Talk:Engineering

Arbitrary section heading to get unsectioned stuff below the TOC

Technology is the collection of state-of-the-art- techniques, knowledge etc on a certain subject.

• It's not just the state-of-the-art techniques, but all the techniques. When it first happened the invention of the wheel became a technology, and it still is.

Science is the (planned and unplanned) unbound exploration of knowledge about a specific subject under the axioms accepted in scientific community (e.g. show something repeatedly)

Engineering is the proper application of technology.

• Is "proper" essential to the definition?

There is a significant difference in the understanding and usage of the word engineer and Ingenieur.

the explanaition: Engineering is the proper application of technology. Is adequate for its current usage in English, as it is truly understood in describing a professionial capable of applying existing knowledge in technical fields and actually executing the task. It is expected of an engineer to understand a drawing, but not to make one to describe something new.

An Ingenieur understands his profession as applying existing knowledge or finding new knowledge in technical fields in new (novel), often non-obvious (the core requisite for a patent) ways, using drawings to communicate these new ways without depending on language. This automatically includes Architecture. The history of Ingenieur is based on core inventions like wheel, lever and pulley leading to building of fortresses already in prehistoric times, followed by the building of pyramids and the modern world. An Ingenieur should be able to, but usually does not execute the task(s).

A common language is essential for communication and led to latin being taught at universities since the first one in Bologna in 1088. Without a common laguage exchange and discussion of new ways is not possible. Drawings of spears launched via a Throw Stick (Wurfstock [German], Woomera [Aboriginal], Pe [Phönizisch]later Pi [Greek] ) a novel step to encrease speed and thereby distance can be seen on prehistoric drawings.

The introduction of a new title intended for world wide usage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Engineer is a step to unravel/address this difference in understanding. Walter Hartmann 23:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I always liked this informal definition: Once scientists discover the principles by which a bridge can be made, anybody can make bridge that will hold 100 tons. It takes a good engineer to make a bridge that will hold 100 tons, but that won't hold 110. --LDC

• With such a low tolerance above specifications you may be building another Galloping Gertie of Tacoma Narrows.

I thought civil engineers always used a safety factor of at least ten times!

• No, safety factors are much lower than that in general, because the situation is well understood, and often there are mutliple safety factors for different things which makes it larger. Safety factors are only high if the the situation is less predictable. John 08:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

---

It seems to me that this entry needs a lot more work. I'll try revising it later, but if someone wanted to take a look at it now... -- ansible

---

Definition of engineering

This article contains many factual errors but most significantly it opens with the following statement:

Engineering is the application of scientific and technical knowledge to solve human problems.

This is misleading, even meaningless, for the following reasons:

1. It fails to distinguish engineering from similar fields. Medicine, for example, could equally well be described as "the application of scientific and technical knowledge to solve human problems".
2. It (and the following sentence) fails to identify the fundamental characteristic of engineering, design, that distinguishes engineering from fields like medicine. Such an inclusion needs to be qualified by the types things created by engineers to distinguish it from, say, architecture or wall paper design.
3. The phrase "to solve human problems" is too vague also. I might have a problem of knowing what shoes to wear. Engineering is not likely to help solve it.
4. It implies a dependence on science. Systematic science based engineering as a discipline is only about 200 years old (originating in institutions such as the École Polytechnique) and the underlying sciences originated in the seventeenth century (for example in Galileo’s Two New Sciences). For this reason the definition effectively rules out what can justifiably be described as engineering such as ancient road, bridges and irrigation systems. If we include naval architecture as an engineering disciple it also rules out things like Greek triremes. In fact the Romans demonstrate that you can take both science and mathematics out and still get engineering but if you take the creativity out you are likely to get nothing.

Unless someone can suggest how to modify this to address these deficiencies I propose replacing the definition with one that recognizes design, does not imply dependence on science or mathematics and which identifies engineering with its products. IanWills 00:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)IanWills

I concur with that Ian. The current version, Engineering is the design, analysis, and/or construction of works for practical purposes. is a little better, but still fails to get it. Any fool can "design ... and ... construct" something, but that doesn't make it engineering.

What is missing? Time. Cost. Reliability. Those have been the fundamental tennets of engineering for thousands of years. It's interesting that the profession doesn't have an accepted universal definition. The one now quoted from the US ECPD is absurdly dense and fails several of your tests.

I'd make it something like:

Engineering is the design, analysis or construction of works for practical purposes - promptly, affordably, and with justifiable confidence.

Without those riders the opening gambit misses the mark. --Gergyl 07:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with the sentiment, your suggestion, like every previous definition in that has led this article, suffers from a lack of citation. Not to mention the fact that many "engineering" projects are completed neither promptly, nor affordably :-)

In What Engineers Know and How They Know It, Walter Vincenti characterizes engineering in the following way:

"Engineering refers to the practice of organizing the design and construction [and, I would add, operation](sic) of any artifice which transforms the physical world around us to meet some recognized need."

