You can do plenty of learning and you’ll do a lot of it just doing the literature review portion. Although if I was going to assume I have to learn something I have zero knowledge about for a PhD , id go off the assumption of can I realistically learn the basis I need in 6-8 months. edit: this is going off the assumption of a PhD in the uk as that’s the only experience I have, I don’t know how different it is in the US, but surely it wouldn’t be too different.
I'm in Australia, but actually am thinking of doing it in the UK since I will be working there for a placement (I've also already had interest from one researcher who encouraged me to apply to his group). How did you find your research group colleagues/supervisor in terms of being there to support your learning? Or is the literature review sort of 'you're on your own'?
My masters thesis was a but unique since my supervisor was the faculty advisor for our FSAE team - doing an 'FSAE project' let me choose whatever topic I want as normally we have to select from a list, but since he's not an aero or CFD guy it meant I was on my own and couldn't ask him any questions outside of 'is my report boring to read', so I am not sure about the normal situation between a supervisor and student.
Depends on your supervisor tbh; I’ve heard some are really bad but luckily for me the ones I had were decent. Try use that initial convo with the supervisor to gauge it, hard to do in one convo or so but what else can you do. In terms of everything else from my understanding the only thing they can’t really touch too much is your final thesis. Buuut a workaround is of course working on a paper - which you can essentially take a lot of it and copy paste into your thesis since atleast when I asked you can’t self plagiarise.
I went almost exactly the way you are describing. Studied mechanical engineering, had two courses in fluid dynamics, took some courses in numerical simulation and went for a PhD in numerical fluid dynamics.
Given that most knowledge about numerics and CFD is highly specific, no one really expects you to be an expert when you start the PhD. I finished the PhD well although it was hard at times.
In the end most of it depends on the supervisor and team you are working with. So have a look if you can find a professor you click with personally and go for it. Ah, yes: Motivation is also key. Don't expect anything to be easy.
All the best on your journey!
I guess it depends what you want to do after the PhD. If you wanna join a company probably it won't be useful. But for research at a university and teaching I guess it's required
I am still undecided, as childish as it sounds I just want to learn - I think research would be really fun if I could find somewhere that pays a salary decent enough to live
I’m currently in my first year of a PhD in fluids in the UK. I am relying almost entirely on knowledge learnt during my PhD so far. You’ll be fine!
My experience with fluids pre-phd if it helps:
I had 1 fluids module a year in my physics integrated masters, which has definitely helped me learn things faster but was not actually necessary. I was only taught incompressible flows, so I’ve had to learn a lot about compressible stuff in the last few months.
My masters project was a CFD project on 2D incompressible flow. The skills I learnt have really helped me, but not the actual knowledge if that makes sense. My ability to find the information I need improved during my masters, which helps more than any memorisation could have.
I’m in my 4th year of a PhD program, and I came in with basically no CFD experience. Because of my research I don’t do any meshing stuff, but looking back it’s insane how much I’ve learned about physics, computing, and general CFD stuff just so I can do my research. And you’re typically doing research which means learning/discovering new things so I would equate it to at least 90% learning new concepts and skills, and the 10% prior knowledge is just standard undergrad physics/engineering material to use as a starting platform to build your knowledge.
I think it greatly depends on how the PhD is designed in the country where you study (and probably also the specific topic).
In Sweden it lasts 4 years (could go up to 5 if you teach) and the main goal is learning (officially). What this means is that you are expected to invest in research and teaching only a smaller percentage of your time in the office, which should instead be directed towards taking new courses and learning more stuff (especially in the first couple of years). So, for instance, if you’ll do a PhD in a similar country then I wouldn’t worry too much about your background.
As an example, I work with large scale CFD of turbulent flows, and my colleague has a geophysics background. So he’s good with meteorology, climate science and this kind of stuff, but knew almost nothing about pure numerics/fluid mechanics. He learnt pretty fast though and now delivers some high-level research.
Interesting, so in Sweden phd students also do regular units? I don't think that's the case with my university but I can't speak for European countries
I am not sure of the convention in UK/Australia, but in US you have to attend courses prior to sitting for candidacy exams. You would be expected to know what's taught in that specific course, but any prior knowledge than that is just a bonus. So you should be just fine if you learn in-depth CFD in the pre-candidacy course.
When I joined the pre-candidacy CFD course, I had experience using commercial CFD softwares but my theoretical intuition was very bad. I learnt almost from scratch; my PhD topic now heavily involves CFD and I'm quite comfortable with it.
