While fuel prices are not as high as they were a few years ago, gas/petroleum cost is always a factor in our lives if we drive often.
This article reveals the physics of your vehicle gas mileage, and what may cause it to be better or worse than others. We can add this to another entry on this similar topic that I posted earlier.
Zz.
Showing posts with label Engineering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Engineering. Show all posts
Sunday, July 05, 2015
Sunday, November 16, 2014
"Should I Go Into Physics Or Engineering?"
I get asked that question a lot, and I also see similar question on Physics Forums. Kids who are either still in high school, or starting their undergraduate years are asking which area of study should they pursue. In fact, I've seen cases where students ask whether they should do "theoretical physics" or "engineering", as if there is nothing in between those two extremes!
My response has always been consistent. I why them why can't they have their cake and eat it too?
This question often arises out of ignorance of what physics really encompasses. Many people, especially high school students, still think of physics as being this esoteric subject matter, dealing with elementary particles, cosmology, wave-particle duality, etc.. etc., things that they don't see involving everyday stuff. On the other hand, engineering involves things that they use and deal with everyday, where the product are often found around them. So obviously, with such an impression, those two areas of study are very different and very separate.
I try to tackle such a question by correcting their misleading understanding of what physics is and what a lot of physicists do. I tell them that physics isn't just the LHC or the Big Bang. It is also your iPhone, your medical x-ray, your MRI, your hard drive, your silicon chips, etc. In fact, the largest percentage of practicing physicists are in the field of condensed matter physics/material science, an area of physics that study the basic properties of materials, the same ones that are used in modern electronics. I point to them many of the Nobel Prize in physics that were awarded to condensed matter physicists or for invention of practical items (graphene, lasers, etc.). So already, the idea of having to choose between doing physics, and doing something "practical and useful" may not be mutually exclusive.
Secondly, I point to different areas of physics in which physics and engineering smoothly intermingle. I've mentioned earlier about the field of accelerator physics, in which you see both physics and engineering come into play. In fact, in this field, you have both physicists and electrical engineers, and they often do the same thing. The same can be said about those in instrumentation/device physics. In fact, I have also seen many high energy physics graduate students who work on detectors for particle colliders who looked more like electronics engineers than physicists! So for those working in this field, the line between doing physics and doing engineering is sufficiently blurred. You can do exactly what you want, leaning as heavily towards the physics side or engineering side as much as you want, or straddle exactly in the middle. And you can approach these fields either from a physics major or an electrical engineering major. The point here is that there are areas of study in which you can do BOTH physics and engineering!
Finally, the reason why you don't have to choose to major in either physics or engineering is because there are many schools that offer a major in BOTH! My alma mater, the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Go Badgers!) has a major called AMEP - Applied Mathematics, Engineering, and Physics - where with your advisor, you can tailor a major that straddles two of more of the areas in math, physics, and engineering. There are other schools that offer majors in Engineering Physics or something similar. In other words, you don't have to choose between physics or engineering. You can just do BOTH!
Zz.
My response has always been consistent. I why them why can't they have their cake and eat it too?
This question often arises out of ignorance of what physics really encompasses. Many people, especially high school students, still think of physics as being this esoteric subject matter, dealing with elementary particles, cosmology, wave-particle duality, etc.. etc., things that they don't see involving everyday stuff. On the other hand, engineering involves things that they use and deal with everyday, where the product are often found around them. So obviously, with such an impression, those two areas of study are very different and very separate.
I try to tackle such a question by correcting their misleading understanding of what physics is and what a lot of physicists do. I tell them that physics isn't just the LHC or the Big Bang. It is also your iPhone, your medical x-ray, your MRI, your hard drive, your silicon chips, etc. In fact, the largest percentage of practicing physicists are in the field of condensed matter physics/material science, an area of physics that study the basic properties of materials, the same ones that are used in modern electronics. I point to them many of the Nobel Prize in physics that were awarded to condensed matter physicists or for invention of practical items (graphene, lasers, etc.). So already, the idea of having to choose between doing physics, and doing something "practical and useful" may not be mutually exclusive.
