Conversation

More convinced than ever that engineering 101 should really just be shopping 101 Every class would just be a teardown of some random junked thing, build up a bill-of-materials, spreadsheet of parts and what they do, links and prices. Then you’d shrink or cost-down the design.
16
299
Replying to
While in undergrad I interviewed at a power electronics company. One portion of the interview was a sheet of paper with chip company logos and no names. “What are these companies called?” — I aced it, then asked why?: “to see if you’ve ever read a datasheet / done practical eng.”
2
14
Replying to and
I know at least one person who finished a mechanical engineering masters degree about a year early by being willing to call McMaster and leverage their applications engineers for design advice, and buy instead of build. She’s a genius.
1
5
Replying to and
The apogee of this thinking seems likely in toy design or appliances: the heighth of commodity production. But this is also a very production-oriented view of the world. Is it wrong that engineering school focuses on training the innate knowledge (calculating..) vs the external?
1
2
Replying to and
That is: being able to assemble the world’s building blocks, even in an optimal fashion, isn’t really engineering compared to calculation, measurement, design. (And I do recognize at the same time that practical engineering is often accelerated by having great facility at it)
2
2
Replying to
I wouldn't call it an apogee because that implies a cyclic return to a more first-princples pedagogy. I think this is a secular shift because so much has been commoditized and more importantly, built into software. Nobody will invert more than 2x2 matrix by hand anymore.
1
Replying to and
There is a growing complexity problem. The sorts of examples you work out in the calculation-oriented textbooks (as in physics laws, not datasheet calculations) are basically orders of magnitude simpler than even trivial practical designs.
2