Talk:Electrical engineering: Difference between revisions
Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
== Engineering Learning Wiki == |
== Engineering Learning Wiki == |
||
I just added a link to the Engineering Learning Wiki. To learn more, please link to this talk page / post.[[User_talk:Iterator12n#Engineering_Learning_Wiki]] |
I just added a link to the Engineering Learning Wiki (external links section). To learn more, please link to this talk page / post.[[User_talk:Iterator12n#Engineering_Learning_Wiki]] |
Revision as of 20:41, 5 November 2007
![]() | Technology Unassessed | ||||||
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Electronics FA‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | Electrical engineering is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 26, 2006. | |||||||||
|
Archives
- Archive 1, July('04)-Aug('05), <32kb
- Archive 2
- Archive 3
- Archive 4
- Archive 5, Sept('06)-Nov('06), 41kb
Practicing engineers
Hey if anyone wants to update this section the IEE has merged now to form the IET, has more members etc 220.233.25.44 12:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, anyone interested in starting an electrical engineering WikiProject, similar to the following ones:
![]() | This user is an electrical engineer. |
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics
with aims to improve the electrical engineering articles throughout Wikipedia, to have a central forum page for related discussions, to assign importance to different articles, to organize, etc.? According to Category:Wikipedian engineers, for example, there are 311 engineers in Wikipedia; I'm sure that many of these users are electrical engineers? I'll start a new category: Category:Wikipedian electrical engineers for the time being. If you are an electrical engineer, please add this category to your user page, or simply paste the userbox (above) to your user page, and it will categorize for you. Thanks and please leave comments. --Sadi Carnot 12:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think it would be inadvisable until the distintion between electrical engineering and electronic engineering is claerly defined. May I ask if you see a clear distinction at the moment? BTW have you noticed Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics ?--Light current 15:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, I didn't know about that project; but, nevertheless, maybe an actual engineering project page, with focus on the design and engineering of electrical equipment and components, may be in order in the future? As to distinction, in the US, electrical engineering (a more prestigious degree) is a more difficult subject than electronics engineering (a less prestigious degree); or from another perspective, I would gauge that electrical engineers are more design and theory focused, whereas electronics engineers are more application and hands-on focused. I guess we can let this query sit for a while to see what others think? --Sadi Carnot 16:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- No electronics engineering in Europe is just as professional but focusses on the lighter current aspects like comms, radio, computers etc, Whereas electrical eng is high voltage transmission, power, machines etc!If you have the time it would be good for you to read the talk between me and User:Cedars that you have just archived on this subject, and then look at the page to see how we have come to a compromise on it.--Light current 17:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- LC, make sure you do a spell-check on your comments. As to the archived material, yes I skimmed through that discussion, but it's not an argument I want to dig into. I've been involved in the physical chemistry vs. chemical physics as well as the statistical mechanics vs. statistical thermodynamics debates, they usually stale-mate with having separate articles. Also, Cedars seems to have quit editing. --Sadi Carnot 16:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I still fail to see what the big deal is... In my world, EE is very broad and cross-disciplinary (I'm a semiconductor devices "Electrical Engineer", and my work overlaps with physics, chemistry, material science, etc), but I understand that many people make a distinction between "electrical" and "electronics" engineering. I don't think drawing clear lines of distinction is necessary. Isn't it sufficient to simply note the differences in nomenclature and move on? On that note, I see little point in creating another wikiproject related to electromagnetism in general. Wikiprojects tend to be poorly supported anyway, and I think it would be best to lend support to the existing Electronics project rather than trying to create a new one. After all, what's in a name? That which we call an electron by any other word would carry the same elementary charge... -- mattb
