• Go to page :
  • 1 2
  • Text Only
delzy said:   lostjake said:   delzy said:   You'd be a lot better off learning a collection of basic circuits than this useless theory that has almost zero application in the RW. Maybe you could just use it so you're not embarrassed by your public school education at cocktail parties.

Actually circuits has pretty good RW applications, such as wiring your house lights in parallel or series, diagnosing where a problem might be in a line (both AC and DC). Maybe you should take the class to prove me wrong.
I will flat out guarantee you that the skills you mention are not taught in basic EE class. Perhaps you are confusing this class with and electrician apprenticeship. BTW, I have an engineering degree, do you?


I do, also have my PE in power. Thanks for your flat out guarantee thou

lostjake said:   delzy said:   lostjake said:   delzy said:   You'd be a lot better off learning a collection of basic circuits than this useless theory that has almost zero application in the RW. Maybe you could just use it so you're not embarrassed by your public school education at cocktail parties.

Actually circuits has pretty good RW applications, such as wiring your house lights in parallel or series, diagnosing where a problem might be in a line (both AC and DC). Maybe you should take the class to prove me wrong.
I will flat out guarantee you that the skills you mention are not taught in basic EE class. Perhaps you are confusing this class with and electrician apprenticeship. BTW, I have an engineering degree, do you?


I do, also have my PE in power. Thanks for your flat out guarantee thou


I've got an MSEE. IIRC, series and parallel circuits were covered right at the beginning of the very first EE classes. We started out with pure resistive circuits (like house wiring) and used linear superposition of mesh and node analysis to convert them into simpler Norton and Thevenin equivalents. The most mathematically challenging part was using the Laplace transform to convert systems of integro-differential equations from RCL circuits, into simpler algebraic equations that could be solved in the Laplace domain and then transformed back into solutions in the time domain.

I believe the next class was where we used Fourier transforms in AC circuit analysis; but both classes were in the same year. I think the second class was also where we were introduced to the "Wye" and "Delta" equivalents for analysis of three-phase power circuits.

Does that jibe with your recollection lostjake?

(If you were considering taking the class and didn't understand anything I said: then don't worry about it. This is the class where I learned about it. The Laplace and Fourier transforms are actually easy to use and they make your (EE) life sooooo much simpler.)

XYNZ said:   lostjake said:   delzy said:   lostjake said:   delzy said:   You'd be a lot better off learning a collection of basic circuits than this useless theory that has almost zero application in the RW. Maybe you could just use it so you're not embarrassed by your public school education at cocktail parties.

Actually circuits has pretty good RW applications, such as wiring your house lights in parallel or series, diagnosing where a problem might be in a line (both AC and DC). Maybe you should take the class to prove me wrong.
I will flat out guarantee you that the skills you mention are not taught in basic EE class. Perhaps you are confusing this class with and electrician apprenticeship. BTW, I have an engineering degree, do you?


I do, also have my PE in power. Thanks for your flat out guarantee thou


I've got an MSEE. IIRC, series and parallel circuits were covered right at the beginning of the very first EE classes. We started out with pure resistive circuits (like house wiring) and used linear superposition of mesh and node analysis to convert them into simpler Norton and Thevenin equivalents. The most mathematically challenging part was using the Laplace transform to convert systems of integro-differential equations from RCL circuits, into simpler algebraic equations that could be solved in the Laplace domain and then transformed back into solutions in the time domain.

I believe the next class was where we used Fourier transforms in AC circuit analysis; but both classes were in the same year. I think the second class was also where we were introduced to the "Wye" and "Delta" equivalents for analysis of three-phase power circuits.

Does that jibe with your recollection lostjake?
Can you come buy and rewire my garage?

You know, I'm just kidding. Introductory EE is a very important foundation for advanced design. The idea that dabbling in this class will be useful to the layman is ridiculous. Like I said, if you are not considering pursuing a credential in the field, this course is worthless.

delzy said:   XYNZ said:   lostjake said:   delzy said:   lostjake said:   delzy said:   You'd be a lot better off learning a collection of basic circuits than this useless theory that has almost zero application in the RW. Maybe you could just use it so you're not embarrassed by your public school education at cocktail parties.

Actually circuits has pretty good RW applications, such as wiring your house lights in parallel or series, diagnosing where a problem might be in a line (both AC and DC). Maybe you should take the class to prove me wrong.
I will flat out guarantee you that the skills you mention are not taught in basic EE class. Perhaps you are confusing this class with and electrician apprenticeship. BTW, I have an engineering degree, do you?


I do, also have my PE in power. Thanks for your flat out guarantee thou


I've got an MSEE. IIRC, series and parallel circuits were covered right at the beginning of the very first EE classes. We started out with pure resistive circuits (like house wiring) and used linear superposition of mesh and node analysis to convert them into simpler Norton and Thevenin equivalents. The most mathematically challenging part was using the Laplace transform to convert systems of integro-differential equations from RCL circuits, into simpler algebraic equations that could be solved in the Laplace domain and then transformed back into solutions in the time domain.

