Controlling Turbulence and Evolution: How Engineers Overcome Uncertainty

[@smartereveryday]

(Crashes through door, stumbles into room). Did someone say LAMINAR FLOW?

[@organicfarm5524]

😂 glad you heard and came

[@donamills]

I was scrolling through the comments just to see if you were going to chime in. And here you are. 😁

[@chicken_punk_pie]

Certified Destin moment

[@oohhboy-funhouse]

OH YEAH! Got your smooth FLOW right here!

[@TheHexCube]

Destin!

[@Snotkoglen]

Ah. The David Attenborough of the engineering world. Could listen to you for hours. 😊

[@engineerguyvideo]

That's quite the compliment ... and I hope I can work into my 90s!

[@AlexTamayo.]

@@engineerguyvideo Bill, thank you so much for doing these videos. I've missed them dearly. I'm very much liking this series as I never thought of the engineering method, but what you're saying makes so much sense. Brilliant series. Once again, thank you!

[@franklincerpico7702]

@@engineerguyvideo Bill you have a tone and cadence of voice that just keeps your attention.

[@engineerguyvideo]

I was in public radio for this … did 200 pieces … in radio voice and words are all you have!

[@wsams]

@@engineerguyvideo We are forever grateful for your contributions ❤

[@Rathmun]

Even in situations where full scientific understanding _IS_ something we have, reality is messy. Just because you fully understand a process doesn't mean it's _easy_ to control it. The machinery to do the job perfectly may be far too expensive to construct, maintain, or train operators to use. So instead we engineer something that's _good enough,_ because it's cheaper than perfection, and we don't actually need perfection.

[@engineerguyvideo]

Spot on

[@riveradam]

This reminds me of "all models are wrong, but some are useful" (George Box).

[@Rathmun]

@@riveradam Yep, even if you have all the data to generate a perfectly correct model of some situation, a slightly less correct model will probably calculate much faster. You don't need a weather model that predicts tomorrow perfectly, but takes a decade to run. By the time it delivers results you could just look at historical data.

[@AverageAlien]

Chase perfection, achieve excellence

[@Rathmun]

@@AverageAlien Just make sure you're not so busy chasing perfection that you don't notice you've achieved excellence.

[@serkles8597]

I've been studying engineering for 2 years now and at no point was this distinction between engineering and science made. Here I was, thinking of engineering as an application of the scientific method to real world problems. I am both frustrated with myself and amazed at how well these past two episodes have portrayed engineering in a new and much more interesting light.

[@itheuserfirst3186]

Engineers tend to overvalue their knowledge and think they are scientists.

[@serkles8597]

@@itheuserfirst3186 I think every profession has this to some degree. People in general like to hold themselves in high esteem, thats only occasionally a bad thing. An engineer can be a scientist and use the scientific method to find solutions to their problems. This and the earlier video have not so much altered my view of what an engineer does but rather expanded it.

[@anullhandle]

​@@itheuserfirst3186Scientists tend to get tomorrow to explain what an engineer had to do yesterday lol. Seriously though pure and applied both have value.

[@billschlafly4107]

Science is the endeavor to understand reality using the scientific method. Engineering is the endeavor to apply that knowledge to improve life.

[@xXTomokoKurokiXx]

​@@billschlafly4107 Yeah, that's the whole thing with this series. Scientists research things, engineers apply knowledge. Both are valuable resources that improve our lives daily.

[@gtoger]

I've always shied away from using the terms "audio engineer" or "computer engineer" to describe the jobs I do, but that's come from a misunderstanding of what an engineer is or what makes an engineer. This new series helps me better understand that I have been using the engineering principal all along and don't need to be a lab-coat wearing scientist to be an engineer. Looks like I've got a new book to buy. Thanks, Bill, and welcome back!

[@jgharston]

Do you remember a cartoon called Dexter's Lab? His catchphrase was "For Science!" I would shout back "no, what you're doing is *engineering*!" Such is the propagation of misunderstanding in our society.

[@Chriss120]

glad you found time to make more videos. each one of your episodes is a true joy to watch and learn from.