The quoted ECPD definition that follows the lead sentence of the article expresses similar ideas. Perhaps one or both of these two definitions could be used as the basis for a revised lead sentence. --Allan McInnes (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So if a handyman builds a barbie in his back-yard, that is engineering? Don't think so... Your impeccably attributed "definitions" simply fail - they amount to descriptions, not definitions. And the throw-away line about time and cost over-runs is maybe just a little self-defeating? Sure, over-runs on some projects are a fact of life. So we agree, then, that these are matters of relevance to engineering? Central relevance, perhaps?--Gergyl 09:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And if the same handyman constructed his BBQ "promptly, affordably, and with justifiable confidence" that would suddenly make it engineering? Perhaps if he had "organized the designed and construction" to achieve those ends. But not if promptness and affordability happened by luck (justifiable confidence of course depends on what the requirements for the BBQ actually are, and thus what kind of confidence is required). Less facetiously, things like promptness and affordability are considerations for some engineering projects, but not all (there's a reason that "cost as an independent variable" was considered an amazing new concept in some circles of the DoD). When they are a concern, it is the "practice of organizing the design and construction" that allows promptness (assuming that means "meeting the schedule") and affordability to be achieved.

As for whether or not my "impeccably attributed "definitions" simply fail", the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I'm quite prepared to admit that I'm not 100% happy with either of the definitions. But that doesn't mean I get to replace them with a definition that I've come up with myself. If you can find a better (verifiable) definition, then by all means, let's add it to the article. But it really isn't helpful to say "the current definition fails" without providing an alternative that we can actually use.

--Allan McInnes (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps wikipedia needs an information engineer to deal with this subject.

---

It seems to me that this is a cheap oppertunity for so called scientists to gang on engineers. To those who actually are interested in learning the difference between the two schools of thought, you will find that in the real world they are much more closely related than the people here are willing to admit. I would go so far as to say that there is a "peanut butter and jelly" relationship between them.

Science is generally the abstraction of reality, broken out into specific namespaces and processes for the purpose of describing and understanding the universe. Engineering is generally the application of science to make something useful, or solve real-world problems. Engineering is the "hardware" that makes the software (science) actually do something. It is the actual action that follows the dream from the night before. For without the dream, one may not have acted. But without the action, the dream did not find fruition. Peanut butter and jelly.

So as much as these "scientists" rag on the engineers, the stunning reality is that not everybody can get a job as a scientist. And many graduate college to become engineers.. After all, "applied knowledge" needs application or we would never experience progress. The economy really dictates the future for many of us. So when you are hungry looking for a job as a scientist somewhere, you may find that it is not so bad to become an engineer instead. This way, you may actually get things done ;)

- Aperry

---

I may be blinded by scientists' prejudices on engineering, but is it really appropriate or accurate to describe the work of an engineer as application of the scientific method?!

• Well, in a broad sense, yes, I think so. However one has to be brutally honest to do so, and admit that an engineer assumes a certain fixed price per human life when setting safety standards, i.e. the "will hold 100 tons but will not hold 110", "recall the Pinto or not", etc. They will now be more likely to do that in skyscrapers after 9/11. The scientific method in this case is the correlation data that tells you what tolerances you're working with, and each artifact, e.g. bridge, or airplane, you build, is like an experiment. If and when it falls down, you learn something. The forensics are most obvious in air crashes... it's the full scientific method applied to that case and generalized to all aircraft of that model, pilots and mechanics of that airline, etc., and whatever they learn goes back into the building and maintenance process. That's the tightest engineering loop you're likely to see... except in the military where they do the same thing but put the price of the training of the crew and some nominal compensation (pensions paid to families) into the equation. So, more important than the method is the means of risk assessment...
• note also that software engineering "is" engineering in the sense of the scientific method and each service, i.e. online service whether processor is local or not, being an experiment, and "isn't" engineering in the sense of direct risk of bodily harm to the user, except in military applications or certain extreme civilian emergency response situations where life and death decisions are made by the software itself and the human must trust it completely... which ain't often.

• • According to American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE), software engineering/computer science is considered as an engineering field. In fact, it is the third largest field by number of graduates, after mechanical and electrical. Engineering statistics 2003. --JamesTseng 16:34, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Nav point #1

• • • What a bullshit! I am a computer science researcher and I never considered myself an engineer. Moreover, it is blasphemy to call these people and these people engineers. Software engineering, as practical application of computer science, could perhaps be considered an engineering field (though it's a moot point), but computer science itself (???) - give me a break. I am not an American and I don't give a damn what ASEE says - I'd rather rely on opinion of a professional computing society like ACM. - 195.252.80.127, Mar 13, 2005 (GMT)

Agree. They all look like mathematicians who dont know one end of a 'driver from the other to me. BTW thers nothing wrong in that!.--Light current 23:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Any interest in articles about the History of Engineering? What I see this covering would include:

• Roman Engineering: the aqueducts, roads, sewer systems, the true or keystone arch.

