Comment by payne92 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by payne92 | Hacker News Reader

I've done an interactive "do you know how many types of engineers there are?" for this age group that's worked really well. Timeframe: 5-15 minutes

"Can anyone name a type of engineer?" and for each shoutout, talk a little about what each does. The guessing keeps everyone's attention.

Types: software/computer, electrical, mechanical, chemical, environmental, civil, nuclear, aeronautical, etc.

Bonus: bring 2-3 props (your drones would be GREAT) that you can hold up for the relevant flavor.

For drones, I like to ask: "how do you think the drone moves forward?" [over power the rear two, underpower the front] Same Q for other directions.

"how do you think it rotates?"

"why don't all props spin in the same direction?"

Bring one of these to fly in the room: https://www.amazon.com/Cheerson-CX-10-Diameter-2-4GHz-Quadco...

Talk about how there's actually a computer on board.

If you have access to a TV, bring a short ~2min drone POV video to show.

Tell bad jokes ("Civil engineers are very nice to each other", etc.) Google online for some.

It's all about energy and making it interactive.

>For drones, I like to ask: "how do you think the drone moves forward?" [over power the rear two, underpower the front]

Careful - this explanation isn't just a simplification - it's outright wrong. Applying differential power to the front and rear rotors is how you initiate a pitch moment. You must reverse the pitch moment when the drone is at the desired attitude. This attitude may cause the drone to accelerate in a given direction. When the drone has reached the desired speed the attitude change must also be undone (but not completely, due to drag) to kill the acceleration. So to bring a drone from a hover to a steady forward velocity requires four applications of differential power - two one way, and two the other way. It's not even true that the rear ones expend more total power over the course of the maneuver - it's symmetrical.

It's a neat example of Newton's First law, and also a good opportunity to explore a little about 0-order, 1-order, 2-order motion (you might explore what kicking your foot does when 1) walking 2) riding a skateboard, 3) driving a car). But if you think it's too complicated, better to avoid it entirely than give the wrong idea.

(A related question you can ask - when an airplane is in a steady climb, which is greater - the lift on the wings, or the weight of the plane? Answer: they are the same! Otherwise the aircraft would be accelerating up or down.)

Correct. BUT, I've found this level of detail is often too much for a 5 to 6th grade level audience.

So I usually start with "what if the back rotors go a little faster?": it tips it forward, beginning a series of operations leading forward motion (like turning the wheel of a car away from center -- what happens if you keep it turned?)

I've also found that words matter: "attitude", "differential", "pitch", "velocity", "acceleration", etc. -- may be hard to access, and simpler terms like "faster", "slower", "speed", "tipped" are usually more broadly understood.

Spot on! The level of explanation and the intent behind the explanation hugely matter. An explanation that is correct but becomes inaccessible can become a demotivator for kids (not for all kids). An explanation that makes things too mundane can cause a consequent lack of curiosity.

A recent such explanation episode got me thinking more about this - I'd recently got a pair of noise cancelling headphones and wanted to demo it to my kids. In an inspired (or dumb) moment, I introduced it to them like this - "you know headphones play music right, this one plays silence." I'd like to think I caught a whif of both understanding and "what the .." in their expressions :D

Oh gosh I just realized I don't have the self control to teach children. Context: I'm a software engineer.

All my explanations would be the "realistic" but kinda sarcastic answers.

Computer Engineer - Copy's pastes code until it works.

Rocket Scientists - Spend 50% of the time designing rockets, and 50% of their time hoping the rocket doesn't explode.

Locomotive Engineer - Whoops this isn't a real engineer! /s /s

Hey, at least locomotive engineers never copy and paste from StackOverflow!

They overflow a different kind of stacks.

My friend that's a locomotive engineer in a really pretty part of BC once told me this pickup line "Hey baby, I get to drive a multi-million dollar company vehicle, with a full window view of gorgeous mountain landscapes, with flexible hours!"

(by flexible hours I mean he has no sleep schedule and may have to work 12+ hour shifts at any time of the day, with the possibility of a 8 hour break and another 12 hour shift)

So what do you call an engineer that designs/optimises/etc. locomotives?

I am not positive, but I think Mechanical Engineer.

"Mechanical engineering is the discipline that applies engineering, physics, engineering mathematics, and materials science principles to design, analyze, manufacture, and maintain mechanical systems. It is one of the oldest and broadest of the engineering disciplines. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_engineering

My father was one, but designed gas compressors for oil & gas industry.

I'd go with SapporoChris's answer with Mechanical Engineer.

Locomotive Engineer's basically are the one in charge of operating the locomotive. What most people think of as a "Conductor" is actually a lower level job and is mostly paper work from what I hear.

Source: Close friend is a Locomotive Engineer in Canada.

We call them train drivers in the UK. I think it's a bit too muchbto call them engineers...

Well, another term for a locomotive is an engine, a train engine. So a person who works on those is an engine-eer.

Well, you made me laugh. Have a free +1

Rocket science is easy! Rocket engineering on the other hand...

Is the difference larger (and more expensive) explosions?

If so sign me up! :D

Speaking of

> Tell bad jokes

...

> I've done an interactive "do you know how many types of engineers there are?"

Two. Civil Engineers and Mechanical Engineers.

Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.

For each engineering discipline highlight the relevant part of a drone and how they're responsible.

aeronatical: props and flight control

mechanical: chassis

chemical: batteries

civil: constructing buildings that don't fall over when a drone crashes into them?

nuclear: nope, refer to civil engineering

There are some interesting applications for drones in the nuclear industry.

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/multimedia/podcasts/monitori...

but no one in the nuclear engineering industry is involved in building any part of a drone

Nuclear powered drones? Maybe not yet....

Well except for the one posted since it carries radiation detection equipment. Also it is possible there might be some radiation hardening performed on the electronics to resist ionizing radiation failures.

Nowadays... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto

software: the coding for the hardware controls, autopilot or camera

Reply on news.ycombinator.com