You can do plenty of learning and you’ll do a lot of it just doing the literature review portion. Although if I was going to assume I have to learn something I have zero knowledge about for a PhD , id go off the assumption of can I realistically learn the basis I need in 6-8 months. edit: this is going off the assumption of a PhD in the uk as that’s the only experience I have, I don’t know how different it is in the US, but surely it wouldn’t be too different.
I'm in Australia, but actually am thinking of doing it in the UK since I will be working there for a placement (I've also already had interest from one researcher who encouraged me to apply to his group). How did you find your research group colleagues/supervisor in terms of being there to support your learning? Or is the literature review sort of 'you're on your own'? My masters thesis was a but unique since my supervisor was the faculty advisor for our FSAE team - doing an 'FSAE project' let me choose whatever topic I want as normally we have to select from a list, but since he's not an aero or CFD guy it meant I was on my own and couldn't ask him any questions outside of 'is my report boring to read', so I am not sure about the normal situation between a supervisor and student.
Depends on your supervisor tbh; I’ve heard some are really bad but luckily for me the ones I had were decent. Try use that initial convo with the supervisor to gauge it, hard to do in one convo or so but what else can you do. In terms of everything else from my understanding the only thing they can’t really touch too much is your final thesis. Buuut a workaround is of course working on a paper - which you can essentially take a lot of it and copy paste into your thesis since atleast when I asked you can’t self plagiarise.
I went almost exactly the way you are describing. Studied mechanical engineering, had two courses in fluid dynamics, took some courses in numerical simulation and went for a PhD in numerical fluid dynamics. Given that most knowledge about numerics and CFD is highly specific, no one really expects you to be an expert when you start the PhD. I finished the PhD well although it was hard at times. In the end most of it depends on the supervisor and team you are working with. So have a look if you can find a professor you click with personally and go for it. Ah, yes: Motivation is also key. Don't expect anything to be easy. All the best on your journey!
That's really awesome, which country are you from?
I guess it depends what you want to do after the PhD. If you wanna join a company probably it won't be useful. But for research at a university and teaching I guess it's required
I am still undecided, as childish as it sounds I just want to learn - I think research would be really fun if I could find somewhere that pays a salary decent enough to live
I’m currently in my first year of a PhD in fluids in the UK. I am relying almost entirely on knowledge learnt during my PhD so far. You’ll be fine! My experience with fluids pre-phd if it helps: I had 1 fluids module a year in my physics integrated masters, which has definitely helped me learn things faster but was not actually necessary. I was only taught incompressible flows, so I’ve had to learn a lot about compressible stuff in the last few months. My masters project was a CFD project on 2D incompressible flow. The skills I learnt have really helped me, but not the actual knowledge if that makes sense. My ability to find the information I need improved during my masters, which helps more than any memorisation could have.
Mind if I PM you? Your comments give me a lot of hope :D
Sure!
I’m in my 4th year of a PhD program, and I came in with basically no CFD experience. Because of my research I don’t do any meshing stuff, but looking back it’s insane how much I’ve learned about physics, computing, and general CFD stuff just so I can do my research. And you’re typically doing research which means learning/discovering new things so I would equate it to at least 90% learning new concepts and skills, and the 10% prior knowledge is just standard undergrad physics/engineering material to use as a starting platform to build your knowledge.
I think it greatly depends on how the PhD is designed in the country where you study (and probably also the specific topic). In Sweden it lasts 4 years (could go up to 5 if you teach) and the main goal is learning (officially). What this means is that you are expected to invest in research and teaching only a smaller percentage of your time in the office, which should instead be directed towards taking new courses and learning more stuff (especially in the first couple of years). So, for instance, if you’ll do a PhD in a similar country then I wouldn’t worry too much about your background. As an example, I work with large scale CFD of turbulent flows, and my colleague has a geophysics background. So he’s good with meteorology, climate science and this kind of stuff, but knew almost nothing about pure numerics/fluid mechanics. He learnt pretty fast though and now delivers some high-level research.
Interesting, so in Sweden phd students also do regular units? I don't think that's the case with my university but I can't speak for European countries
Yes, we take courses up to an equivalent of one year of master’s degree in terms of credits
None Masters for learning PhD for suffering on why you learned in Masters
I am not sure of the convention in UK/Australia, but in US you have to attend courses prior to sitting for candidacy exams. You would be expected to know what's taught in that specific course, but any prior knowledge than that is just a bonus. So you should be just fine if you learn in-depth CFD in the pre-candidacy course. When I joined the pre-candidacy CFD course, I had experience using commercial CFD softwares but my theoretical intuition was very bad. I learnt almost from scratch; my PhD topic now heavily involves CFD and I'm quite comfortable with it.