• Cathedral construction

• The History of Fortifications

• Pointers to articles on (e.g.) Vitruvius, Frontinus, Leonardo da Vinci, et cetra

• The making of Canals (e.g., Roman, English, Eire Canal & Panama Canal)

Just compiling this list, & testing the proposed links show some areas that need attention. -- llywrch 01:14 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)

---

I think a historical overview of engineering technology would be excellent. More detailed lengthy chapters could be spun off to articles as appropriate. user:mirwin

---

Regarding the first sentence: "Engineering provides the plans to (re)produce, process, or control artifacts" However, engingeering does not necessarily deal with artifacts, it can deal with aspects of the natural world that would exist even if there were no humans. For example, you can engineer a systems to locate, catch and process fish from the sea. These fish, especially before being caught, aren't artifacts. So, I think the definition that engineering deals with artifacts is too restrictive. User:Ike9898

Agreed. I widened the definition slightly. I still don't like it, though. If I were starting from nothing, I would say something like "Engineering is the application of scientific knowledge and practical experience to the production or processing of useful objects." I put in the word "useful" to exclude artistic creation. Also, I prefer definitions that begin "X is..." rather than "X provides..." -- Heron

---

I made some significant changes to the page, many based on 'talk-page' comments. I also added a bit about engineering as a profession and a little about margins of error. Please review and comment User:Ike9898

---

Engineers apply integration of thought to specific application or purpose. As we go deeper into this new era of High Technology, There is going to be a merging of Engineering, Architecture and Information Science and the interpretive lens of Engineering is going to lead the way.

A Design Engineer alway integrates to application or purpose. And when he [she] interprets, he always interprets every process or component as an interdependency of the integrated whole.

Engineering in the past has alway applied Science. Engineering today is about to reinterpret Science. The biosphere through the lens of a design engineer is "Context Driven Dynamic Architecture integrated to Automation." Our viewing lens for interpreting is entering the next level of Advanced Logic >"Context Driven Dynamic Architecture" and it will take the engineer to lead the way. His [her] interpretive lens is imperative. That interpretive lens will seemlessly integrate Physical Chemistry, Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry. Biology as the "logical study of living things" will enter a whole realm of understanding.

Through the lens of an engineer, all integrations are context driven > integration of thought to application or purpose. The context of the integration is embedded in the integration's interdependencies and requirements that have to be satisfied to enable the integration's application or purpose.

That definition brings a new term to the floor > "threshold enabled." A lot of processes of an integration don't exist until specific interdependencies are satisfied to enable them.

The context of a computing system is much more than the Operating System. In PCs, it is only because Intel and Microsoft pre-integrated the hardware and the software that makes the operating system useable.

The lens of engineering is about to give a whole new meaning to the term "Analytic Science." This is a wonderful time in which to be alive! All other generations were searching for what we are about to extract > the context of the integrated whole and the True Narrative! The lens of Engineering is going to lead the way. Have a great day!

---

Its history and its etymology

Rogper, we can't have to different etymologies and claim that they are both correct. As proof of the one currently in the text,

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

Middle English enginour, from Old French engigneor, from
Medieval Latin ingenitor, contriver, from ingenire, to
contrive, from Latin ingenium, ability. 

If you have a source for yours, we can list them both with a note to say that they are alternatives. Rmhermen 17:22, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I have sources. I will get better one that I can referate to, right now it has only been said by one. When I have time, I will go to the library and look up this issue. Anyway, its origin is from 'encignerius', related to 'ingignerius'. Maybee there is some inter-connection between the words, I don't know. It is known to have been used in 1196 for the meaning building contractor of war. The Swedish national encyklopedia [1] says exactly the same as your America Heritage Dictionary, but I think they have wrong. :-) Otherwise I have wrong. :-( // Rogper 17:39, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Engineer is one of those words that have evolved along several parallel paths. All versions start with the Latin ingenium (skill). The OED believes that the main path was:

ingenium -> Old French engigneor (contriver, advisor) -> Middle English engyneour -> 16C enginer/inginer -> 17C engineer/ingineer,

which is similar to the American Heritage version. The OED notes an alternative route:

ingenium -> Old French engin (skill or machine) -> English engine -> 16C enginer/inginer -> 17C engineer/ingineer.

Eric Partridge (in Origins) gives precedence to the second route. A third route, mentioned by the OED as an influence on the first two, but not the main origin, is

ingenium -> *ingeniarius -> Old French engignier -> English engineer.

This appears to be Rogper's version. The OED has a long and complex article on this word, so it's not surprising that there are Wikipedians with differing views. -- Heron

I've probably wrong. But note that it seems to be some 500 year gap between it was first used and when it is etablished in non-Italian countries, if I'm having right. Wonder how people like those editors in OED and Am. Hert. construct a word's etymology. SAOB (the 'Swedish OED') notes in its articles when the word was first used in written form. Anyway it was not used before 17C in Sweden, since there was a "dude" (called Cristopher Polhem a.k.a. 'the (Swedish) father of mechanics' ) that tried to start 'Laboratorium mechanicum'; so in a sense, in contradiction to the Am. Herit. and honoring the 'Patridge-path'.Anyway, I'm not very sure so I got to check before doing anything else. // Rogper 21:58, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

I suppose that it wouldn't hurt to mention a couple insightful jokes on engineers:

• To an optimist the glass is half full. To a pessimist the glass is half empty. To an engineer the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

• A priest, a doctor, and an engineer were playing golf one day, but they were stuck behind this group of very slow-moving golfers that just couldn't seem to hit the holes. They asked the course owner, who knew them, what the deal was with those folks. He said, "Those are blind war veterans. We let them play here for free whenever they want." The priest said, "Oh, I will pray for them!" The doctor said, "I hope medical science can one day help them." The engineer said, "Why can't they play at night?"

