ironizer

So I guess the central question is, what is the hardest part of getting the degree?

Hey thanks Josh! The problem is not that I don't understand the math, I find the course I'm taking extremely easy, and I hate it because it's very very very slow, I get very bored in the class and I feel like a retard while sitting in the class. The problem is that I'm behind on the math level, everyone else in my physics class is at least 1 or 2 years ahead of me in math level, yet I find the class easier than some of them do. When I was a kid (elementary school) I was very good in math, about 2-3 years ahead of US students of the same grade (my little brother is in 4th grade now, and he's doing math I did in 2nd grade), but I fell behind when I moved here in the USA and had to struggle with English. I think I'm going to take the math courses first in college, before moving on to the next level physics. That way, I could catch up with math.

I am good at physics because I have logic and common sense. I understand everything that there is in the class, and I ace exams because all the problems make sense... I can simulate the situations in the problem and just observe what happens in my head, then it becomes easy to solve. The tests are also graded so that if you show logic and a good thought process, you can still get some points even if the final answer is incorrect.. I don't know if they do that in college. I'm just low on the math level. I learn more math in the physics class than in the math class, and I like it way more because it is useful. In math class, we learn all this crap about economics, and I hate it because I never learn what I need. Everyone tells me to "work hard", but I don't know how that would help. I never need to try hard to understand something, but in cases that I don't understand, "working hard" will not help. I don't know how the math will be for engineering, is it more problem solving/concepts? I'm good at that. I just don't like memorizing processes and doing them over and over.

I'm graduation highschool, got into the University of Washington, and I want to study Mechanical Engineering. Everyone told me it's hella hard, and I'm afraid I would not make it and drop out (because a lot of people are). I'm taking a hardcore physics class (called AP Physics C). It's physics with Calculus, and I'm beasting that class with an easy "A" and no studying/doing the homework at all (because I don't feel like it, I'm a senior you know, just want to chill). I'm pro at thinking and problem solving, but I suck at math. I'm not even in a legit Calculus class, I'm doing some bullcrap Intro to Calc class, so I'm just studying math on my own/in the class. If anyone has any experience on this, please help. How hard is it to get an engineering degree, why do so many people quit after the first year, and what are the chances of me quitting? Thanks :doh::doh:

Yes, but it's a longer story. I'll start a new thread about that. Thanks.

Those pumps look like they function best at moving thick liquids rather than gases. It's kind of like the mechanism used in the esophagus of animals. I wonder if it was inspired by it.

Wikipedia has a great page on it. Yeah, it's quite a cool design. I can see how it would be good for medical uses. The rotary one looks pretty solid, a roller on the end of the vanes would make it smooth.

This sounds cool... do you know what this compressor is called, or do you have a link to anything with a diagram or picture? I was also thinking of a diaphragm compressor, but the diaphragm is probably not very reliable because it must stretched back and forth the whole time while in use.

No, that is not what I asked. I need to know if there are any designs/examples of piston-cylinder arrangements where the lack of oil/lubricants is not extremely detrimental to their operational cycle. I vaguely remember reading something about SCUBA diving compressors, there is some design (with ceramic piston rings or something ?!?) that operate without oil because the air needs to be clean and have the proper gases in it (I think they add helium so the divers don't get nitrogen poisoned while under sea pressure).

Are there any piston/cylinder designs that do not use/need oil or other lubricants to operate? I'm not thinking of internal combustion engines, more like gas compressors, say up to 20 BAR at 2000RPM... that kind of deal; no model plane plastic engines or anything like that.

In earth-like conditions, a perfect heat engine peaks at about 70% efficiency. So if you were to ideally reform a fossil fuel and run it in a 100% efficient electric motor, the total efficiency of the latter system would be less than 70%?

I'm trying to figure this out: If you were to (hypothetically, under ideal conditions) reform a fossil fuel, say gasoline, into hydrogen, and use that in a fuel cell and through a motor to produce mechanical work--- would you be able to produce more work than by using the fuel in a heat engine that operates at its maximum theoretical efficiency (i.e. the carnot engine) ??? Remember, the electric motor, fuel cell, reformer and such can be calculated at their highest theoretical efficiencies.

But the public does not decide what and how each company builds their engines. All they have to do is make whatever they want and tell the public "here's a car that gets 2x better mileage and costs less". The problem with other consumer products is that 1. the customer isn't used to the alternative product or 2. the people don't want to invest in a new player (in case of the new tapes). Same with HD-DVD and Blueray... you have to buy a player for each. But with the cars its different. A new engine will drive the same way as the engines today, it will all be the same. The average Joe doesn't know and doesn't care what's under the hood. I can seem to understand why the companies don't drop the old design which is so complex to build and prone to failure. :doh: :doh:

But if you can build a prototype to that functions well, it would prove any engine worthy of investment. It won't take that much investment to build just one engine, and if it proves itself then the automaker can pretty much achieve a monopoly over companies that use conventional engines.

I'm not talking only about the Bourke engine; there are countless other engines, here are only a few: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toroidal_engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britalus_Rotary_Engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crower_six_stroke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trochilic_engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiturbine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuderi_Split_Cycle_Engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing-piston_engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twingle_engine I agree that some of these suck, but others are far better than a four-stroke Otto cycle. Why hasn't anybody invested research into something like this? The potential for monetary gain is huge. P.S. And these are all engines that can use gasoline/diesel fuel, which means that the current infrastructure (which has taken almost a century to build) can be still be used.

Because thin girls make guys more horny (usually). The gravitational force between a guy and a fat chick is greater, but most of us have the ability to escape it.

Everyone knows that the traditional four stroke Otto cycle gasoline engine used today has an efficiency of no more than 30%. Given that the engine is so inefficient, why do we still use this old design? It's not that the engine reached its theoretical efficiency, because it comes short of that. So why haven't we adopted one of the many inventions that use gasoline to produce work but in a simpler and more efficient way? Countless engines, like the Bourke engine and many others that I can't name off the top of my head, can so the same operations of an Otto cycle but with fewer parts, smaller size/weight, and improved efficiency. Why are manufacturers still going for the Otto engine?

These things would be the coolest toys ever. I want some but 30 bucks is too much. I got .25" cubes for 15 cents each (a while ago). They are grade 40 i think.

1970s? I figured someone thought of this centuries ago.

even if the ball was hollow? What if you make sections of it and forcedly assembled them together. Would that work?

I'm trying to find a magnet that is a spherical shape and has one pole on the outside surface and the other pole on the core. If anyone has found something like this please provide link.

A 100% efficient thermodynamic process would be non cyclable because the volume would have to be expanded infinitely (so 100% is an asymptote) Stirling engine needs a cold reservoir to operate. I don't see why a cold reservoir is necessary (not talking about the stirling engine, just a thermodynamic process in general)

This is closer proof of God's unfathomable intelligence.

That's helpful. But I don't see why you need to move heat from a hot to a cold reservoir in order to do work. Imagine the cylinder/piston system I described above, except this time the system is located in a vacuum. The heat does not need to be moved anywhere, and work can still be done.

yes. who are the vegans to decide ethics? Eating animals has always been a thing of survival. God created animals (and plants and fish) so we can eat them If you believe in Darwinism, then the best animals dominate inferior ones to survive. If you don't want to be part this cycle of life, you can go ahead and die, it's your choice. Farming plants also kills animals because of the fertilizer and energy required to farm, as well as clearing forests which kills many species. If you think you're doing the world a favor by supporting farming, you're hopelessly ignorant.