Secondly, I point to different areas of physics in which physics and engineering smoothly intermingle. I've mentioned earlier about the field of accelerator physics, in which you see both physics and engineering come into play. In fact, in this field, you have both physicists and electrical engineers, and they often do the same thing. The same can be said about those in instrumentation/device physics. In fact, I have also seen many high energy physics graduate students who work on detectors for particle colliders who looked more like electronics engineers than physicists! So for those working in this field, the line between doing physics and doing engineering is sufficiently blurred. You can do exactly what you want, leaning as heavily towards the physics side or engineering side as much as you want, or straddle exactly in the middle. And you can approach these fields either from a physics major or an electrical engineering major. The point here is that there are areas of study in which you can do BOTH physics and engineering!
Finally, the reason why you don't have to choose to major in either physics or engineering is because there are many schools that offer a major in BOTH! My alma mater, the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Go Badgers!) has a major called AMEP - Applied Mathematics, Engineering, and Physics - where with your advisor, you can tailor a major that straddles two of more of the areas in math, physics, and engineering. There are other schools that offer majors in Engineering Physics or something similar. In other words, you don't have to choose between physics or engineering. You can just do BOTH!
Zz.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Horsepower Versus Torque In A Vehicle
Here's an informative "basic" classical mechanics, as applied to motor vehicles. Might be something you want to read if you're shopping for new vehicles.
Don't think I want to quibble about the definition of "work" being "... moving something with some force in a certain amount of time.. ", since this probably makes no difference here.
Zz.
“Horsepower, in physics or engineering terms, is a measure of work, and work is defined as moving something with some force in a certain amount of time. Torque is a force, and can be briefly described as what force it takes to turn an axle or a rod. Horsepower and torque are related based on the speed of the engine,” says Gary Pollak, program manager for ground vehicle standards with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International.
Don't think I want to quibble about the definition of "work" being "... moving something with some force in a certain amount of time.. ", since this probably makes no difference here.
Zz.
Friday, November 12, 2010
The Physics of High Heels
I, of course, have zero clue on what's involved in wearing high heels, and I don't plan on changing that any time soon. Still, out of curiosity, I read this article because, frankly, it had crossed my mind how many of these women, especially in the entertainment business, not only could walk, but also dance wearing such high heels. Just go to a typical Broadway musical, for example, and see the moves these women could make while in these pumps.
Well, even after reading this whole article, I don't think it has made a sufficient argument that such a thing is "stable". Rather, it is more of having the "skill" to be able to wear these things, very much like being able to ride a bicycle. At some point, after you wear it often enough, you learn how to balance in them.
I'd like to hear from women physicists and engineers on what they think of the physics of these high heels.
Zz.
"Many of my physicist colleagues have no trouble understanding quantum mechanics but can't figure out how women can wear high heels," admitted Dr. Laura Grant, a physicist from Liverpool University.Yet the recipe for safe stilettos seems fairly straightforward: Two parts sacrifice and a dash of solid steel, said Fred Allard, creative director for Nine West, one of the world's largest manufacturers of women's shoes.
Well, even after reading this whole article, I don't think it has made a sufficient argument that such a thing is "stable". Rather, it is more of having the "skill" to be able to wear these things, very much like being able to ride a bicycle. At some point, after you wear it often enough, you learn how to balance in them.
I'd like to hear from women physicists and engineers on what they think of the physics of these high heels.
Zz.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Scientists Versus Engineers
It seems that the severe budget cuts in the UK has cause a long-standing crack between the perceived importance of science over engineering to surface.
I must admit that I have been totally ignorant of the sentiments reflected here by engineers or the engineering profession. So I can't really comment on the validity of such sentiments. However, from my perspective as a scientist (physicist), there are two major points that should be pointed out:
1. Engineers as a profession tend to have a greater degree of employability than scientists, and the tend to make more money as well. So this is not a suppressed, down-trodden, poor profession. In fact, they are quite well off when compared to the physics profession. So to hear this type of comments from the engineering profession of not being given any respect is like Donald Trump complaining that he isn't given the same level of respect as, say, Steven Chu.
