/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10714646
Science solution is an interesting trick but the engineering solution seems more robust

>>10714711
Engineering is about practicality, at the end of the day.

>>10714723
Conserving tape is probably the better idea, imo

>>10714733
It would be pretty trivial to model a holder that mounts onto the glass. 30% zig-zag infill with a food safe PLA?

>>10714711
Engineering is Science that learned to get out of the lab and into the real world.

>>10714744
Nice, finally a use for that ridiculous toy they bought us

>>10714845
You failing to see uses for an FDM machine is your problem, not the printer's.

>>10714733
No it's not. If your goal is to keep the fork on the cup's rim, the best thing is to use tape. The centre of gravity in the first image can easily shift and the whole thing would collapse.

>>10714646
So science degrees are about understanding the theory behind how an interesting thing works, engineering is about creating something that stands up to regular use, and liberal arts degrees make you money if you’re lucky?

>>10714646
Science is a liberal art you fucking redditor retard
Do you all literally believe liberal arts is a bunch of arts classes that make you liberal? Christ.

>>10714838
And along the way, got hit a bunch of times on the head and ended up with lasting negative mental aftereffects as a result.

>>10715132
I don't understand why people assume engineers have a lesser knowledge of the science behind what they are building. Although say an electrical engineer knows less about physics than a physicist, he is definitely as knowledgeable as a physicist in the areas that do overlap between the two fields. In some case even more, because they have real world experience, not just theoretical. If you've seen newbies in physics perform an experiment that doesn't match the theory, they're usually completely lost, whereas an engineer would usually know the limitation of theory in the real world. I still remember this time where the physicist prof lewin claimed that KVL does not hold true all the time, and faraday's law should be used. He effectively used a strawman by redefining KVL in a new way, and then proceed to prove it wrong. Then when he was called by every engineers out there, he got pissed off and started insulting them.

>>10715149
You give up a few things chasing a dream.

>>10715181
>as knowledge able
KEK nice joke

>>10715371
Don't see the fuck is funny

>>10715181
Engineers don't NEED to know as much theory. It doesn't matter how an equation is derived. For example, you can assume KVL always works. A physicists knows it doesn't and has to deal with the fact since he's trying to accurately describe physical phenomena. All you care about is if your gay arduino toy turns on.

>>10715181
Regardless, there exist conditions where KVL and Lenz law no longer apply, whether one considers these cases to be common knowledge at this point is another story.

>>10715585
Fortunately, our economy guarantuees that engineers know their place as replaceable slaves :')

>>10714646
So the liberal arts guy made money while the others worked

>>10715585
I don't know where the fuck you got that idea from. I had to derive countless formulas during my undergrad. I started in physics before switching to EE. Virtually every class I had were no different than the ones I took previously in physics, with the only exception being the labs. So although the lectures were almost exactly the same, the labs were focused more on practice than theory. In my physics labs I would usually try to confirm something while in my engineering labs I would try to design and build something, i.e. confirming vs applying the theory.

>>10715602
There is a difference between special case where KVL doesn't apply and claiming KVL does not hold true. The latter would mean KVL is flawed when in fact it just had its limits.

To put things in perspective, think of it this way: You can use the analytical method to solve x in the equation 2x+1 =5. That being said, you cannot use the analytical method to solve 2^x + x = 4. This does not mean that the analytical method does not always hold true", it's just you cannot apply it to this specific case because it has it's limit.

His solution was to always use faraday's law instead of KVL. This would be the equivalent of telling someone to always solve algebraic expressions numerically, which we both know can take significantly longer and doing it analytically and sometimes does not provide the most accurate results.

Just because you're using a hammer to nail a screw, it doesn't mean your hammer is flawed.

>>10714646
>wind blows
>earthquake
>picks up glass
Heh, nothing personal kid, looks like engineering wins again.

Anyone try brilliant.org?