Simple question, how useful is laplace, fourier and complex analysis for ME/AE?

Simple question, how useful is laplace, fourier and complex analysis for ME/AE?

I'm a undergrad ME student, and I plan to go for AE grad school. I'm currently taking 5-6 physics courses a semester, and one of the courses is math applied physics (laplace, fourier, complex analysis). I can replace that course with another course, which might lighten the load, but is it wise to do so? Is laplace, fourier and complex analysis useful for ME/AE?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=UEhHRXDFkeU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

yes

Laplace is pretty fundamental for control theory and is used a lot in that area (aircraft stability and system responses).

Depending on how in depth and what level your courses do, complex analysis is there behind the scenes in aerodynamics (and I'm sure elsewhere), but you don't need it unless you're getting into the real details of the maths behind it all.

Fourier transforms are probably good to know for general maths, they have a habit of popping up in proofs and things. Also, if you ever do experimental work you'll be using them for signal analysis and things like that.

Overall, I'd say you need to know Laplace and Fourier, but complex analysis may be beyond the scope of what is needed.

>Are techniques for solving differential equations and learning about complex analysis, which encompasses a lot of physics topics, useful?

I wonder.

Thanks for the deep analysis.

I'm just starting my upper level physics courses, wasn't too sure how much use laplace, fourier and complex analysis would be for those courses.

how do i get a job in control systems as a person with an ME bachelor's?

Fair enough, learn them, love them, embrace the techniques.

Doesn't sound like much of an ME degree

You never know what analogies you may run into or where your intuition for a topic will come from. You never know what tools you might need 10 years down the road. What do you lose by learning as much as you can during your education?

While we're on the subject, how useful are these courses for ME/AE? Optics (theoretical), optoelectronics (practical), physical principles of telecommunication. Doubt the last one will have almost any bearing on ME/AE (I could be wrong).

It's an ME degree that requires ~40 credits of physics.

Optics courses are only useful is you also take computer vision courses.

>Is laplace, fourier and complex analysis useful for ME/AE?

vibrations and controls is where you will see applications for that as an ME/AE

Go back and get an electrical degree :^]

learn controls...

look m8, the education you get in any undergrad engineering program is nebulous as fuck and very little of what is explicitly taught is stuff you will ever use. the impetus is on you to acquire salable skills. its why internships are such a big deal.

its not about what you know, its about what you can do.

As an ME on an AE grad track, I'm looking towards propulsion or structural (is structural equivalent to the physical design and stress testing of air/spacecrafts, would like some clarification). How much chemistry is involved with propulsion?

Like the other user said, Laplace is the starting point for controls, though specifically classical controls, which is slightly more hand-wavy in terms of design compared to modern controls. Laplace lets you manipulate differential equations algebraically so you can now talk about dynamic systems in general terms of poles and zeros rather than masses, inductance, etc. Laplace/Fourier will also help in understanding filters and how they can affect system response in the frequency domain. Fourier transforms are related to Laplace and are useful in signal analysis and vibrations. For example, an FFT on MATLAB shows you which frequencies are dominant in a signal, so that you can do various things like design filters, look for a system's natural frequencies, etc.

>(is structural equivalent to the physical design and stress testing of air/spacecrafts, would like some clarification).
That's right. In my office, there are three teams: Design, Static Stress, and Fatigue and Damage Tolerance

Design is often where mid/low-tier BS grads start out, and their job is to make the actual CAD models and drawings of parts based on experience with previous designs and the recommendations of the other teams. Not a bad job, necessarily, but no place for an MS.

Static stress is the next level up. People often transfer from design to static stress, although many good graduates will start out in this team as well. They figure out if a proposed part can withstand the limit and ultimate loads that they will need to withstand. Crash conditions will also be considered by this team. IIRC, this will include both yielding and buckling, depending on the feature. Depending on the program, detailed FEMs or hand calcs may be used, though loading is probably always determined by a loads FEM of a large portion of an aircraft.

Fatigue and Damage Tolerance is the most exclusive of the three. People from the static team may join this team, but the only people I've seen join straight from college are ones with at least part of a Master's degree. In this team, fatigue stresses (stresses from everyday usage) are used to determine the fatigue life of parts and, more importantly, how long the parts can withstand small cracks before failure under limit loads occur. Since these topics are usually only covered in grad programs, a Master's is recommended, but not required.

Posting because I wish I knew this stuff when I was in undergrad.

laplace in controls

fourier in signals

fourier is laplace evaluated on imaginary axis.

Thanks for the answer!

I don't know if it's just me, but, it seems really difficult to find search results for the different fields of aerospace and determine what each field does. The closest results are usually really broad.

I feel ya

Part of that is that an engineering firm's organizational method is kind of the secret sauce, so they tend to be pretty vague to prevent competitors from stealing their ideas.

Aldo forgot to mention: some places will combine their static and f&dt teams, and new guys will tend to focus on static analyses, while thr morr experienced ones tend to focus on f&dt.

By any chance do you know anything about propulsion? Not really a big fan of chemistry, and I'm interested in propulsion, hopefully, propulsion doesn't delve too deep into chemistry.

To be specific, what fields would usually be involved in creating and testing an engine?

youtube.com/watch?v=UEhHRXDFkeU

I would like to add on, do you know how different the fields are, when it comes to deep space engine development like the VASIMR engine, compared to the Rocketdyne F-1 engine used on the Saturn V?

Dunno mane, not my area of expertise, and I'm pretty green.

For aircraft, I think the fuel that's used is pretty standard, so I'd be surprised if a lot of chemistry knowledge is needed. Rather than relying on the fundamental concepts of chemistry, I'm sure places like Rolls Royce and Pratt & Whitney have their own methodologies and rules of thumb. ME is absolutely the right field for jet engines.

Once you start looking at smaller companies and/or fields that don't have a set of standards already developed (like cutting-edge space stuff) an understanding of fundamental concepts might be more important. Honestly, though, working is an educational experience in its own - if you can get into a good position (look at job postings to see what they want to see on a resume) your job will teach you what you need to know.

On job postings, you can ignore the experience requirements, though. My first (and current) job out of college "required" 6 years of stress analysis experience.

Thanks for the future advice. I'm still an undergrad, so I guess I still have plenty of time to choose and acquire a taste for each field.