[@rianmach9043]

I just took a class called “scientific computing”, which funnily enough focuses entirely on approximating solutions to real world problems. In the class we learned how to evaluate a bunch of equations like optimization problems (essentially solving for x when an equation is traditionally impossible), and things like approximating the solution to second and n-order systems of differential equations which model different real-life systems. Although the pure math hasn’t quite gotten where it’d need to be in order to do these things, we can approximate a solution to them with nearly perfect accuracy using computing techniques developed long before computers ever were, by mathematicians like Euler and Newton. Thanks for coming back Bill!

[@lemontec]

Strikes me that a lot of what’s happening in the field of Machine Learning today is not science but engineering. As with the discovery of the formula for what makes turbulent flow, it might take decades more to understand the principles behind it.

[@gregschultheis]

I was struck by that similarity as well. No need to discover every possibility, just keep expanding the ones that work best.

[@SianaGearz]

Machine learning is a field of computer science. ... Which is a total misnomer. Since it's not about computers - those are the subject of computer engineers, who are electrical engineers. And it's also not a science, since it doesn't reveal fundamental truths of nature, it's a field of engineering. It's data processing engineering.

[@EebstertheGreat]

Isn't this what "software engineering" is supposed to be about?

[@SianaGearz]

@@EebstertheGreat Software engineering is about architectural decisions in software design. Computer science is about algorithmic decisions in software design. So we're in the domain of computer science rather than software engineering. Of course computer science is not a science but I've said that before.

[@EebstertheGreat]

@@SianaGearz Computer science is a science sort of like statistics or economics is a science. It's largely formal and theoretical, but I don't think that disqualifies it from science status. I don't think fiddling with an AI is really computer science at all, though.

[@hagerty1952]

So glad you're back. I got your book on the R101 (both audio and paper) had have referred to it often as an example of using completely non-intuitive solutions for problems (like the use of bovine intestinal tissue to make hydrogen gas bags). Another use of Reynolds number, is that it makes wind tunnel testing of scale models possible. The air flowing over a small model will act quite a bit differently than on a full size aircraft at the same speed, so aero-engineers make sure to test at the same Reynolds number (Rn) to take into account the differences in size, which usually means running the air past at higher speeds. This only works up until the transonic region, though (Rn is different at supersonic speeds), so NASA devised a clever way of increasing Rn other than the speed of the airstream. At their Ames Research Center, they build a pressurized wind tunnel where the whole thing is pumped up to two atmospheres. To have access to the test subjects without venting the whole tunnel (which takes several days to pressurize), they built the world's largest ball valve with the test section being the hole in the center. When they want to access the test subject, they rotate the ball 90° so that the center faces outwards and the rest of the tunnel stays sealed.

[@jamesmcpherson3924]

Thank you for this. I work in an engineering department where our needs are outpacing our certainty. I have felt guilty pushing for us to catalog our rules of thumb instead of waiting for guidance or more data. I feel much better about it now.

[@cliffmathew]

Fascinating as always. People like Frances Arnold should be household names by now, and our kids should grow up hearing their stories. And once again, thank you very very much for explaining these concepts.

[@Leo9ine]

I'm so happy you're back!!

[@XadackaPhotography]

I'm so happy that you're back making videos again. Excited to watch more!

[@zachrywd]

Engineering is just brute forcing nature to my will regardless of how the science works. I'd never thought of the relationship between those two methods like that... Mind blown, thx Bill.

[@jerrysstories711]

Dude, I've been a fan ever since you stepped into the limelight with a a shiny aluminum can. I'm bummed whenever you don't post for a few years, and I'm happy to see you back. I sure wish you'd just become a full time KZbinr.

[@engineerguyvideo]

I will always be slow but I’d like to be continuous!

[@Redmenace96]

Very clear speaker! Very talented, and thank you for the post/content.

[@G33RTJEH]

Hi Bill, Glad you're back here, here ! Just a quick side note: 4 min 50 to 5 min 20 is correct, but very confusing, because we normally work with a fixed flow rate (m³/s) and not a fixed velocity (m/s). This means that normally, one increases the diameters to get back in laminar flow, because the increased diameter drops the velocity squared. Doubling the diameter, means dividing the velocity by 4, effectively halving the Reynolds number with a fixed flow rate.