@ 2007-01-20T18:22Z
- I still fail to see what the big deal is... In my world, EE is very broad and cross-disciplinary (I'm a semiconductor devices "Electrical Engineer", and my work overlaps with physics, chemistry, material science, etc), but I understand that many people make a distinction between "electrical" and "electronics" engineering. I don't think drawing clear lines of distinction is necessary. Isn't it sufficient to simply note the differences in nomenclature and move on? On that note, I see little point in creating another wikiproject related to electromagnetism in general. Wikiprojects tend to be poorly supported anyway, and I think it would be best to lend support to the existing Electronics project rather than trying to create a new one. After all, what's in a name? That which we call an electron by any other word would carry the same elementary charge... -- mattb
- Yeah but my bet is that you are either a US or Australian citizen!(who have differnt views on this subject) 8-)--Light current 21:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- U.S. How that is relevant, I still fail to see... Attempting to understand and tolerate other peoples' views should cross national boundaries. No offense to anybody intended, but I think that making a big stink about what you should be called is just pretentious and silly. I get called a physicist by some, and I can't tell you how many times people think that I'm an electrician, but I'm not going to make a big fuss about it. I'm not even arguing that there shouldn't be different articles about electrical and electronics engineering; I think there is more than sufficient content to merit having separate articles. I was just saying that I see little reason why there should be separate electrical/electronics engineering wikiproject. A decent electrical OR electronics engineer should be able to write encyclopedia-level coverage of most core EE topics. -- mattb
@ 2007-01-20T23:37Z
- U.S. How that is relevant, I still fail to see... Attempting to understand and tolerate other peoples' views should cross national boundaries. No offense to anybody intended, but I think that making a big stink about what you should be called is just pretentious and silly. I get called a physicist by some, and I can't tell you how many times people think that I'm an electrician, but I'm not going to make a big fuss about it. I'm not even arguing that there shouldn't be different articles about electrical and electronics engineering; I think there is more than sufficient content to merit having separate articles. I was just saying that I see little reason why there should be separate electrical/electronics engineering wikiproject. A decent electrical OR electronics engineer should be able to write encyclopedia-level coverage of most core EE topics. -- mattb
- Well with respect, it is relevant because the terminology is different between the North Americas & Australia and Europe. Europe tends to differentiate the heavy and light current aspects into electrical and electronics eng respectively. So we must aim for a world wide view if we are to create an Electrical eng project.--Light current 00:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I can accept that, but my original assertion stands; I don't see any particular utility in having separate electronic/electrical Wikiprojects, if only from a logistics and support standpoint. Then again, I can't say I have actively participated in the existing project, so take my opinions for whatever they are worth. -- mattb
@ 2007-01-21T03:42Z
- OK lets propose to broaden the scope of the Electronics project ot include EE! 8-) Wouild you like tro propose that on the project page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Light current (talk • contribs) 03:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
- Why not... I need something on wikipedia to devote my energies to after becoming disenchanted with the whole "writing featured articles" concept. -- mattb
@ 2007-01-21T03:49Z
- Why not... I need something on wikipedia to devote my energies to after becoming disenchanted with the whole "writing featured articles" concept. -- mattb
" No offense to anybody intended, but I think that making a big stink about what you should be called is just pretentious and silly."
If I called myself something I'm not it would be untrue and misleading. If the category naming is sorted I could add myself to it, but not as it stands, I'm not a power plant engineer.