• There was an engineer who had an exceptional gift for fixing all things mechanical. After serving his company loyally for over 30 years, he happily retired. Several years later the company contacted him regarding a seemingly impossible problem they were having with one of their multi-million-dollar machines.

They had tried everything and everyone else to get the machine fixed, but to no avail. In desperation, they called on the retired engineer who had solved so many of their problems in the past.

The engineer reluctantly took the challenge. He spent a day studying the huge machine. At the end of the day, he marked a small "x" in chalk on a particular component of the machine and proudly stated, "This is where your problem is." The part was replaced and the machine worked perfectly again.

The company received a bill for $50,000 from the engineer for his service. They demanded an itemized accounting of his charges.

The engineer responded briefly:

One chalk mark ................. $1

Knowing where to put it ... $49,999

Feel free to delete this if you deem it clutter. - "Nocturnal"

major branches

I removed Mechatronics, Petroleum Engineering and Structural Engineering as being not major branches. Mechatronics is a subbranch of both electrical and mechanical, structural is a subbranch of civil, and petroleum is a minor branch. Theon 15:21, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Theon, I would like to add and remove some engineering fields, judging from the membership of their respective professional associations. On the other hand, removal of above engineering fields is not a discrimination against them, but rather, they do not hold substantial representation of engineers. --JamesTseng 23:45, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

• • I updated the list after checking American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) profiles. Official site. Engineering statistics 2003. --JamesTseng 23:59, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

I have replaced the existing list, which required a certain amount of inference from the ASEE reference (and could thus be interpreted as original research), with a list that is based on a National Society of Professional Engineers reference which explicitly identifies its list as the "major branches of engineering". --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Expanded this with some comments on the peculiar characteristics of engineering research; engineering is more than simply the application of science to practical means. The whole entry could possibly do with a re-write, as it's a bit clunky, no doublt due to people like me coming and adding bits piecemeal... Jakob 21:54, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Examples of Engineers in Cultural Presence -- Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader has engineering background? I looked up Princeton's web site, it says that Nader received A.B. in Politics and Economics in 1955. After his undergraduate education, he moved on to Harvard Law School. Student Body Politics --JamesTseng 16:29, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Gone. Vsmith 12:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whoops. I did that a while ago. My source was bad.

To make up for it, I'm adding two people who verifiably started out as engineers.

Nuclear Physicist Edward Teller and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg --Lent 06:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Geomatics Engineering

I put Geomatics Engineering back up in place of "engineering management". I mean come on, what the hell is that? Either you're an engineer or not.

• Apparently, Geomatics Engineering is not a "top 15" engineering discipline. How about change the heading to "top 14" and remove GE? Also, I put "engineering" with "material science", otherwise it wouldn't be engineering. --JM Robert 06:17, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

---

Iron Ring

I'm not a canadian and so that probably explains why I never heard of the Iron Ring. Anyone care to decide if a link to ironring.ca (posted by an anonymous) is relevant? Cburnett 02:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've had look at the two Engineering Ring links, and I would get rid of this one: The orgin of then Engineer's Ring, and possibly keep the other one, but I'd prefer to see it as a link next to the paragraph about the ring. --John 11:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In Canada, this iron ring is an important symbol of Engineering. In Quebec, there is even this strange rumor that the rings are made from piece of a bridge that felt into the St-lawrence river. It's just a rumor but it's a perfect exemple of what the ring represents. -- Sepper 23:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My opinion: this Iron Ring thing should be launched. 29 Dec 2005

Engineering vs. Science

When my daughter was between her 3rd & 4th year in high school she attended a week long summer institute in science & engineering. On the first day the students were asked if they knew the difference between science & engineering and she raised her hand and answered, "Engineers are interested in how high and steep you can pile dirt and scientists are interested in what the dirt is made of." My daughter is now working on a PhD in geophysics at MIT. Jay Gregg 22:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Good for her. How is this relevant? My comment on this section: It claims science and engineering are two separate things, yet Applied Science claims to be synonomous to engineering suggesting that engineering is a type of science. Not very consistent. Any suggestions out there? [this edit by 24.170.192.184 Steven McCrary 23:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)]