[@hilo90mhz]

Thanks for analyzing that and noticing the fixed velocity! I was super confused until I saw this comment as I hadn't noticed the fixed velocity instead of the flow rate and like you said was saying in my head doesn't increase in diameter lower the velocity and hence turbulence..

[@irgendwieanders2121]

Thank you, that was what was bordering me, did not think of a fixed v... (Does nobody think of the poor pump?!)

[@helloxyz]

Directed evolution has been used by humans to develop specific traits in plants, birds, animals etc since before recorded history. Arnold's application to enzymes may have won her a nobel prize, but the basic process has been understood by farmers, dog breeders and mate-seekers for years.

[@hejhejwtf]

Wonderfull to see you again here on yt!

[@johnsolo1701d]

I'm an immortal highlander who has been studying liquid flows since 530BC (Heraclitus stole the whole river thing from me) & doing flow rate calculus for about 250 years, and I learned more from this video than during my entire cursed existence.

[@TheHexCube]

I ❤ your channel and presenting style! I noticed the slower pace here too, an improvement for me - easier to digest. Thank you sir.

[@TheGoodPainter]

Salute to this guy.... TheEngineerGuy

[@grandrapids57]

THANK YOU FOR YOUR RETURN! I wish I could convey properly in a such a comment my gratitude for the work you do here.

[@gardiner_bryant]

I have missed this channel so much. Glad to see more content from you, Bill!

[@TrashLock]

Bill, you're by far my favorite educational channel on youtube. Happy to have you back. Cheers!

[@shaider1982]

Wow, he's back. Awesome👍

[@colteastwood]

So glad to see you back on KZbin!!! Smiles all around!

[@thatscottishengineerguy9606]

Welcome back! You have been missed! I hope all is well with you and yours.

[@Chsae314]

What a treat to have not just one, but 3 new Engineerguy videos to enjoy! Thanks for posting these Bill, it's always a treat when a new one comes out :)

[@maxheadrom3088]

This video is excellent! A 12 minute masterclass!!! Thanks, Professor!

[@Corndog4382]

Being an aerospace engineer working primarily in aerodynamics, it’s one of the most captivating parts of the field knowing you’re working around something that is not fully understood and cannot be perfectly modeled based on equations that are currently impossible to solve.

[@ralph7349]

Wait what? another one, what a treat!

[@RyanMorey1]

Great series so far - fascinating to see the engineering method conceived as being so independent from the scientific method - quite convincing

[@sparqqling]

Great video! The task of a scientist is to understand the problem to the core. The task of the engineer is to make it work even if the scientists don't fully understand it.

[@jaytea3299]

Well glad you are back and giving some real purpose to KZbin. Thanks Bill!!

[@daldak7736]

The world missed you! Thx for every video.

[@InsanePandaWanderer]

I saw your aluminum can video so so many years ago. It's good to see your videos again, you make it really simple for any of us to understand. Thank you engineering guy.

[@semiconductorsinarabic4090]

I have been watching your videos since the first semester of college and on the 20th of this month I will be a chemical engineer like you sir! Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

[@telefonbarmann4514]

He is BACK!

[@entcraft44]

As a scientist (in training) I agree fully with the ideas in this video. The real world is so incredibly complex that it would be hubris to assume we could ever calculate the world from first principles.

[@redandblue1013]

THE RETURN OF THE KING

[@Protoman00]

Other video?! SO SOON!!?! This is a real treat!

[@leonponce8437]

I have a degree in electrical engineering and only now I understood engineering is not (just) an application of science. It could predate science. It's hard to get this when they say you need to go through 4 semesters of calculus before starting to study electronics, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to understand the equationing of a RC circuit...

[@asdf1234572]

Glad to see you back Bill, congratulations for another great video!

[@engineerguyvideo]

Thank you

[@GerardHammond]

yay! you're back. Very excited!!!

