yeah man,
MEchanical ENgineering has a broad scope so you have chances of getting a job in virtually any industry out there.It's way easier to find employment wth a MEch under your belt.
Im really not sure about the nuclear, im pretty sure Ryan's description is very close to accurate when descibing the bleak overview of the nuclear industry here. It's poor. So now, im having second thoughts about joining the Eng. Physics program LOL. Ughh...decisions, decisions. MAkes you wonder, what good are nuclear engineers when most of the work's done by computers? Im really starting to think THe Simpsons had it right all along...even HOmer SIMpson could work at a power plant!!!

Do you have to draw in Mech?

After 1C03 I know I wanna focus on other stuff beside design sketching.

Originally Posted by jntyrhds

yeah man,
MEchanical ENgineering has a broad scope so you have chances of getting a job in virtually any industry out there.It's way easier to find employment wth a MEch under your belt.
Im really not sure about the nuclear, im pretty sure Ryan's description is very close to accurate when descibing the bleak overview of the nuclear industry here. It's poor. So now, im having second thoughts about joining the Eng. Physics program LOL. Ughh...decisions, decisions. MAkes you wonder, what good are nuclear engineers when most of the work's done by computers? Im really starting to think THe Simpsons had it right all along...even HOmer SIMpson could work at a power plant!!!

Not related to the thread but what is with the random double capitals?

Originally Posted by jntyrhds

yeah man,
MEchanical ENgineering has a broad scope so you have chances of getting a job in virtually any industry out there.It's way easier to find employment wth a MEch under your belt.
Im really not sure about the nuclear, im pretty sure Ryan's description is very close to accurate when descibing the bleak overview of the nuclear industry here. It's poor. So now, im having second thoughts about joining the Eng. Physics program LOL. Ughh...decisions, decisions. MAkes you wonder, what good are nuclear engineers when most of the work's done by computers? Im really starting to think THe Simpsons had it right all along...even HOmer SIMpson could work at a power plant!!!

1) BabyBoomers are retiring pretty soon.

2)Engineering Physics degree isn't just about specializing in Nuclear Energy

3) The world is facing an energy crisis. When we have fusion power plants, there's going to be lots of job of engineers of various fields (not just eng physics background)

4) Do what you like. I fckin love physics. I get an orgasm when I solve a physics problem, sexual fantasies when I read physics textbooks and I masturbate to Feymann's videos.

5) Screw Mechanical Eng. Canada is not the only country in the world.

lol.
my keyboards are screwed up. I get that a lot. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Commander

4) Do what you like. I fckin love physics. I get an orgasm when I solve a physics problem, sexual fantasies when I read physics textbooks and I masturbate to Feymann's videos.

Dude...

i dunno anymore.
I mean, i wanna work in the nuclear industry and get a good education in the nuclear sciences and engineering (that's why i chose Mac )but it's just really hard with the uncertainty over AECL's future and all. It's just way too contentious an issue espeically in Canada. The general mood in the West doesnt seem to be a very optimistic one. I know that countries like India, South Korea, China, and U.A.E are becoming very dynamic in the issue but then again, the proliferation risk might curtail growth in some. It's really too murky and risky an issue for someone to base their whole future on. Id really love to say otherwise guys.
btw, is there anyone on campus i could talk to regarding the issue, i mean an expert as in someone who really knows about the industry. Not that i dont appreciate all the feedback, you guys really know your s*%t.

Originally Posted by jntyrhds

i dunno anymore.
I mean, i wanna work in the nuclear industry and get a good education in the nuclear sciences and engineering (that's why i chose Mac )but it's just really hard with the uncertainty over AECL's future and all. It's just way too contentious an issue espeically in Canada. The general mood in the West doesnt seem to be a very optimistic one. I know that countries like India, South Korea, China, and U.A.E are becoming very dynamic in the issue but then again, the proliferation risk might curtail growth in some. It's really too murky and risky an issue for someone to base their whole future on. Id really love to say otherwise guys.
btw, is there anyone on campus i could talk to regarding the issue, i mean an expert as in someone who really knows about the industry. Not that i dont appreciate all the feedback, you guys really know your s*%t.

Come tomorrow to the Social Connection Night.

Originally Posted by PHLN

Come tomorrow to the Social Connection Night.

I have class during the whole event...

You guys better bring me info...

Btw, we should have a forum section just for engineering.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2011/0...ale-bruce.html

btw guys, for those of you interested, this is the current state of AECL. It's not too promising as you can see and it really leaves a huge question mark over Canada's nuclear industry. And thanks for informing me about the social connection night. I'll e sure to grill the AECL fellow over this

Screw AECL, you could have other nuclear reactor companies. Anyway, the energy crisis is real and nuclear fission isn't really effective in term os fiput --->outuput compared to nuclear fusion.

Originally Posted by Commander

Screw AECL, you could have other nuclear reactor companies. Anyway, the energy crisis is real and nuclear fission isn't really effective in term os fiput --->outuput compared to nuclear fusion.

Couldn't we all just use that damn thing in the sky that always give me sunburn in the summer?

Free and sustainable!

THe thing is though with fusion that although research is still ongoing, no one has the slightest idea of how a commercial reactor would look like. THey've been tokomaks and NIF type of experiments but i dont think that a sustained burn has ever been achieved to date. It's cuz of this that people are losing confidence that they'd ever see a commerically viable fusion reactor hence, i dont think the interest generated will slowly fade away and so will the research grants. IM not sure about it though.

Originally Posted by jntyrhds

THe thing is though with fusion that although research is still ongoing, no one has the slightest idea of how a commercial reactor would look like. THey've been tokomaks and NIF type of experiments but i dont think that a sustained burn has ever been achieved to date. It's cuz of this that people are losing confidence that they'd ever see a commerically viable fusion reactor hence, i dont think the interest generated will slowly fade away and so will the research grants. IM not sure about it though.

Physics people figured out how to do it, it's the engineers who failed.

Nuclear fusion has a promising future but it will take sometime before we get a operational commercial plant running, which is already in the works. There simply isn't enough urgency to invest in it when you have nuclear fission energy and other alternative sources of power. As we get more technologically savvy and as we continue to move away from dirty energy (for instance, Canada intends to phase out coal plants by 2025), nuclear fusion will look more appealing.

Here is a really good article on Nuclear Fusion and its future:
http://www.mediafire.com/?o8udbf88czn8g9c

If you don't trust the link its called Nuclear fusion power: a bright long-term future, you can find it using Compendex and you're McMaster library ID, mine is acting funny right now however.


As for Eng Phys, I would have to agree with most of the people here in saying the difficulty is overrated.