Greetings all. Engineering is not merely the application of science, pure or not, nor is it even predominately the application of science. Engineering is not a part of science; engineering is a discipline of technology (not science), it existed prior to science, and exists separately from science. Engineering applies technical knowledge to solve human problems, including science, technology, mathematics, and practical experience. To say that engineering is the application of pure science is incorrect. I have reverted those edits that make that statement. Steven McCrary 22:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I like to look at at this way: the goal of engineering is synthesis, while the goal of science is analysis (bumper sticker version: scientists want to understand the world, engineers want to change the world). Of course, each discipline uses some of elements of both analysis and synthesis to accomplish its goals. In fact, that's one of the hallmarks of professional engineering - synthesis without analysis is basically just tinkering. But science and engineering are fundamentally different disciplines with fundamentally different goals. The engineer, as you rightly point out, will use the tools of science, but also a lot of other tools (including previous experience) to accomplish his job. It's a pragmatic approach to problem solving. --Allan McInnes 15:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the engineer attempts to solve a problem in order to provide a usable solution, within constraints (such as cost— which is where "software engineering" becomes almost an oxymoron, since software types seem never to care about cost). The scientist is looking to advance knowledge (and recognizes no constraints), and is unconcerned with whether the solution is usable or not. The applied scientist does seek usable solutions to generally practical problems, but disregards constraints. He tends to be interested in advancing the state of the (engineering) art. ⇒ _normxxx| ^talk ⇒ email 03:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

New Engineering Wiki

Engineering Wiki is a wiki entirely dedicated to collecting information about Engineering. I invite you to join this wiki. [this edit by 219.65.122.162 Steven McCrary 23:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)]

Top 15?

• On what basis is it Top 15 Branches,i hope its not a POV.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.18.157 (talk • contribs) .

DesignBreak.org

An anonymous user keeps adding links to designbreak.org to the "external links" section of this article. I have removed these links twice, because I consider them linkspam. Designbreak.org is asserted to be "A new open design initiative which advocates for open designers, and their designs." Based on that assertion, I'm prepared to concede that designbreak.org might be a relevant external link for the Open design article (where I notice it is also listed), but it does not seem particularly relevant to an article on engineering as a whole. If there's some reason why designbreak.org should be listed in the external links of this article, please outline that reason here, instead of continuing to add the designbreak.org link without justification. Thanks. --Allan McInnes (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent Overlooked Vandalism

Please do not get so wrapped up in editing (or counter-editing) that you overlook recent vandalism, such as that which I just reverted from several days ago.

⇒ _normxxx| ^talk ⇒ email 02:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Definition of engineering

This article contains a number of factual errors. Most significantly it opens with the following misleading, even meaningless, statement:

Engineering is the application of scientific and technical knowledge to solve human problems.

It is an unsatisfactory definition the following reasons:

1. It fails to distinguish engineering from similar fields. Medicine, for example, could equally well be described as "the application of scientific and technical knowledge to solve human problems".
2. The phrase "to solve human problems" is too vague also. I might have a problem of knowing what shoes to wear. Engineering is not likely to help solve it.
3. It implies a dependence on science. Systematic science based engineering as a discipline is only about 200 years old (originating in institutions such as the École Polytechnique) and the underlying sciences originated in the seventeenth century (for example in Galileo’s Two New Sciences). For this reason the definition effectively rules out creations that can justifiably be described as engineering such as ancient roads, bridges and irrigation systems. If we include naval architecture as an engineering disciple it also rules out things like Greek triremes. In fact the Romans demonstrate that you can take both science and mathematics out and still get engineering but if you take the design and creativity out you are likely to get nothing.

Unless someone can suggest how to modify the definition to address these deficiencies I propose replacing the definition with one that recognizes design, which identifies engineering with its products and does not imply dependence on science or mathematics. IanWills 00:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)IanWills

I wholeheartedly agree with this comment, especially point #3. The current opening definition fails for being long and unseemly. It seems that the definition was modified to be too specific. Of course, you need to differentiate between Engineering and medicine, but the fact is, you don't need to expect to fit that precise differentiation into a single sentence. What is engineering? Engineering is design, analysis, and/or construction for practical purposes. And that's really it. Engineering is a really broad term that can be applied in many contexts and situations. As you said in point #3, it is questionable whether or not science can be integrated into the definition, because in a definitive sense, engineering precluded science. Points #1 and #2 can be distinguished by the emphasis on design, analysis, and construction, which are really what illuminate and distinguish the heart of engineering practice. This is my input and I am now making the change. Comments welcome. Mrorvig UTexas Aerospace Engineering 05:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Mordechai Rorvig

See also

The first link (automotive engineering) under 'see also' links back to this page... methinks that should be fixed?

Removed. Vsmith 22:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Engineering by Country

Hey I suggest for this article to add a section with a list of countries, which those link to articles detailing info about engineers and their invents on each country. All this 'cause there are such many invents developed through history and engineers on all countries. This should give a very strict order to engineering related articles. --Walter Humala 01:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

For discussion of the recently proposed merge of this article and Engineer, please see Talk:Engineer#Merge?. Thanks. --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Major Branches" section

I've just reverted changes to the "Major Branches" section of the article. In answer to the question included in the article comments about why the list shouldn't be longer, I see two reasons:

1. A complete list of all branches of engineering would completely dominate the article, which isn't particularly good style. Besides, the Fields of engineering article already provides the same information, and is already included as a {{main}} link. I see no reason to duplicate the same information here.
2. The current list is referenced and verifiable, which is preferable from a policy point of view.

