zebov

I am doing a project for my calculus class in which we give a presentation about a career that utilizes calculus. I chose Electrical Engineering.

 

Can anyone provide some examples of how EE uses calculus? I know a lot of formulas are used, but I'm sure some of these must have been derived using calculus. Aren't Maxwell's Equations used in EE?

 

A few examples or just general cases that I can research further would be helpful. Than you!

Maxwell's equations are a great example. However, if you're doing a calculus project, they may be a bit complicated (not sure when you learn to integrate vectors). Check out wikipedia for some great insight into Maxwell's Equations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

Most EE programs will have an entire semester devoted to just these equations, so don't feel so bad if they don't make sense immediately.

Perhaps it would be best to do something a little easier and more elementary like Kirchoff's Voltage Law (a freshman-sophomore level topic in EE):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchoff%27s_current_law

This is often referred to as KVL. Basically, it says that if you have a closed path in a circuit (makes a circle back on itself), the integral of the Electric Field along that path is zero. In other words, the net voltage around any loop in a circuit is zero.

I'm not sure your knowledge of voltage/current, but basically Voltage is how much power is in the punch of the electricity, and Current is how many times/how quickly you get punched.

Hope this helps

One must not forget that the speed of light is a DEFINITION. If the speed of light in a vacuum were "slowed down" to 3000m/s, then the unit of meters would represent something different, not the speed of light. (a meter would thus be a much longer unit of length).

There would be an enormous force on that extension and the joints with the TV and wall. It (extension/joints) would have to be very strong to keep it up. Unless the TV is very light weight.

Aye there would... perhaps some sort of leg under the TV? Or some sort of wire attachment to the ceiling for support. If only they made TV's that were more box-shaped instead of flat... then we could just set them on carts with wheels

I have an idea, but I may have to draw it in order for it to be understandable... I'll try explaining though. Have an extendable arm attached to the wall (a tube inside a wider tube). Where the tube is attached to the wall, make this a horizontally rotatable joint. Make the attachment to the TV be horizontally rotatable joint as well. This should allow you to move the TV to whatever position you like.

I'll try an ascii drawing here to see if that helps:

Overhead view:


|\                            |
| |                           |
| |                           |
| |                           |
| |                          ++
| |                          ||
| |\ __________+------------/ |
| |=C__________|           C  |   WALL
| |/           +------------\ |
| |                          ||
| |                          ++
| |                           |
| |                           |
|/                            |

TV
   ^          ^              ^
  Joint   Extension      Mount/Joint

Just an idea, but I think this is more plausible than the bendable sturdy structure.

For protection against noise I would suggest putting A to D and D to A converters at transmitter and receiver (think of the difference between old analog wireless phones and the now-common digital wireless phones). You should be able to use the following block diagram:

Analog Signal input -> AD Converter -> TX Circuit -> TXAntenna ~~~~~~~>

RXAntenna -> RX Circuit -> DA Converter -> Analog Signal output

I built something similar to this in an engineering course (though not with sound) and it worked pretty well (though our system was to cause two wireless "units" have corresponding lights turn on and off at the same time, the idea should be basically the same).

Just as a note, your receiver may be quite a bit larger than you'd like if you're going to use commercially available AD Converters and RX Circuits... You're also going to need something to power both systems.

The use of bluetooth is also an option, but I don't know anything about making bluetooth-enabled systems, but if you look at the bluetooth cellphone earbuds that are on the market, one would think it would be pretty easy to sync those up to your music system

A quick google on the topic yielded:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000BK1QSE/ref=pd_sim_wl_2/002-7584979-1141606?v=glance&s=wireless

http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=980397-0403-DT&cat=MP3

Buy that, rip it open and mod as you like.

Or, if you'd like to wait a little bit, wait until the "Plantronics Versa" comes out:

http://www.oneandco.com/casestudy_12.html

(NOTE: I'll have you know you got me wasting a lot of time surfing around looking at this topic

nwaogu,

I'm having a hard time trying to follow what your theory actually IS. Can you state your theory in a single sentence to allow me to understand better what you are saying (eg. "Gravity changes the direction of light propagation." or "Gravity and light are the same thing" or etc. etc.). One concise sentence please.

Shoot a bullet into a block of wood hanging by a wire and then determine the velocity of the bullet by the swing of the wood after the bullet is implanted in it. This is a very common experiment and applies a lot of the topics you provided. You should be able to find plenty of info on this on the internet. I know this is probably too late, but if you're in dier need of SOMEthing, this may be something you could whip up rather quickly (and maybe throw a dart instead of shooting a gun?)

How, nwaogu, would you explain clocks that are unaffected by gravity measuring time differently at different speeds? (By "unaffected by gravity", I will mean that it's physical orientation to its Gravitational Force vector has very little affect on the time [much less than the effect of the relative speed]).

If you are to answer this question, please do so concisely as I despise long-winded, skirt-the-issue, responses.

Go in your bathroom and look in the mirror. Now, realize that, relative to some object moving the speed of light (or close to) away from you, you and the mirror are moving at the speed of light. Things still look normal though.

Cut off your ears... silence.

Mathematically, .9 repeating and 1 represent the same idea (ie. they are the same number). 1/3 represents the same idea as .3 repeating. 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 is 1. .333_ + .333_ + .333_ = .999_ Since 1/3 and .333_ are equal (they portray the exact same value) then .333_ + .333_ + .333_ = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 and thus .999_ = 1. No rounding is being done here. .999_ and 1 represent the same concept.