2. I can also see why government spending would tend to favor spending on science rather than engineering. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any spending on engineering. That would be silly. However, spending on science tends to be "riskier", and it isn't something the private industries generally are willing to invest in. This is where the government can step in and fill such voids. Now, once a discovery has been made, then turning a scientific idea into something useful and commercial can and should be done by private industries, where profits can be made. This is where engineers step in where they take a science idea, and then refine it to turn it into something useful. I do not see this as a denigration of the engineering profession. In fact, it clearly shows the vital link between science and engineering, where an idea turns into a useful product. In fact, one could argue that the amount of money put into engineering research and effort dwarfs money spent on science, as indicated in the article:
In fact, advances in engineering allows for the ability to advance science. Better detector and measuring devices are crucial aspects in the ability of scientists to study even more difficult subjects to greater precisions. So this is almost like a closed, feedback loop where there is a symbiotic relationship. I don't know of any scientist that I work with that do not value the impact of engineering on our profession. But then again, we're experimentalists.
Zz.
Science is mainly concerned with unearthing knowledge. Engineering seeks to deliver working solutions to practical problems in the form of technology. Yet the terms 'engineering' and 'technology' have been increasingly subsumed into 'science' — in the names of institutions, in discussion of 'science policy', in media coverage and in popular parlance. The situation upsets engineers and their leaders, but they tend to keep quiet for fear of being accused of having chips on their shoulders.
Now that public money is scarce for both the science and engineering communities, the fault line between them has started to creak. In the run-up to this week's UK Comprehensive Spending Review, Martin Earwicker, a vice-president at the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng), wrote to The Times to point out that engineers are needed to turn a scientific discovery into hard cash. It was a "logical leap that is not in general supported by experience", he wrote, "that a scientific discovery, however important, will automatically turn into economic success."
I must admit that I have been totally ignorant of the sentiments reflected here by engineers or the engineering profession. So I can't really comment on the validity of such sentiments. However, from my perspective as a scientist (physicist), there are two major points that should be pointed out:
1. Engineers as a profession tend to have a greater degree of employability than scientists, and the tend to make more money as well. So this is not a suppressed, down-trodden, poor profession. In fact, they are quite well off when compared to the physics profession. So to hear this type of comments from the engineering profession of not being given any respect is like Donald Trump complaining that he isn't given the same level of respect as, say, Steven Chu.
2. I can also see why government spending would tend to favor spending on science rather than engineering. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any spending on engineering. That would be silly. However, spending on science tends to be "riskier", and it isn't something the private industries generally are willing to invest in. This is where the government can step in and fill such voids. Now, once a discovery has been made, then turning a scientific idea into something useful and commercial can and should be done by private industries, where profits can be made. This is where engineers step in where they take a science idea, and then refine it to turn it into something useful. I do not see this as a denigration of the engineering profession. In fact, it clearly shows the vital link between science and engineering, where an idea turns into a useful product. In fact, one could argue that the amount of money put into engineering research and effort dwarfs money spent on science, as indicated in the article:
The RAEng said in its submission that each active research academic in physics and maths gets 'several times more expenditure' than those in engineering and technology. But industry spends twice as much — about £15 billion (US$23.8 billion) — as the UK government on research and development each year, and most of that industrial money supports engineering, not science. In addition, state programmes that concentrate on applied work — such as the European Commission's Framework Programme — tend to be more politicized, less meritocratic and less efficient than science programmes such as those of the US National Science Foundation.
In fact, advances in engineering allows for the ability to advance science. Better detector and measuring devices are crucial aspects in the ability of scientists to study even more difficult subjects to greater precisions. So this is almost like a closed, feedback loop where there is a symbiotic relationship. I don't know of any scientist that I work with that do not value the impact of engineering on our profession. But then again, we're experimentalists.
Zz.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Albert Einstein, the Robot
OK, this is just wrong, or in very poor tastes.
