|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This subject is featured in the Outline of automation, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.|
- 1 Can't make change due to spam lock
- 2 404 error
- 3 Ongoing revisions.=
- 4 Japan Robot Junkyards
- 5 history section
- 6 Automation is NOT limited to production
- 7 Impact section lacking in citations
- 8 Automation is not the same as mechanization
- 9 What, no control room?
- 10 Grammar Cleanup
- 11 Split off section
- 12 Applications
- 13 Needs a short history
- 14 Anyone with a instrumentation or process control background willing to help?
- 15 Is it Really Automation?
Can't make change due to spam lock
The second to last paragraph of the "impact" section is almost pure nonsense. Why is it talking about cryptography? This whole article needs citation.
- Its highly waffling, I agree, but not enough to bother me ;) . If you post your corrected version here, I can copy it across for you. Alternately, or for future edits, you can sign up for an account and wait/edit to obtain autoconfirmed status, which will allow you to gain access to edit semi-protected articles. User A1 (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
As presently written, the article is POV-heavy and needs better sourcing... It would also help to discuss industrial automation as it's viewed as a field of engineering, in addition to social analysis. I've made a few revisions to start. 188.8.131.52 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, "But, after the railroads were built"... what, they're done? Maury 23:00, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC) i wan to learn more.
Japan Robot Junkyards
I would like to know more about the "World Famous Japan Robot Junkyards" there are no references to this thing on the web
- Mjan— I, too, didn't find much on the web. But you have to remember this was about 20 years ago; it may not have made it onto the web. (I have modified the statement.)
- Best I could do was http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_12/b3724007.htm
- If you are Japanese and located in Japan, perhaps you could research this.
this article has a very long introduction. this part of an article is generally a brief description of the topic, not a history. it seems like most of this information could be a separate section called "history" or something to that extent. im going to create this section and move some of this information there. Twelvethirteen 03:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Automation is NOT limited to production
Automation is an economic and socially VERY disruptive technology. We stand in the foothills of the Third Industrial Revolution as well as some other similar revolutions connected to automation.
The article here is preoccupied with production -- which, of course, will always be a highly important application. However, the application most visible to the public -- and soon -- will be the automation of the automobile/truck and the automation of the soldier and heavy weapons.
Islamists/Jihadists -- BEWARE !!
What is more, automation will eventually impact the role of capital in presently entirely unanticipated ways. The classical analyses of the role of capital in society will become mostly irrelevant -- and worse, misleading. The costs of production will implacably tend toward zero along with the value and cost of capital.
Marx and Lenin will be rolling in their graves with lots of company from the opposing "capitalist" contingents.
WHOA!!! If this is the third industrial revolution these posters didn't learn much from the first 2. The cost of robotic production does NOT tend towards zero. The cost of implementing a new robotic system requires teams of engineers and maintenance technicians. Indeed, each new actuator or material required to develop a new system puts money in the pockets of manufacturers. An easier way to look at it is to think about the car industry. The car industry is just now approaching 100 years old, and it represents billions in revenue and thousands of jobs. Granted, thousands of Farriers, horse stables, buggy companies, and large parts of the railroad industry suffered as a result of cars, but each "threat" to established industries has only evolved into a new more efficient industry....
Impact section lacking in citations
More work needs to be done on in the impact section. The section emphasizes the negative aspects of it more than the positive ones even though this is not the case for the section "Advantages and disadvantages". For these reasons, I have done substantial changes to the structure of the article.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 17:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Automation is not the same as mechanization
Examples of textile machines are not automation and neither do Luddites apply. Automation means that the machine or process does not require constant operator attention.
An early example was the flour mill in Colonial America that was self feeding and regulating and spread the ground flour for grinding. The mill used a variety of conveyors that were all run automatically.
Watt's centrifugal govenor to regulate steam valve opening for his steam engines is an automatic control. James Clerk Maxwell developed control theory from Watt's govenor. After Maxwel's controllers became widely available for regulating machinery and processes. Automation predates computer control by decades. Computer control added to existing factories did not result in significant labor savings.
What, no control room?
Photos of robots are not the best way to lead in talking about automation. Automation is automatic control, such as is done by factory operators in a control where they look over various data outputs. Historical examples are needed when there were dials and levers, lathouch input and output is now done on touchscreens and with deyboards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phmoreno (talk • contribs) 13:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I have flagged this article for grammar cleanup. For example the following section lacks a coherent sentence structure:
Economy improvement. Sometimes and some kinds of automation implies improves in economy of enterprises, society or most of humankind.
