Overarching Intro Engineering Textbook

[Doc_Jordan]

Is there any sort of textbook that covers multiple engineering areas that is at an introductory level?

 

[berkeman]

Is there any sort of textbook that covers multiple engineering areas that is at an introductory level?

Welcome to PF.

What areas do you want it to cover, and to what level? My first semester at university we had a survey class that covered all of the main engineering areas (EE, ME, CE, Software, Materials, etc.). It had a pretty simple soft cover book that had super-basic overview stuff in it, but not really any substantive math/problems. Is that what you are looking for, or do you want something more substantive?

 

[berkeman]

BTW, you could probably read through the Wikipedia articles for each of those engineering disciplines, and read farther into the References at the bottom of each article to get more in depth.

 

[Doc_Jordan]

I come from a background in math and am looking to just understand what would be covered on an exam that covers math/physical science/engineering (specifically the engineering portion) that let's you teach all of these areas in high school. What would be covered on this exam is on pages 36-40 of the following link.

http://www.tx.nesinc.com/content/docs/274PrepManual.pdf

I would never be required to teach engineering (thus why I am not trying to go too far into the weeds), but I feel like it would be beneficial for me to have some level of grounding in engineering to give the math I currently teach something tangible to attach to.

The goal would be to put up a decent (but by no means perfect) score on that exam on the engineering portion (which is one-third of the exam). Did the book you mention not have any problems to work through at all? Because something along those lines with problems is what I am looking for.

Thank you for the fast reply.

 

[berkeman]

What would be covered on this exam is on pages 36-40 of the following link.

http://www.tx.nesinc.com/content/docs/274PrepManual.pdf

Wow, that's a lot of stuff! I may have to go look at some of the Wikipedia articles that I suggested to seen if they would get you close...

<<snip>>

 

[Doc_Jordan]

It seems like a lot of different areas. but knowing literally everything on that list is not required. Hitting the overarching areas is the main goal.

 

[DaveE]

OK, I'll be the kill-joy here. In the modern STEM world, everyone is a specialist, perhaps over specialised. The idea that there is much value in knowledge of disparate engineering disciplines is quaint, more in the realm of winning Jeopardy than actually useful. As someone who had a long successful career as an EE, I can assure you that I never needed to know how to calculate the strength requirements of a bicycle chain ring, or what alloy it should be made of. Same with Navier-Stokes, refractory columns, upper-state lifetimes of YAG vs. YLF, airfoils, etc. I can also assure you that a chemical engineer isn't paid to design electronic circuitry for real world applications.

The guy that works on the ECM in a Camry doesn't need to know how to design the shock absorbers and vice-versa. They do need to choose early in their education which kind of engineer they want to be, and they need to know how to work with all of the other engineers. Engineering is a team sport; pitchers don't take batting practice, and catchers don't play in the outfield.

"The beginning teacher... Applies mathematical principles of manufacturing processes in lathe operations and computer numerical control mill programming to model and solve problems."
--- Either that's your career, and you'll learn everything about it, or you'll hire a machinist to do that for you (note: a machinist, not an engineer; clearly this wasn't written by an engineer).

I think anything beyond a general survey class, where students learn that Chemical Engineering exists, is probably a waste of time. It is the STEM core; math, physics, maybe chemistry, maybe biology, that ties them together. i.e. general knowledge, so that when you find out that you do need to learn a little bit about the other guy's job you have some of the fundamental tools.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Overarching Engineering

I saw what you did there.

 

[Doc_Jordan]

The goal is not to achieve mastery in any engineering discipline. I have the grounding in math; I just never took an engineering class in college and did not know how they are structured. For example, discrete math covers many areas of more pure math but does not get into the weeds on anything in particular. It also acts as somewhat of an intro to proof-writing class.

90% of the engineering portion of the exam can be learned from 4-6 intro textbooks in specific fields, and I could work through a few hundred problems from each and be good. The issue with that is learning more than I would need to know (from an exam perspective, I can always go back and learn more of what I would like at a future date), and across that many books, it could extend the time it would take to study.

I will never teach engineering (and that has more to do with the lack of offering of the class in high schools than not wanting to teach the subject), thus why I am not trying to become an expert. I already have my discipline, but it is not precisely easy taking real analysis and applying that to a calc I class at an average high school. I am just trying to be more well-rounded; finding any avenue that makes students hate math less is my goal. Engineering is much more grounded in reality compared to abstract math concepts.