Mike Hansen

Members
  • Content Count

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Mike Hansen

  • Rank
    $$$
  • Birthday 02/05/1991

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Chemical Engineering: simulation, chemical kinetics. Hiking. Project Euler.

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Michael Alan Hansen
  • Description
    Chemical Engineering major at the University of Utah. Professional interest in simulation, design.
  • Relationship status
    Single. Straight.
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking
  1. Donald Knuth would hate you. The interesting thing is that he interrupted his work on "The Art of Computer Programming" because he couldn't type set it to his esthetic standards, especially the mathematical formulas. So he developed TeX over many years, then completed the work on computer programming with TeX. TeX is now the de-facto standard word processor in the mathematical and many natural and engineering science faculties. From my experience at university, it's the mathematicians who are most picky about the beauty of their type setting. There's a difference between style (at least as
  2. Just wondering. Formal mathematical writing is pure content. Style only exists in the side-notes. It really puts things in perspective. You are correct, style definitely yields information about a person & his/her relationship to the ideas being discussed. If that's what you're after, then attention must be paid to style. If you're after a person's arguments & ideas, then simplification/clarification must be done as I've suggested above. It all depends on your goal. I just remember discussions before I figured out that I need to understand exactly what a person (myself included) is tal
  3. Hi Sam, My thoughts: Style usually convolutes things, in that it turns arguments away from meanings & definitions and points them towards superficial labels. I always go after clarity in discussions. I restate what the person is saying in simpler terms, and ask them immediately if I'm bothered by their choice of words. Also, in a lot of cases a person who just copies arguments (in other words, a hack) from other people can't rephrase or clarify their statements. Thus asking for clarification in arguments has two helpful effects: (1) Allows for better discussion with people who are trying t
  4. Almost all christians will pervert the idea of judgement/criticism. "Oh, we can judge people harshly because we're really just trying to help them..." and the rest of that kind of crap. It's just not worth thinking about. There are too many issues, and attempting to generalize the issues & your arguments is simply not worth the work (however, I suppose if you're writing a book and such thoughts will further the achievement value and financial success of the book, then nevermind ). Best to write the rant thoroughly (see below) & quickly and get on to better things. How's the degree go
  5. Hi Dana. Where are you going to school? Do you prefer college football or NFL? As long as he doesn't have to run (er, attempt to run), Manning is great. But until the Colts lose Austin Collie (prick from BYU) I cannot cheer for them. Go Steelers & Bears... and any team with my fantasy players. Mike
  6. I'm reading through my Heat Transfer textbook for this fall. It is a textbook written for juniors with experience in multivariable calculus, ordinary differential equations, and the first two years of physics & chemical engineering courses. But, when it needs to explain a concept that belongs to kinetic theory, it can't go into any detail, because kinetic theory is beyond our ability. All it can do is give a formula/result and explain it on a fairly superficial level. And in an introductory level course, the content of this heat transfer book is too complex. So all an intro course can do i
  7. Do you want a survey of engineering book or do you want to understand the physics of 'real-world' situations? You absolutely cannot get both at the same time. Unless you're satisfied with a description of airplane flight like "the lift force must overcome the weight of the aircraft" and a few very simple examples, a survey/introduction book is not what you want. From the earlier discussion, I had the impression that the simplicity of survey/intro books is what you are trying to get past. Do you honestly expect to find any complicated, real-world physics in such a book?
  8. Well said. Feynman was terrific. An expert knowledge of science/engineering/math creates, in most people, a desire to share it with others who will appreciate it. An expert and a hard-working, enthusiastic student fit together perfectly. I would guess that an expert knowledge of anything would do that, but I only have experience with experts in science/engineering/math so I won't speak for other fields B) . Mike
  9. Nope. We have general courses for the important subtopics (specialized courses exist in grad school). I've mentioned my "Statics & Strengths of Materials" course several times now... well the U of U is unique in combining those courses into one semester. Most universities have Statics as one semester and Strengths as the next. A general book covering all of engineering in any level of detail would be huge. We're talking tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pages. Same for all of mechanical eng. or all of chemical eng. or all of any other discipline. The reason for the specialization: th
  10. Sounds like trusses would interest you quite a bit. This website should help: http://emweb.unl.edu/negahban/em223/note12/note12.htm When I took my Statics and Strengths of Materials course, we did a few "real" problems, but things can get really complicated really quickly. Also sounds like Shear & Bending Moment Diagrams would intrigue you. This website is very dense and not easy but should be interesting: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/materials-science-and-engineering/3-11-mechanics-of-materials-fall-1999/modules/statics.pdf I looked up "Structural Analysis" on Amazon.com. There's a book by
  11. Change is the act of going from one state to another. It's always occurring and there is plenty to be afraid of (also plenty to be happy about). This thread is appearing more and more like intellectual masturbation. I'll echo David Lee's post: how can these ideas be useful?
  12. I am a junior in chemical engineering, at the University of Utah. Those times when the book says "it can be shown", give google a try. A lot of science/math/engineering professors post their notes online (usually you'll see them as the first search results), and I've found wikipedia to be fairly useful and very accurate with regards to scientific matters. Wikipedia is particularly nice in that you can often get those derivations that a lot of textbooks lack. By the time you get to fluid mechanics, I guarantee that you will begin to despise the monstrosity that is the English unit system. In st
  13. I'm not sure what you mean by limited and infinite. Regardless:
  14. It may be a horizontal structure, but the support force it provides (through its supports i.e. the nails holding it in the wall) is vertical. Just do a force diagram on the backpack with encyclopedias system: Let T represent the tension in the ropes, and W be the weight of the pack. The resulting force balance is: T = T (x-component) W = 0 (y-component) The only way this system may be balanced is if W = 0. You may have been able to move the backpack above the horizontal for a moment, but I guarantee you will not be able to suspend it there. However, if we hang the backpack on a bar that is f
  15. Well when you've got a force at a five degree angle, only nine percent of the force is in the y-direction. And a purely horizontal force can't do anything to counter a vertical force. Here's a thought experiment, or if you really want to be convinced, give it a try for real: Take a light weight and attach two strings to it. One outwards to the right and the other to the left. Now suspend the weight by holding the ends of the strings. If the strings are vertical, your hands only have to supply a force equal to the weight of the object. Now place your hands at approx. forty-five degree angles fr