Vs. engineering

There has been a tendency over the years to keep separate the liberal arts and engineering curriculum, recognizing the differences in thought processes, students, and interests. This has enabled the students to follow different paths, and over time, we have found that rarely do the two meet. The separation has had different labels to describe the different path of each right brain vs. left brain, feelers vs. thinkers, creative vs. structured, liberal arts vs. engineering and technical degrees, etc. 

Gepshtein, S. (2009). Closing the gap between ideal and real behavior Scientific vs. engineering approaches to normativity. Philosophical Psychology, 22(1), 61-75. 

Pierrakos, O., Beam,T. K., Constantz, J., Anderson, R. (2010, June 28). On the development of a professional identity Engineering persisters vs engineering switchers. Draft manuscript submitted for the engineering learning workshop at ICLS 2010, Chicago. 

Fig. 3, A sectionai view of a smaU heavy duty granulator. (Courtesy of VS Engineering Ltd.)...

Fig. 10. Viscosity vs shear rate for solutions of a styrene—butadiene—styrene block copolymer (42). A represents cyclohexanone, where c = 0.248 g/cm (9-xylene, where c = 0.246 g/cm C, toluene, where c = 0.248 g/cm. Courtesy of the Society of Plastics Engineers, Inc.

Fig. 1. Engineering resins cost vs annual volume (11) (HDT, °C) A, polyetheretherketone (288) B, polyamideimide (>270) C, polyarylether sulfone (170- >200) D, polyimide (190) E, amorphous nylons (124) F, poly(phenylene sulfide) (>260) G, polyarylates (170) H, crystalline nylons (90—220) I, polycarbonate (130) J, midrange poly(phenylene oxide) alloy (107—150) K, polyphthalate esters (180—260) and L, acetal resins (110—140).

Compressors are usually high-cost items, but easily correlated by brake horsepower vs. S/horsepower. Variations in engine-driven reciprocating compressor prices can be caused by the type of driver, the speed (the slower the speed the more costly, but the more reliable), the total discharge pressure, and the size. 

Grumer, E. L., Selling Price vs. Raw Material Cost, Chemical Engineering, April 24, 1967, pp. 12-14. 

Process Flowsheet Batch vs. Continuous operation Detailed unit operations selection Control and operation philosophy Information above plus process engineering design principles and experience... 

Shah B.C., McCabe, W.L. and Rousseau, R.W., 1973. Polyethylene vs. stainless steel impellers for crystallization processes, American Institute of Chemical Engineers Journal, 19, 194. 

Sikdar, S.K., 1977. Size-dependent growth rate from curved log n(L) vs. L steady-state data. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals, 16, 390. 

Figure 16-17. Emission trends vs. A/F ratio for a typical engine/turbine.

Figure 5-12. Power vs. RPM with impeller diameter parameters. Illustration of impeller input power versus speed for a family of Impeller designs, but only of various diameters, showing uniformity of performance. By permission, Oldshue, J. Y, Fluid Mixing Technology, 1983, Chemical Engineering, McGraw-Hill Publications Co. [29].

Figure 8-139. Entrainment comparison sieve trays vs. bubble caps for 24-in. tray spacing. Note BCT = Bubble Cap Tray ST = Sieve Tray FP = Flow Parameter. Used by permission, Fair, J. R., Petro-Chem Engineer, Sept. (1961), p. 45, reproduced courtesy of Petroleum Engineer International, Dallas, Texas.

Figure 9-23. Flood pressure drop vs. packing factor for random packings. Reproduced with peimission of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, KIster, H. Z. and Gill, D. R., Chemical Engineering Progress, V. 87, No. 2 (1991) all rights reserved.

Figure 9-32A. Correlation of No. 2 Nutter Rings superficial capacity vs. wet pressure drop for 4 data sets and 3 separate tests. Note the 10 1 pressure drop range. Reproduced by permission from Nutter, D. E. and Perry, D., presented at New Orleans, La. meeting of American Institute of Chemical Engineers, March (1988), and by special permission of Fractionation Research, Inc. all rights reserved.

Figure 9-51. Characteristics of Koch/Sulzer packing, Gas loading factor, F, versus HETP, pressure drop, and packing hold-up. Note Vs = superficial gas velocity, ft/sec and pv = vapor density, Ib/fl. Used by permission of Koch Engineering Co., inc.. Bull. KS-1 and KS-2.

Figure 9-65. Performance of structured gauze packing vs. Pall rings. Used by permission of Biiiet, R., Chemical Engineering, V. 79, No. 4 (1972) p. 68 ali rights reserved.

Figure 10-155. Shell-side friction factor, f , for pressure drop calculation is determined from plot vs. Reynolds Number, z = viscosity at average flowing temperature, centipoise. (Used by permission Brown Fintube Co., A Koch Engineering Company, Houston, Texas.)...

Figure 2-59. Total overburden stress gradient vs. depth (from Engineering of Modem DiWng, Energy Publication Division of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1982, p. 82).

Figure 4-353b. Engineer s method—Casing pressure vs. time, t, = kill mud at the bottom of the hole t = formation fluid reaches the choke tj = kick fluid out of the hole t, = pressure overbalance is restored.

---