The OP isn’t the only one confused about this. As mentioned previously, because the maritime world typically uses “engineer” to refer to a ship’s head mechanic, people who design ships are typically called naval architects. But that title is almost a shibboleth, because few who are not naval architects are familiar with the term “naval architect.
But surely you can visualize the electricity flow through a circuit just by looking at schematics. You may not know the exact frequency of an oscillator circuit just by looking at the component values, but you can visualize the electrons flowing back and forth, charging this capacitor and being pushed along by that inductor, etc. And you know intuitively if increasing this resistor would lower the oscillator frequency, or removing that capacitor would increase the ripple, etc. I think these are the things you take away from physics & engineering courses. Of course you’d use formulas or simulators to fine-tune the component values, but without this level of intuitive understanding, you can’t even begin to design something.
When I was in college, I heard numerous engineering students saying they hate physics. And I would be shocked if there is an engineering job out there where the employee is solving a physics problem with paper and pencil. If computer software is used, I bet it already has all the physics encoded in it. Can anyone dispell my notions? Is anyone here an engineer that is doing paper and pencil physics, or coding software on their own which would require the same sort of skills?
“Paper & pencil vs. computer” is a false dichotomy. What’s needed is an intuitive understanding of physics. IMHO that is really the point of physics classes - to learn to see the world through physics, so you don’t even need the formulas. Engineers need to be so familiar with physics that their calculation (whether it’s done with paper and pencil or computer) is just a way to confirm their intuition and make it more precise. If you try to solve each problem by plugging it into a formula, you will make a mistake.
Are you saying the true dichotomy is formula calculation versus intuition? Then why do engineering students primarily work with paper and pencil at a school desk? Wouldn’t it be better preparation to have them primarily physically building and testing prototypes? Would that be too expensive and time consuming for most schools, so instead they do paper and pencil?
Most of my chemistry research involved using computer programs for different purposes. The computer did the number crunching, but in order to be able to interpret the results I still needed to understand the chemistry, physics and math. My undergrad thesis involved comparing two sets of mathematical algorithms which could be used to simulate different calculus (statistics) equations computationally: one of the comparisons boiled down to “btw, these two happen to be the same, see here: [mathematical reordering of one of the two algorithms produced the other one].”
And Jim, model building is also what the computers do. But with less materials and quicker - if the math is available. Antoni Gaudí did the things he did through the use of models because he didn’t have the mathematical power to describe what he needed in reasonable amounts of time. If he’d had a modern supercomputer? I doubt anybody alive nowadays can even begin to imagine what kind of stuff he would have come up with.
Also, doing things “the old fashioned way” is what teaches people that intuitive understanding.
That, plus reducing the problem down to the math vs. solving the math. Computer models are becoming more sophisticated, but they are still simplified representations of the systems you are designing. You need a good understanding of the physics to build a useful model, and interpret the results. I’ve worked with some engineers who rely too much on computers, and don’t realize it when their models are grossly inaccurate - putting too much detail where it doesn’t matter, and erroneously removing things that are significant. (I once had a thermal engineer do thermal modeling of an instrument that goes on the International Space Station. He modeled the radiative input from the Sun and Earth correctly, but decided to ignore radiative input from the rest of the Station. Of course it made a huge difference after I had him add it to the model.)
Because deriving equations and solving them by hand is a good way to understand them.
I love you, man …
The OP will have to complete a year of college English … and several humanity classes, liberal arts classes, some history … all of which will require writing essays at the college level … I’m going to strongly suggest bringing up your written communications skills before you start college …
I admire you for considering a career in the US Navy … like any job it has it’s ups and downs and you get a nice retirement early in life … being a captain of a warship requires leadership skills, something to look at developing while you’re in college … I wish you the best with physics, and remember the old axiom “If it’s stationary, differentiate it; if it’s moving, integrate it” …
Actual engineers: how much is Mythbusters like being an engineer? Watching that, they rarely do paper and pencil calculations, and always kind of joke about how heady it is when they do. If it is like an engineering job, maybe the OP could get an idea from watching that. (Alas, I suspect most actual engneering jobs involve sitting in front of a computer, and Mythbusters would be kind of a pipe dream for an engineer.)
If physics is tough, maybe your math is weak.
Math is important everywhere, and it does underpin a lot of how we understand and describe the universe.
What is it about engineering you like? What branches? What do you like in geberal?
USN nuclear engineers- the shipboard ones- generally do have serious engineering degrees, but there are also oceanographers and humanities majors.
NAVSEA has engineers and naval architechs, but I only encountered engineers (who really knew their shit) from NAVSEA-08.
Naval and merchant captains don’t get to see that much of the world. They go from place to place as told; the Navy guys get to spend months out of sight of anything except water.
The Mythbusters (I loved it when they did stuff on Treasure Island) did most calculating off camera. Because it is boring. They do fun stuff. Most engineering can be satisfying, but fun is where you find it.
The engineers I now work with come in two types- those who think their desk is their work location, and those who go and check out jobsites before, during, and commissioning jobs. Well, we also have ones who would be fired from commercial employ.
Good news,everyone! I joined in the ETO field. Bad news! I am not sure how long I will survive the physics and chemistry(I forgot to mention that I’m not brilliant at this but I remember certain aspects of atoms,electrons,molecules)
I am aware that engineering is totally different from what I learned in highschool. It looks to me that highschool physics is not the same with what I will learn from now on.
Just to voice a minority view, I’m a physicist (albeit a pretty mediocre one) and I work in industry with mechanical, electrical, and chemical engineers. They generally are not very thoughtful about physics and don’t seem to need to be, most of the time. Much of what they do is more like an art or a craft or something. The EEs in particular seem to have to understand Microsoft Windows and networking and PLCs more than analog circuit formulas. When the engineers I work with have to do something with physics, they often come to me – but they spend 90% or 99% of their time creating stuff and not coming to me.
As to liking physics, I keep seeing above Force = Mass times Acceleration. Not quite. Newton himself was very careful not to assume Mass is independent of velocity, instead saying that Force = the time derivative of Momentum. Which seems to be generally true, unlike F=MA. I think liking physics probably means liking this little detail…
IMO even if you flunked physics or engineering the first time or two, you can still learn it now. It’s never to late to re-wire your brain, especially these days with free, high-quality lectures and textbooks available to all… don’t skip any of the homework/study problems though!
What’s ETO? And concerning non-brilliance, if you get stuck visualizing certain concepts there are some very good YouTube content creators out there. Folks such as 3blue1brown and Eugene khortyanoski (sp) have made a lot of nice videos.
Well, yeah, but that’s like “speed vs instantaneous speed”; saying that speed is “space divided by time” fails to mention the vectorial nature of speed and that the formula as given will provide average speed but it’s incomplete, not wrong. One of the really nice things about both Physics and Chemistry is that there are many situations where, while the more complicated concept or model would be more mentally precise, a simpler model works just fine for the needs of the moment (see also: all those times where Chemistry chugs along fine with a balls-with-hooks atomic model).
ETO appears to be “engineering to order”, but what the fuck does “making a design for a specific request from a specific customer” have to do with the rest of this conversation is beyond me. Making designs for a customer’s request can be done by all kinds of people who’d never call themselves engineers, from chemists to electricians to business consultants. “Joining the ETO field” can mean being a warehouse guy in a maquiladora…
ETO=Electro-technical officer in the navy.
The Navy sounds like the right place for you if you want to see the world.
A helpful tip for working in the military: When writing, define (nearly) all acronyms on first use.
Merchant marine? Or a non-US Navy? I was in the US Navy and I don’t recall the ETO position on ships or submarines.