--Allan McInnes (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fields of engineering merge proposal

Please see the discussion at Talk:Fields of engineering --Allan McInnes (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI -- problem solved (likely ...). Both merger proposals deleted. Many links between the articles added to help readers navigate them. FactsAndFigures 16:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Cultural presense" section

The last sentence of this section, "While it appears Engineers still only need..." is opinion, and perhaps factually incorrect as well. Hypothetically speaking, a young, recent engineering graduate could receive respect from the public. This sentence seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Hildenja 06:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed that sentence. The rest of the section could use a bit of a cleanup too... --Allan McInnes (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"The" engineering design process?

I'm posting the question on this talk page because I'm not an engineer. There is a page that suggest by it's very title that there is only one engineering design process. That seems a little odd. The page is The engineering design process. Is this accurate? Oicumayberight 00:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There isn't really a single design process in the sense that every engineer follows exactly the same steps to a design. And there are certainly variations in the design process across discipline and industry. That said, in the abstract there is a common approach that might be referred to as the "engineering design process" (although a good argument can be made that it is more generally the "problem solving process" - for example, note the similarity with these process steps). A quick Googling shows several other websites that describe an engineering design process that is roughly the same as that described in the article you're concerned about, e.g here, here, or here. However, note that each process description, while describing essentially the same process, breaks down the steps of the "design process" in slightly different ways. My concerns with The engineering design process article are thus threefold:

1. It seems under-referenced, and presents only a single way of dividing up the design process when in fact there isn't a single agreed way to define the process steps
2. The tone of the article is not particularly encyclopedic, and it borders on a how-to guide at times
3. It's not clear to me that "the engineering design process" warrants a separate encyclopedia article, since there isn't much that's engineering-specific about it - the steps presented in the article are fairly generic problem-solving process steps, or alternatively represent a generic design process.

--Allan McInnes (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the reference article is not very useful as is, but could be marginally useful with some modifications: 1) strangely, there is not mention of the DESIGN of the product in the 10-step process - hard to engineer a product without doing that! 2) There should be a disclaimer at the start of the article that what follows is just one template or example, that that there is no one generic engineering design process.

Better though to have the referenced article, if there is to be one, drastically rewritten. This topic is one of major importance to engineering organizations, and many texts and papers have been written about it. The reviewer who noticed this, even as a non-engineer, has done a service by noticing this disparity. But these comments should be transfered over to the referenced article to be effective.

Tony 15:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Computer Use section

1. The statement "The application of computers in the area of engineering of goods is known as Product Lifecycle Management (PLM)" is incorrect. PLM is just one, rather minor, application of computers to engineering (see PLM page in Wikipedia).

A more pertinent area of description would be Computer Aided Engineering (CAE), a set of computer programs and systems oriented to carrying out engineering calculation, analysis, and visualization to enhance an engineer's capabilities, really an extension of CAD. PLM is really only a repository and manager for the data created by CAD and CAE programs.

2. The sentence: "Electronics engineers make use of a variety of circuit schematics software to aid in the creation of circuit designs that perform an electronic task when used for a printed circuit board (PCB) or a computer chip" could use additional commentary:

a) Software is not only oriented to circuit schematics for PCB and IC (Integrated Circuit) design, but also to layout software for PCBs and ICs. Such software is as important as circuit design.

b) It should be pointed out that today's ICs are so complex (e.g. up to 1 billion transistors) that manual circuit design and layout is impractical if not impossible. This is also true for complex PCBs.

Tony 15:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually CAE (or CAx) is a group of applications under the topic of PLM. Do not get PLM confused with PDM (also part of PLM) which manages data. PLM involves creation as well as management of product data. Freeformer 17:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It might help to have an explanation of this fact in the article (I'd never heard it before, and I've worked as an engineer in several different industries for about a decade now). A reference or two would also be nice :-) --Allan McInnes (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with medicine

I have several objections to the section comparing medicine and engineering (which I see has been reinserted into the article). My objections are as follows:

1. The only reference provided for most of the material is a Google Cache(!) of the abstract for a course at CU-Boulder. I don't think this is a particularly good reference (I'd rather see a journal article or textbook cited), and am skeptical that it's really adequate to provide verifiability.
2. The section in question discusses parallels between mechanisms and the human body, and uses that to infer parallels between medicine and engineering. However, none of the provided references establish "significant parallels" between engineering and medicine. All any of them do is establish certain parallels between aspects of the human body (viewed as a system), and systems that are engineered. To infer from those parallels that engineering and medicine as disciplines also share parallels is (IMHO)

(a) Original research (since none of the provided references support the claim directly)

(b) Something of a leap, since the goal of engineering is (broadly speaking) the design of new artifacts, while the goal of medicine is (broadly speaking) the maintenance of existing artifacts (i.e. human bodies). The only place where there's real overlap in goals is, of course, in biomedical engineering. But simply because there is some small area of overlap doesn't mean that the fields have "significant parallels", as the section in question claims. One might as well claim that there are "significant parallels" between medicine and fine art, because plastic surgery shares some small overlap with sculpting.