[@TheRyujinLP]

The GOAT is back! Gonna have to come check this out after I get off of work.

[@kudui21]

Wait. This is daily series!?!? Feels like Christmast!

[@bassemb]

In the early 90s when I was still a child, hearing about enzymes in laundry detergents being the hot new thing. Even as a child I found the idea amazing, how enzymes were integrated in order to "digest" stains, so to speak. That's how I imagined it. It's great to hear the context around this, and learn about Frances Arnold and her excellent method.

[@moutrap]

Spread out those videos! Haven't even had time to watch the one from yesterday!

[@Lang4d]

Awesome video, I was excited to find a video for the second day in a row - looking forward to the next ones too!

[@jimeldridge5990]

SO GLAD this channel is back!

[@ZacharyBittner]

It’s about time you posted again! I have been waiting for years! Your videos are some of the best!

[@Silviastein]

So glad to see there is an audiobook, can't wait to listen on a long drive

[@engineerguyvideo]

It’s not read by me …

[@thegenrl]

I am in the mentoring phase to other engineers where I work.. I keep your clear, direct and professional presentation methods in mind whenever we talk. Thank you for sharing!

[@engineerguyvideo]

Thank you for your kind words

[@halftonhero]

Holy moly! So glad you are back!!!

[@Zhatt]

I enjoy your videos, but I don't understand how what Reynolds did was not science. He did various tests and recorded the results to build a theory. Maybe he didn't dig down to find out 'why' and only dealt with the 'how', but I don't believe that forgoes it being a scientific study. As other commenters have mentioned, I'd be curious to know how you define the scientific method.

[@gameeverything816]

That was quick. 2 videos back to back! Awesome. Happy me now

[@rossengeorgiew9589]

There's simply not a better way to fall asleep than to listen to your podcasts in the bed, accompanied of some low-warm light, your mesmerizing voice and the beautiful thoughts about engineering and some on mind developing of the next little engineering challenge...

[@syntaxerorr]

It's great that you are making videos again! Great video!

[@redwatch.]

My mind is blown. Should be shown to intelligent design espousers who doubt the efficacy of evolution. Looking forward to watching all of engineerguy's fantastic videos.

[@garthenar]

Holy cow! It's good to see you're uploading again! I'm an Engineer now! Thank you, I used to watch your videos when I was working retail and they gave me hope.

[@georgiarushanov2210]

i love the parallels you could easily draw between the second half of this video and the current stage in machine learning evolution.

[@Kottam_Yallawa]

And in this video, the transition from fluid mechanics to chemistry is still uncertain 🙂

[@rhythmandacoustics]

This example of enzymes reminds me of Gregory Mendel and how people in early eras somewhat understood inhereted traits without knowing about genes just by planting and raising animals.

[@hngtng1]

Beautiful piece!! Best of the bests. Thank you, Professor Hammack!! I learned something today.

[@randxalthor]

Excited to see new videos on the channel. These videos embody in educational content a crowning feature of quality engineering: impeccable simplicity.

[@itsame1277]

Fascinating! Clear description of the difference between engineering and scientific endeavour, plus great delivery

[@redwinedrummer]

SmarterEveryday: Laminar flow Veritasium: Turbulent flow EngineerGuy: I'm back

[@GenPat555]

Best channel on KZbin is back!!

[@Hyperchicken]

Absolutely lovely as always, Bill! Fascinating perspective

[@Procyan1982]

So glad to have you back❤️

[@carpediemcotidiem]

Thanks for making subtitles!

[@oafkad]

These feel like coming back home. Reading the book now and loving it!

[@roeltz]

I missed these videos. Welcome back!

[@munjee2]

I was not expecti g this so soon after the last one

[@nekowafer]

Scientific Method: "The odds of successfully altering an enzyme to work in paint thinner is approximately 200 trillion to 1!" Engineering Method: "Never tell me the odds."