It seems that a bunch of engineers thought that putting an Albert Einstein's head on a robot would be appropriate, and then calling it "Albert Hubo".
Besides being rather creepy, it is in poor tastes because as most of us know, Einstein's brain was removed from his head. Now with this thing, it appears as if his head has been decapitated from his body and put on this robot.
Not sure what they hope to accomplish, other than publicity value.
Zz.
It seems that a bunch of engineers thought that putting an Albert Einstein's head on a robot would be appropriate, and then calling it "Albert Hubo".
Albert HUBO is an android robot. It is composed of a head, which takes after Dr. Albert Einstein, and HUBO’s body. The development period took about 3 months, and it had been finished at November, 2005. The head part was developed by Hanson-Robotics. Its skin is a special material, Frubber, often used at Hollywood.
Besides being rather creepy, it is in poor tastes because as most of us know, Einstein's brain was removed from his head. Now with this thing, it appears as if his head has been decapitated from his body and put on this robot.
Not sure what they hope to accomplish, other than publicity value.
Zz.
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Home Photovoltaic Systems for Physicists
Just in time for $150 per barrel oil, this is a fun and timely article by Tom Murphy in this month's issue of Physics Today. It deals with the setting up of a modest photovoltaic system to run a suite of appliances. But what is interesting is that it deals with it from the background of what a physicist know. We are not electrical engineers, and while we do know the physics of semiconductor, the practical aspect of setting up something that needs to work at this level isn't trivial.
A recommended reading if you don't get a subscription to Physics Today.
Zz.
It was with those concerns in mind that I decided to explore the practical side of photovoltaic energy: In 2007 I built a PV system to power my living room. Though reasonably well informed on the semiconductor physics of PV junctions, I felt unsuitably prepared to evaluate the practical realities of owning and operating a personal solar PV system. Because I believe physicists can play a role in our energy future that extends beyond the confines of advanced research, I want to share my experiences in the hope that others might develop home PV projects. What better way to motivate innovation in the alternative-energy sector than to get a talented pool of physicists engaged on a personal level?
A recommended reading if you don't get a subscription to Physics Today.
Zz.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Can Buckyballs Make Flash Memory More Efficient?
The flash memory that is now very common in many devices may get a big boost if this report is correct. It seems that using buckyballs (C60 fullerenes) could operate at a lower voltage (link may be accessible only for a limited time for non subscribers) and thus, make the flash memory devices more efficient.
This is also another example of a possible wide-ranging application of physics.
Zz.
“We’re the first ones trying to borrow molecular electronics concepts and put them into non-volatile memory,” says electrical engineer Tuo-Hung Hou of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, who led the research (T.-H. Hou et al. Appl. Phys. Lett. 92, 153109; 2008).
This is also another example of a possible wide-ranging application of physics.
Zz.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
The Hummer is NOT More Environmentally-Friendly Than a Prius
It's amazing how a report that is full of holes can gain such a foothold once some talking heads on TV adopted it.
A while back, there was a rather dubious report called "Dust to Dust" that essentially drew up a conclusion that the monstrous Hummer is more "environmentally friendly" than the Prius, based on all the energy accounting that is being used to research, manufacture, and run the vehicles. Slate.com has a brief synopsis of the whole thing. Luckily, they also tackled the validity of that claim and cited several prominent (and certainly, NOT dubious) research work. It essentially debunked that myth.
Moral of the story: never accept the validity of science/engineering issues from politicians, TV personalities, or popular news media.
Zz.
A while back, there was a rather dubious report called "Dust to Dust" that essentially drew up a conclusion that the monstrous Hummer is more "environmentally friendly" than the Prius, based on all the energy accounting that is being used to research, manufacture, and run the vehicles. Slate.com has a brief synopsis of the whole thing. Luckily, they also tackled the validity of that claim and cited several prominent (and certainly, NOT dubious) research work. It essentially debunked that myth.
Moral of the story: never accept the validity of science/engineering issues from politicians, TV personalities, or popular news media.
Zz.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)