I'll wait a few days to see if anyone is willing to address these objections, after which (if the objections remain unaddressed), I will remove the medicine/engineering comparison from the article. --Allan McInnes (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally see strong resemblance between medical doctors and engineers:

1. They both receive high-degree education and extensive training.
2. They both generally feel very well about themselves.
3. They both have subordinates to push around (nurses and technicians).

However, since all this is hardly verifiable or documented, I agree with Allan McInnes that this section should be removed. Michagal 07:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What significant parallels do we need? The Brain uses electrical pulses (Electrical Engineering), Muscles are electromechanical transducers, The Body has a skeletal structure so do Robots (Robotics Engineering) (Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, (Civil Engineering: structures)) etc.), Biological nerve impulses are chemical in nature (Chemical Engineering) etc. I think we may have better tasks to do than argue the obvious. Here we have the United Nations of Engineering applying to medical parallels and you see no connection? We do not need references for these obvious statements. Dr.K. 14:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In computer engineering we have parallel processors trying to emulate biological neural networks. In Controls Engineering we useFuzzy Logic inspired by Human Logic etc. Need I say more? Dr.K. 14:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The question at hand is not whether human body resembles a machine, but does engineering resembles medical science. Do engineers use similar tools, do they go through similar training, do they thing alike? From my brief acquaintance with medical doctors, they do not. There is a reference to an article, however questionable, that brings similarities between engineering and art. Do you have similar article that supports your point of view? Respectfully Michagal 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Great questions. I'll try to answer all and hopefully be brief at that too. First I never said that doctors and engineers have identical functions. Anyone that ever went to an engineer for a drug prescription knows that this simply is not true. I only claimed that there are parallels between Medicine and Engineering. In day to day applications you'll never mistake a doctor for an engineer and vice versa. But in the cutting edge of Medicine and Engineering you might. Let's take Dr. Jarvik for example the inventor and developer of the Jarvikheart. When he designed his remarkable invention was he an engineer or a doctor? You see Engineering is all about problem solving and systems modeling. Designing a building, a car or an artificial heart the Engineer must first model the system using appropriate equations, assumptions and design parameters. Did Dr. Jarvik know about turbulence of the blood in the heart? You bet he did. Do engineers encounter turbulence in helicopter, aircraft, submarine design? You bet they do. Are these parallel concepts? I think they are. I could go on and on about robotic surgery, electrical signal processing, imaging technologies but I promised I was going to be brief. Well ok. a final example. Medicine is interested in drug kinetics. How drugs disperse through the body so that they can design drugs that are fast acting. Chemotherapy for instance is very keen on drug kinetics. Environmental egineering studies the dispersal of pollutants in the environment. Kinetics play a big role here too. And so on and so on. Finally the connection between art and Engineering. Well let's see. I got only some hints. Hint 1: Da Vinci. Hint 2: Ergonomics and Human Factors Engineering. Hard citations: Not yet. Give me some time. Thanks for your patience and take care. Dr.K. 19:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Great work on quotations! I took the liberty to separate "Other fileds" sub-section into "Medicine and biology" and "Art". Michagal 07:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. It's been a pleasure. Shalom. Dr.K. 11:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any dispute that there are parallels between the systems that engineers and doctors work with, and resulting parallels in the kinds of knowledge they require (e.g. turbulence). But that does not necessarily make the disciplines themselves parallel. Jarvik, when he developed the Jarvik heart, was doing biomedical engineering, i.e. engineering that requires medical domain knowledge. Just as when a pilot designs a plane, he is doing aeronautical engineering, not flying - there is shared domain knowledge, but different goals, which require different methodologies. It is not specific knowledge that makes something engineering, it is the goals and methodologies. That's why electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, environmental engineering, and all the other things you've mentioned are called engineering, even though they focus on different application domains.

Anyway, this is a pointless argument as far as article content goes, because it's all based on our opinions, which means that it's original research. Anything in the article that makes claims one way or another about perceived parallels between medicine and engineering needs to be verifiable.

--Allan McInnes (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Definition of parallel as it pertains to this discussion (Dictionary.com): having the same direction, course, nature, or tendency; corresponding; similar; analogous. Aren't the above points points of similarity between Engineering and Medicine? Dr.K. 04:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, they are "points of similarity" between the bodies of knowledge required to practice (some areas of) medicine and (some disciplines of) engineering. However, let's look at the definition you've offered: having the same direction, course, nature, or tendency - medicine and engineering have (as I've pointed out several times now) fundamentally different goals, and fundamentally different natures. Yes, they share some knowledge (in areas where there is some overlap in their concerns). They share that same knowledge with the sciences. The odds are that if you're studying how chemicals disperse, you're likely to be using kinetics, regardless of whether you're a medical researcher, and environmental engineer, or a planetary scientist. The question is, do planetary scientists and medical researchers in the drug industry have any other "points of similarity" than their use of kinetics? Do environmental engineers and medical researchers have any other "points of similarity" than their use of kinetics? One point of similarity doesn't make for parallel lines, it makes for an intersection. --Allan McInnes (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I sgree with you completely. Except their intersection is their parallel. You see Medicine and Engineering are multidimensional. They are not simply two lines that just intersect. Of course when two lines intersect they produce a point. You cannot run parallel to a point, everyone knows that. But if we consider Medicine and Engineering as two planes. the intersection of two planes is a line (the human body). Now as Medicine goes up and down examining the function of the human line (body), so does Engineering. If you move along the same line then you are moving in parallel directions. Q.E.D.. Dr.K. 18:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice try :-) But now you've ended up with two planes that are not parallel (by definition, since you have said that they intersect). Perhaps upon that one thin line of intersection one can "move in parallel" to the other field. But I hardly think that counts as a "significant" parallel when one considers the entire rest of each plane...