I believe the next class was where we used Fourier transforms in AC circuit analysis; but both classes were in the same year. I think the second class was also where we were introduced to the "Wye" and "Delta" equivalents for analysis of three-phase power circuits.

Does that jibe with your recollection lostjake?
Can you come buy and rewire my garage?


I could, but I won't for the same reason that I won't correct your most BASIC spelling mistakes.

XYNZ said:   I could, but I won't for the same reason that I won't correct your most BASIC spelling mistakes.Don't mistake my haphazard grammatical errors for ignorance. I'd run circles around you on an episode of Jeopardy. BTW, BASIC spelling mistakes are correctly described as syntax errors... duh.

delzy said:   XYNZ said:   I could, but I won't for the same reason that I won't correct your most BASIC spelling mistakes.Don't mistake my haphazard grammatical errors for ignorance. I'd run circles around you on an episode of Jeopardy. BTW, BASIC spelling mistakes are correctly described as syntax errors... duh.

Well you're demonstrating a great deal of ignorance with respect to syntax errors. Syntax errors are errors of BASIC grammatical structure, not errors in spelling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax

In linguistics, syntax........ is the study of the principles and rules for constructing phrases and sentences in natural languages

This definition of a syntax error predates programming languages; it was co-opted by computer science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax_%28programming_languages%29

The syntax of a language describes the FORM of a valid program, but does not provide any information about the meaning of the program or the results of executing that program.

So this properly spelled. sentence contains; numerous syntactical errors,

This sentence has a spelling error; but there aren't any syntactical errors hear.

crazydeals4u said:   You should expect to spend approximately 10 hours per week on the course."

If you don't have the IQ of a typical MIT student, be prepared to spend more than 10 hours per week studying, alot more than 10 hours.

There are many MIT courses that you can find on Youtube. I find them quite interesting without the stress of having to take the test.

XYNZ, I was just making a joke about Beginners All Purpose Symbolic Language, but yes you are correct. Were you that guy in grade school who couldn't keep his ass in the chair and raise his hand at the same time?

I think this would be bad for those in high school 'testing the waters"... It would scare them off.

Circuits (even the first course) at a good engineering school generally has tons of theory and requires a lot of complementary math that even those who took AP calc might not be fluent enough in.

I would also guess it has less "real world" value... you won't be learning much about connecting in the subs for your car... and you would definitely be better off, IMHO, spending 10 hours per week in some other venue unless you are already an engineer.

SteveG

I guess I will have to refresh my calculos, but I finally pulled the triger.
Thanks OP.

sgogo said:   I think this would be bad for those in high school 'testing the waters"... It would scare them off.

Circuits (even the first course) at a good engineering school generally has tons of theory and requires a lot of complementary math that even those who took AP calc might not be fluent enough in.


Engineering and especially engineering coursework are not for the weak minded. As the contemporary adage goes, "if you cheat in my class, people will die".

Better that they discover that this is not for them early on rather than finding out later when they've already put a couple grand down for tuition.
If they like it, so much the better.

Oh God I remember this course...It wasn't as bad as others, but MIT really gets hardcore with this stuff. It definitely requires more than just a casual studying effort (at least for us mere mortals). I originally wanted to be a robotics engineer, but MIT beat that out of me mercilessly.

I dont remember the math on RLC circuits being all that difficult but i do remember a basic knowledge of Matrix algebra making solving them much easier, I'm going to give it a shot

=+= excited

Get out the HP48 !!

HPM.

keirmeister said:   Oh God I remember this course...It wasn't as bad as others, but MIT really gets hardcore with this stuff. It definitely requires more than just a casual studying effort (at least for us mere mortals). I originally wanted to be a robotics engineer, but MIT beat that out of me mercilessly.
HS Cousin: (Lamenting about being assigned 30 homework problems) They must've assigned you a gazillion problems as homework at MIT.
Me: Well, no. Most classes only had about 2-4 homework problems a week...
Cousin: That's it?!? That's easy!
Me: but each problem took 2-8 hours to solve.
Cousin: ...

After a few months of this sort of engineering homework, you realize that all the homework problems you were given in high school were specifically picked out and set up to be easy to solve.

An MIT surveyor once found the gates of Hell
He looked the devil in the eye, and said "You're looking well"
The devil looked right back at him, and said "Why visit me -
You've been through Hell already; you went to MIT!"

Anyone else (still) doing this class? Just curious as the 'midterm' is this weekend (really now through Sun)

I am. Been pretty fun. Will take the midterm tonight.

Danzilla said:   Anyone else (still) doing this class? Just curious as the 'midterm' is this weekend (really now through Sun)

I am still in, mostly just review for me. I have barely cracked the book, but have kept up with the lectures.

Sorry I missed (most of) this but I'm going to go ahead and do the work anyway. I'm an EE (semi designer) but it's always good to refresh

final is coming up. Good look to all the wannabees EE!



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014