Discussion of the Engineering tag

user54412

Jul 10, 2013 03:41

@tpg2114 I'm here

tpg2114

Hey

So I don't really know what to think about some of those questions tagged that way and what is "engineering" vs "physics"

What about statics for example?

Is that at all physics really? Or just pure engineering?

user54412

hmmm

David Zaslavsky

Statics problems are usually done in intro mechanics classes

user54412

most of the stuff in statics I think could be construed as physics

user54412

except for things like this

user54412

Jul 10, 2013 03:44

0

Q: The stress in copper and steel parallel compound members

Came across this question and just needed abit of help undertanding how i should go about this question I have also attempted to solve it to the best of my ability but im stuck. A concrete column of square cross-section of 250mm x 250mm & 1.5m long is required to support an axial compressive lo...

tpg2114

But our statics classes are in the College of Engineering for example

What about:

1

Q: Trying to avoid a physical structure tipping over

I am trying to build an aluminum stand (tree). The "trunk" is 72" (1.8288$\,$m) tall. There are four perpendicular (outstretching) "branches" along the top half of the trunk, each 36" (0.9144$\,$m) in length. These arms will be at different angles to the trunk, but all forward in one direction wi...

newtonian-mechanics engineering statics stability

user54412

I'd be okay with closing that as engineering

user54412

I'd be more okay if we had a dedicated mech-E site

David Zaslavsky

A whole tag isn't necessarily going to be on or off topic

tpg2114

@DavidZaslavsky I agree, but it's missing a tag-wiki

So if we can define somehow what "engineering-statics" is vs "physics-statics" and put that in the wiki

It would help

David Zaslavsky

Jul 10, 2013 03:46

Sure

tpg2114

Along with defining how engineering should be used (which is what I originally suggested Chris talk about but got quickly sidetracked with statics)

David Zaslavsky

I don't have any particularly good ideas beyond stating the obvious: that statics is for situations in which nothing is moving

user54412

aha - one day there may be Mechanical Engineering for us to point people toward

David Zaslavsky

Yeah, that'll be good

but that's a long way off

user54412

@DavidZaslavsky you should make that the entirety of the wiki: "statics is for situations in which nothing is moving" :P

David Zaslavsky

Jul 10, 2013 03:48

lol :-P

well, if nobody else comes up with anything soon

We should also think about whether we should even have engineering as a tag, given that engineering questions are supposed to be off topic

tpg2114

@DavidZaslavsky That's what I originally pinged Chris for

user54412

@DavidZaslavsky yeah that's the issue

tpg2114

To have that conversation and come up with a proposal to put on Meta

user54412

I think with an appropriate wiki (and importantly a good mouse-over summary) it can be good to have

tpg2114

Re statics: The study of stationary systems

I don't think it needs to be any more verbose than that honestly...

David Zaslavsky

Jul 10, 2013 03:51

@tpg2114 that works

tpg2114

What kinds of on-topic questions would still have engineering?

user54412

I mean, electric-circuits and sun exist, but that doesn't mean we condone "design my breadboard" or "how do I build a solar panel" questions

tpg2114

But we don't have physics

user54412

@tpg2114 I think the critical distinction is inspired by engineering

David Zaslavsky

People do often take the existence of a tag as an indicator that the subject of the tag is largely on topic. They shouldn't, but they do.

tpg2114

Jul 10, 2013 03:52

So if we say "engineering for engineering's sake" is OT, I don't know that engineering is all that useful

David Zaslavsky

I'm really just not seeing why that tag would be useful.

user54412

questions where a physical principle was brought to the forefront when investigating an engineering issue

user54412

well, I don't have any particular attachment to it

tpg2114

Nor do I, but before proposing to kill it off I'd like to find out if there's some reason to keep it

Your example of on-topic engineering, "Why do airplanes fly?"

Should that have engineering?

Does it add anything to have that tag?

user54412

wasn't my example - Manishearth picked that one out

tpg2114

Jul 10, 2013 03:55

Heh, okay. Well "the example" then :)

user54412

it does seem strange to tag it as such - we have aircraft and airplanes

user54412

(which are fortunately synonyms)

tpg2114

Not entirely synonyms

user54412

I mean, we implemented synonymization

tpg2114

aircraft could include blimps, balloons technically

I guess it is a synonym here...

user54412

Jul 10, 2013 03:57

true, which is why the directionality is airplanes is replaced by the more general aircraft

tpg2114

Oh well

user54412

well, if you think of a good blimp question...

tpg2114

I'll come up with one :)

user54412

"How much hydrogen do I need to lift my zeppelin?"

user54412

It may be an "actual problem you have faced" for someone I suppose

tpg2114

Jul 10, 2013 03:58

The navy actually started designing a new fleet of blimps

They're slightly heavier-than-air if I recall

jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-04-01/story/…

Heck, apparently yesterday they were testing them in Florida to track drug runners in the Gulf

user54412

heavier than air? umm.... I may not be a pilot, but...

tpg2114

American Blimp MZ-3

{| |} The MZ-3A is a blimp owned by the United States Navy since 2006. It is a modified American Blimp Corporation A-170 series commercial blimp and given the USN type/model/series (T/M/S) designation MZ-3A and Bureau Number (BuNo) 167811. After delivery to the Navy, the airship began operations as an advanced flying laboratory used to evaluate affordable sensor payloads, the development of new lighter-than-air (LTA) technologies and general flight support for other related research and development/science and technology (R&D/S&T) projects. In May 2006, Air Test and Evaluation Squadr...

It just means they have to use some engine power to help it stay in the air

As opposed to traditional blimps that just floated freely

Every airplane is "heavier-than-air"

Anyway, sidetracked again

I'm looking through the engineering questions and a) I don't see many that should be left open and b) I don't see any that should be left open that couldn't do without the tag

Which also opens the question about electrical-engineering as well

user54412

my take on the 5 most recent [tag:engineering] questions:
1) [No idea](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/70245)
2) [Good - material properties](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69885)
3) [okay - units inspired by engineering](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69885)
4) [bad - homeworky and too complicated an engineering issue](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69199)
5) [good - physics underlying a device](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/69175)

user54412

^ No idea why those links didn't format

tpg2114

The heat sink one and the structure tipping over I'm not sure about really

As posed, it's more like "Help me design this object" which is engineering

As opposed to "How do I analyze a physical structure set up like..." or "What material properties are important for a heat sink"

Respectively

user54412

Jul 10, 2013 04:09

6) [the engineering part is the bad part; takes focus away from physical limits](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/68656)
7) [that this was inspired by engineering is irrelevant](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67843)
8) [just plain engineering; not physics](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67518)
9) [not engineering (or even EE); just circuits](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67381)
10) [would be physics with a diagram perhaps; but with words undefined terms sounds like engineering](http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/67184)

user54412

@tpg2114 yeah, I can see that

user54412

that might be a good point for the faq: "help me design" vs. analysis of something fundamental

tpg2114

Okay, so I think I'm with @DavidZaslavsky on this one... I don't see a need for the tag really. Questions that should still be open don't really need the tag and the ones that seem to need it are off-topic

user54412

that seems reasonable

The h Bar

Participants