I was quite nerdy during my highschool years and know very much what it's like to feel left out and unpopular (as I would guess many on this post could agree with). However, while working in a restaurant during a summer during highschool, I met an amazing woman whom I ended up marrying. She appreciates me for me and even appreciates my nerdiness. There were many girls I thought, "If only I could date HER." Looking back now, I realize that they weren't the type of people for me. Sure, at the time I thought about how perfect those other women seemed, but now I can tell you that I would not have enjoyed dating them. I guess I'm just trying to say don't give up hope. Be kind and courteous and respectful and eventually there will be a woman who will be very attracted to that; don't expect that during high school though... it takes a while for women get past the attraction-to-jerks phase (this I learned from talking w/ women about the topic). Give it time and keep at it.

I thought Relativity was the discussion of Macro, Classical mechanics the micro (relatively), and QM the sub-atomic

no, i mean black holes but then what is bermuda triangle .

A triangular patch of the Atlantic Ocean with vertices: Puerto Rico, Southern Florida, and Bermuda. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_triangle for a lot more info.

This sounds like you are trying to slip to light speed by a technicality. My first question to you is have you read Einstein's book on relativity? Second have you taken any classes on relativity I only ask because this concept is discussed in basic physics.

1) Portions, but have had many discussions on the topic. 2) Not specifically on the topic, but it was covered in one of my engineering physics courses.

The idea is that when you are in an inertial reference frame then you appear to be stationary to yourself. That means no acceleration so no rotation, since rotation is constant acceleration around a point. but witha large enough merry-go-round we would not perceive the rotation, just like on Earth.

Right, I did not mean to imply this by what I said at all. I am very aware that an object, in its own reference frame, has no velocity.

Anyway, in our reference frame we don't see the other MGR coming at us at c because of linear contraction and time dilation. They keep the other object below c.

This is partially the answer I was looking for. I was aware of time dilation and other effects of traveling at high speeds. And from my previous post, that appears to be what I was confused about. However, I am curious as to how an outer world would be perceived from this viewpoint as the velocity is not in a cartesian direction, but rather the phi cylindrical direction (which is constantly changing its cartesian direction). I suppose if you were to stare at a green ball stationary to an outside reference while you spun at very high speeds relative to that outside reference, then its color would fluctuate between all the colors. Also, I suppose time would pass slower for you half the time and slower for the ball the other half of the time.

Hmm... I guess it all ends up that you can represent any instant "cartesianly" anyway, so I'll just sheepishly go away and end this self-flagellation.

Gamma rays and radio signals are both electromagnetic waves.

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

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

Aye, that is what I thought as well; however, I wasn't able to find ANY reference to it, so I thought I'd ask around and get others' ideas. To me, this is not a dumb question, but rather and interesting idea. The answer "noone has done anything with it and I'm sure someone has tried" is not enough for me... lest nothing ever be researched and, thus, the halt of scientific development.

I very much appreciate the answers I have received, though. Esp. regarding its lack of usefullness in calculating Energy and its possible use in diving. Answers of this nature are much more informative than "i'm sure that questions been asked before, so it must not be something we should look into."

Can it be dropped? Bouncy ball dropped from extremely high.2

The entire system has to jump? Or can you have something on the ground, and something fly into the air?

I'm having a hard time understanding dkv's difficulty with Nothing-ness combined w/ Everything-ness (no offense, dkv; I just can't follow what you're saying). Can someone else who does understand it explain it to me?

In theory, couldnt every physical movement be measured in meter-seconds, as we are all actually moving in 4 dimensions??

Well, every position can be expressed in terms of meter; every speed/velocity in terms of meter/second; every acceleration in terms of meter/second^2. However, one cannot determing a position from a given speed; nor can you determine a speed from a given position.

The question is, is there any application of measuring "longevity" (in meter-seconds). The post above about diving is one such application where position, velocity, or any of their derivatives are unimportant... the important thing is the "longevity" (actually, it's a pressure-time measurement, but this can be derived from the position-time measurement). Does anyone else have any valid applications of the meter-second?

ok, how about two 186000 mile diameter merry-go-rounds both spinning clockwise and sped up using the same technique as discussed above as fast as they will go (>.5c). I ride one on the outside, you ride the other on the outside, what do we see when we pass each other? How fast would we be going relative to each other as we passed?

i give it a 5/10

I think perhaps the real question behind all of this is, is there a unique universal outcome for each interaction within the Universe; or, are there interactions in the universe that have multiple possible outcomes given the exact universal parameters. If the former is true, then if all parameters are known about any point in time, then there would only be one possible path for every interaction in the future ("predetermined"). If the latter is true, then there would be no way to determine precisely any future event, even if all parameters are known about the present (or past) (not "predetermined").

The matter may be rather a moot point though, being that it is not possible to know all the parameters of any point in time (as far as I know of at least); personally, I would like to think that my thoughts are my own and not the result of a mathematical function. I believe I am starting to digress, so I'm going to stop now.

I've tried googling, but to no avail. Even had some discussion with some smart university-type grad students. I did receive a good response from Tom Mattson explaining WHY no one is particularly interested in it (because energy is based of position and velocity, and that's what we humans care about) (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18440). However, I'm still curious as to if there could possibly be any useful physical meaning in some branch of science.

I thought there may be some sort of connection to relativity, because it's in essence making space and time a comparable entity saying "5 meters for 1 second is the same as 1 meter for 5 seconds."