and physics may be complimentary/overlaping, but they are not redundant. There is a great deal that physicists don't do that engineers do and vice versa.

It may be instructive for you to browse Monster.com to see what engineering jobs require and to browse some college coursework to see what engineers actually learn. You have some pretty severe misconceptions.

 

[Chronos]

A good engineer has a thorough understanding of the underlying physics. Not to the extent of a research physicist, of course, but is certainly well acquainted with the classical realm and over a broader field of knowledge than a scientist - who is typically highly specialized. Engineering is, by definition, applied science. You can't very well apply what you don't know.

 

[Integral]

I work for a large (huge) High Priced high tech company you all love to hate. In addition I work at the core of the new product development site for that company. In our area which is doing laser machining of Si Wafers we have several engineers with Physics Phds and many with Engineers with various engineering degrees.

I cannot agree with the engineer as jack of all trades, not in this or I am willing to bet other HT companies. An engineer usually finds a niche as a team member in a large project, once he becomes known for abilities in a application or area he will continue to fill that bill in other projects. It is a very major deal when an engineer gets bumped out of his narrow field of knowledge and must start from scratch to learn new skills.

If you are looking for an engineering job, do not try to sell yourself as a jack of all trades but master of none. Pick a topic which is interesting to you and MASTER it if you can bring a great deal of knowledge to even a narrow field you will find work, if you only sort of know a little about a lot of fields life will be tougher.

 

[ElectroPhysics]

Thanks
What I wanted to stress at was the fact that it is Physics forum not engineering forum as the link https://www.physicsforums.com says. So engineering should be discussed under engineering physics. You people should create some depression for engineers here as they create for Physicists in engineering firms :) It is never ending psychological war.