[@ErwinPommel]

A mathemetician, a physicist, and an engineer are all drinking together in a hotel bar. As the night gets late, first the mathemetician, then the physicist, and then the engineer go to their rooms. As the engineer goes up to the floor they're all staying on, he finds a waste paper bin on fire. He fetches a nearby ice bucket and douses the flames, then goes to bed. The next morning, at breakfast, he asks the physicist if he saw the fire. The physicist says yes, and he went to bed thinking about why a waste paper bin would burn, and how such a fire might have started. As he's saying this, the mathemtician sits down to eat, and the engineer asks him if he also saw the fire. The mathemetician says yes, he saw it. The incredulous engineer asks why he didn't put it out. The mathemetician says "There was a fire and an ice bucket. The solution _obviously_ existed!"

[@RCTanksTrucks247]

I wish you were my teacher at school! You are so easy to follow and understand. Thanks for the amazing content.

[@robbabcock_]

Wonderful stuff! Welcome back to youtube.

[@saxon215]

Been waiting for a new one for a while

[@xtieburn]

For any science to make the leap from hypothesis to theory a scientist will always be faced with the practical 'real world problems' of a suitable experiment, which in most cases necessitates the involvement of engineering and in many of those cases professional engineers. Outside of the mathematics in science, and rote application in engineering, the two areas are inextricably linked. E.g. Without context I would have thought Reynolds experiment, equation and numbers _were_ science. It may not get to deeper aspects, but most laws of physics (which this is similar to) also dont. It may not be of the highest precision, but all science is only ever proven within error bars. Ultimately his experiment seems indistinguishable from many scientific experiments going on the world over; It seems that whether this is engineering or science is primarily depending on whether the person looking at it is an engineer or a scientist.

[@irakatz8446]

I agree that Reynolds' experiment is much closer to science than engineering. As alluded to in the reply below by Daniel Horton, the turbulent transition mentioned above is for the limited case for flow in a smooth tube. I think a different fluid mechanics example would have been more apropos to the series, perhaps dealing with sailing ships. But fluid mechanics is a field that has been rather difficult to apply using only heuristics.

[@euanthomas3423]

@@dhorto27 The Reynolds number is effectively the ratio of the inertia stresses to the viscous stresses in the flow. Turbulent flow (high Re) is where the inertia stresses (kinetic energy) dominate over the friction/viscous stresses. So there is a physical meaning, though not a precise physical law.

[@CharlieKellyEsq]

Thanks dad, so great to see you back on the platform, creating content

[@victorphillips3257]

I'm so happy to see you back, hope you are doing well.

[@kenklose]

WOOHOO! You're back!

[@bensonboys6609]

Love the video!!! You made the wonderful point that engineering can still happen in the scientific unknown, but I’d like to point out that it doesn’t exclusively have to happen in the unknown. The cutting edge will often be in the unknown but there are a near infinite number of problems that need solving, many of which no one has thought to solve or no one has thought to come up with the creative solution that you have. There’s a bunch of low hanging fruit is what I’m saying.

[@bamfyjifu]

This video single handility reignited my passion for engineering. Thank you.

[@WhyIsTheCouchWet]

It's awesome that you're making videos again!

[@billyhart3299]

Glad you're back Bill.

[@daved3494]

Absolutely fascinating, especially the 'engineering' section. Very insightful. Thank you.

[@PraveenKumar-mn2dm]

Best Engineering/science learning channel again

[@vevenaneathna]

love how ur recent videos have focused on the science vs engineering misconception of being the same.

[@chiptunechannel]

This channel is amazing.

[@chiptunechannel]

No one has shown that turbulent flow transition so clearly

[@brucewilliams6292]

Fantastic series! Thank you for this!!

[@isedki]

Thank you for methodically engineering new pathways for our thoughts

[@OutbackCatgirl]

omg, you're alive! This is awesome

[@mscir]

Thank you very much, this was very clear. Great writing too! Great show!

[@feldinho]

welcome back, my dude!!

[@dustnowpeace]

Seems like so many pharmaceuticals in use today say "Mechanism of Action: unknown". You've just explained that for me. THANK YOU.

[@winniewotsit4452]

Excellent presentation and a worthy subject. Thank you.

[@a52productions]

Engineering and science aid one another, each pushing the boundaries of the other and inspiring new knowledge, inventions, and techniques