Split off section
The section on "Relationship to unemployment" has grown, under the editing of User:Three-quarter-ten, to dominate the article. I suggest we move it to its own article and leave a main link. I don't have much opinion on what the title should be. Any suggestion or objection? Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I had begun thinking about spinning it off, but had held off so far. I'm pretty sure that I'm done adding content to it. (Yesterday's addition was only one last afterthought; I think everything's been covered as much as possible.) My hesitance to split comes from the fact that then some people may try to delete the article or merge it into "Luddite fallacy", which is speciously appealing but logically inadequate (because the Luddite premise is only a part of the larger topic), but I won't be able to get that concept through any thick heads. What do you think of moving the section down toward the bottom? As for spinoff titles, not sure yet ... "Relationship of automation to unemployment" is my best thought so far, but I wonder if someone will come out of the woodwork saying that's a horrible title and renaming it to something that is actually more horrible still. Anyway, worth thinking further about ... — ¾-10 15:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, better get thinking about it, and pick a title that has some notability support in sources. It's way too much to leave here; too off-topic, too much unsourced, etc. I wouldn't be surprised it you get pushback elsewhere, but at least if it's more aligned with the article topic it will have a chance of surviving the deletionists (like me). Dicklyon (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I follow what you're saying, but I have to correct part of it—true that it is too much for here right now, but there's actually nothing off-topic or not-aligned about the content—just some trouble with (a) the degree of need for spinning off (which is a matter of "related but tangential" rather than "not related"); and (b) the familiar old topic of gray literature not being citable in a way that publicly available books, journals, and websites are (such that an interested reader can click through and access the source themselves)—which is a recurring issue in science and technology, since the leading edge of thinking often happens within access-restricted environments (for example, intranets and private wikis). In other words, there's nothing truly novel or original about the content, yet publicly published material is scarce to unavailable (depending on which aspect of it). I do understand the challenge that that poses to an encyclopedia, but it means that we have to find a balance as opposed to deleting anything that is even touched by that theme, because you'd end up with incomplete coverage of what exists. An analogy that comes to mind is weapons systems—in 1948 it would have been difficult to describe the current status of nuclear technology using citations of books and journals, because most of the knowledge still resided largely in gray literature; yet that didn't mean that the current state of technology didn't exist yet. As I said, I do realize the challenge posed in finding the balance on that. — ¾-10 18:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
|Material from the associated project or article page was split to Relationship of automation to unemployment. The page history of the associated project or article page now serves as the attribution history for part of the contents of that page.|
- Good job, Uwadb, thanks. I felt that the newly split article needed a "more lede-like" lede, so I began further development. Later, — ¾-10 00:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
This section has been marked for expansion since April. I think we need categories of applications, or we'd be left with a long untidy list. I've created a structure below, I'd love to hear your thoughts - feel free to edit and add sections. Not sure how to include Robotics, Control system. There seems to be a great deal of overlap between this article and Robotics, (ie Robotics#Autonomy levels) Uwadb (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Industrial safety system
- Pharmacy automation
- Agricultural automation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Automated highway systems (include existing content)
- Driverless car
- Intelligent transportation system
- Surveillance (include existing content)
(not sure about this section - rename?)
Needs a short history
Needs to have a short history section, starting with automatic machine tools and covering late 19th century automation like the automatic glass blowing machine and the 20th century technologies.Phmoreno (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I found a history of automation in the history of process control (Bennett 1993. I added Bennett 1993 to Further reading and will turn my notes into a history section as soon as I have time. The history will allow for cleaning up the rest of the article. I may begin with a cleanup of the lede.Phmoreno (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Anyone with a instrumentation or process control background willing to help?
For this rewrite I would welcome collaboration with someone with hands on knowledge of automation or with knowledge of control theory. Ideally this person would be an instrumentation and controls engineer. Please leave your username on talk my page. Thanks.Phmoreno (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Happy to help in that area. The topic of this article is sooooo broad (basically this could cover every every piece of modern equipment or technology that contains electronics) that I would not want to work at the head-spinning task of deciding what goes in the article or how to write it. But happy to help in en specific industrial automation topics. North8000 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Is it Really Automation?
So, I was looking to add clarity to a situation at work to distinguish between an "application" and a "service" in the context of refining our Service Oriented Architecture. Ended up at [Software] and was looking through "types" of applications.
One of the candidate distinctions was a "user interface." Most business applications have one; services do not.
But some applications do not have a UI -- anybody talk to the [] (engine control unit) on their automobile lately?
Problem is that the Application Software article completely ignores such process control, industrial control applications.
And the Talk section, there, has a piece by someone who thought that stuff belonged here.
I don't think so. The verb, To Automate, suggests that a person WAS doing something and NOW a machine doing it. While that is often true, in my context, that is not always true.
Yes, at one time there was a manual choke on a gasoline fueled engine and a person set the mixture to "rich" to start and then "lean" after the engine had warmed up. But this operation was automated in the 1940s, or so, when the automatic choke was developed.
Which brings me to my purpose for writing today. The further development of some process control capability does not, in my opinion, in and of itself qualify as automation.
Monitoring intake air temperature and exhaust oxygen content represented, to be sure, better process management but they do not, in my opinion, qualify as "automation" for the simple reason that this was not, previously, a person-performed task that is now machine-performed.
I know, my primary beef is with "Application Software" but I offer these comments to the folks here because I think the term "automation" it not appropriate to some of the ideas presented here.