I don't see how the distinction is silly, they are 2 separate things. US terminology is not always universal. Tabby 23:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Now that I see that there is an Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics project page, I would suggest that that project page be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics and Electrical Engineering just as has been done at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, which encompasses four different but related disciplines. In this manner we can begin to establish different "engineering" Wikiprojects. --Sadi Carnot 16:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- You must first canvass the views of all WikiProject Electronics members. (Or at least let them know this is being proposed) by leaving a message on their talk pages. --Light current 21:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I have already left comment on the three related talk pages. --Sadi Carnot 01:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think that is sufficient? For example, I only noticed this because it was on this page.--Light current 14:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Let's give it a month or two to see what happens. --Sadi Carnot 05:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- The name is too long. I suggest simply Wikipedia:WikiProject Electrical Engineering. --Smack (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I would agree, but you'll probably find that our European friends won't be so amiable to the idea. :) -- mattb
@ 2007-01-28T22:58Z
- I would agree, but you'll probably find that our European friends won't be so amiable to the idea. :) -- mattb
- Yes, I think that by having the longer name we won’t alienate anyone. --Sadi Carnot 01:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes we must have the longer name to include a world wide view on this important subject.--Light current 02:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do the Europeans not use the term 'electrical engineering'? --Smack (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- In uk it is used to denote the heavier aspects such as power generation, transmission, electrical plant etc. The article itself mentions the difference in terminolgy over the world.--Light current 08:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- What about "WikiProject Electronics and EE"? --Smack (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- What about Wikiproject: Electrical and Electronic Engineering (E&EE for short)?--Light current 22:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- The acronym is nice, although it applies just as well to the title as first proposed. I'm not sure I like your revised title, though. --Smack (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- What about Wikiproject: Electrical and Electronic Engineering (E&EE for short)?--Light current 22:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- What about "WikiProject Electronics and EE"? --Smack (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
"Responsible for..."
I have toned down the assertion that EEs are "responsible for..." certain technologies, including the GPS. Despite what the BLS reference says, I think it's something of a reach to claim that EE's are responsible for the GPS. Certainly there are EE aspects of GPS (the RF transmission and signal propagation, user segment receiver design, satellite onboard computers, etc.) But there are equally critical aspects which are not EE (e.g. the design and replenishment of the constellation, the orbit determination system, the onboard clocks, etc.[1]) Not surprisingly, of the two people generally credited with doing the most to bring the GPS into being, one (Ivan Getting) is an EE (although educated as a physicist), and the other (Bradford Parkinson) is an aerospace engineer.
If someone wants to rewrite the section to state that "According to the BLS, EEs are responsible for...", I won't object. But to flatly assert that EEs are responsible for the GPS is incorrect. --Allan McInnes (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have no problem with the wording change. I just dislike tags in the main article and I think Wikipedia is developing a culture of tagging things but not a culture of fixing things. That said I think my initial reaction to the situation was probably an overreaction. Peace man. Cedars 06:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
political approach
The article is too much fixed on political backgrounds. That means: near only the american pioneers are illustrated and listed. Other important pioneer work and important persons like Alessandro Volta or André Marie Ampère are NOT listed. They should be listed under the main article Electrical engineering, at least in one sentence. Today's stand of technics are based on them.
Nothing against america or something like that. Just to remind on the other serious and important persons.
Just want to know, how is your opinion about that?
greetz SB
17.08.2007 07:26h GMT+1:00
WRONG DISTICTION.
"The term electrical engineering may or may not encompass electronic engineering. Where a distinction is made, electrical engineering is considered to deal with the problems associated with large-scale electrical systems such as power transmission and motor control, whereas electronic engineering deals with the study of small-scale electronic systems including computers and integrated circuits.[1] Another way of looking at the distinction is that electrical engineers are usually concerned with using electricity to transmit energy, while electronics engineers are concerned with using electricity to transmit information."
Electrical Engineers use electricity to transmit information as well (Satellite Communications, RF, Microwaves).
Electronics Engineers also use electricity to transmit energy (you need energy to operate electronic circuits)
The article should not go in details about that. The distiction between the two is that "Electrical Engineers deal with large signals, that is, large amounts of currents and voltages. Electronics Engineers deal with small signals, that is, small amounts-in the order of milli-volts, or milli-amps)
Teaching
"Perhaps the most important technical skills for electrical engineers are reflected in university programs, which emphasize strong numerical skills, computer literacy and the ability to understand the technical language and concepts that relate to electrical engineering."
Suggest a reword to reflect the reality that universities _seek to_ teach the most important stuff, since whether they succeed or not is another matter. To assume they do would be significantly mistaken IME. Tabby 23:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Engineering Learning Wiki
I just added a link to the Engineering Learning Wiki (external links section). To learn more, please link to this talk page / post.User_talk:Iterator12n#Engineering_Learning_Wiki