Anyway, as amusing as this little debate is, I'm afraid I'm going to have to withdraw - we're reaching a point where we're no longer discussing anything relevant to improving the article, something that talk pages aren't really supposed to be used for. --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Second that. I didn't mean to make this more protracted. The debate was closed from before. I just pondrered this and I thought I'd drop a line. Dr.K. 23:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And aren't they significant? Dr.K. 04:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: Noone claimed (or could) that the disciplines themselves were parallel. Only that they had significant parallels. Dr.K. 04:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"Significant" is a matter of opinion. For which you need to provide some kind of reference, such that we can write in the article "X has claimed that there are significant parallels between engineering and medicine..." rather than simply asserting that siginificant parallels exist. --Allan McInnes (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am flattered. You hold me to such high standards that now I must even provide citations for the adjectives that I use (even if obvious). Thanks. Dr.K. 12:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Is the Dr.K. impossible standard attainment award too far behind? Dr.K. 12:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the adjective isn't obvious (we wouldn't even be having this debate if it was). It's your opinion that the parallels are "significant". But your opinion is not valid content for a Wikipedia article (see WP:NOR). Neither is mine. Unattributed opinion in general should not appear in Wikipedia. What is permissible is to report the fact that some person or persons holds a particular opinion (see WP:POV). If the parallels truly are as "significant" as you claim they are, I have no doubt that you can find an article somewhere that discusses significance of those parallels.

As a kind of meta-reply, Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and attribution exist for exactly the reasons that we are having this debate - reasonable people can differ on matters of opinion, but citable facts are much less open to dispute. I apologize if you find this ongoing debate somewhat frustrating. Please rest assured that it is not personal. I do appreciate the contributions you have made to this article. But I differ with you on some matters of opinion. --Allan McInnes (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments. Please rest assured that I never took anything personally. I believe that ideas speak for themselves. Ideas don't have egos, people do. I'm sure anyone who has witnessed a Master's or PhD thesis oral presentation can attest to the fact that the exchanges can reach high Reynolds numbers all the way to turbulence. But that's to be expected. Ideas need a rigorous debate and in that sense it is great that we had one. No need to apologise, as you did what every good academic does: challenge any idea they are not comfortable with and that is as it should be. What I do find frustrating is having to type all this using two hands fingers, but that's hardly anyone's fault. But then again it's easier than typing a thesis. Anyway I really did enjoy the debate. I also wish to particularly thank you for one of your edits in the Medicine and biology section: lowering the case of the E in Engineering when the word was not the first in a sentence. I do know that we must use lower case in such a case according to Wikipedia standards, I just couldn't bring myself to doing it for this particular word. Take care. Dr.K. 00:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wholesale removal of pop culture examples

There has been a wholesale removal of pop culture examples in the Medicine and biology section. I would like to know the reason. If it is not provided I will revert the change. Dr.K. 02:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, I removed the pop culture references because they were totally unreferenced, and speculative. You have interesting ideas and opinions, but they are just that: your ideas and opinions. If you can provide citable articles or texts in which these ideas are discussed, then we can talk about reincorporating the material in question. --Allan McInnes (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Who wants to analyze pop culture? I, therefore, must, reluctantly agree. Dr.K. 03:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your question in the edit summary about the {{cite needed}} tag in the sentence about biomedical engineering, it's not the existence of biomedical engineering itself that I think needs a reference, it's the assertion that "These similarities as well as the increasing importance and application of Engineering principles in Medicine, led to the development of the field..." Are those actually the things (both fields provide real-world solutions, the human body has functions that can be modelled using "engineering methods") that led to the development of biomedical engineering? --Allan McInnes (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that this history of biomedical engineering implies that biomedical engineering emerged as the result of the exposure of biologists to advanced electronic technology during WWII, and the consequent desire to bring those advances to the medical field. No mention of the fact that the human body can be modelled as a mechanical system. --Allan McInnes (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

But that's not what I wrote. I wrote: These similarities as well as the increasing importance and application of Engineering principles in Medicine, led to the development of the field of biomedical engineering that utilizes concepts developed in both disciplines So the biologists saw the Engineering principles in advanced electronic technology and applied them to similar (medical) systems. In effect your citation agrees with me. Dr.K. 03:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And I did not only provide mechanical examples. That's unfair. Please see also relevant discussion. Dr.K. 03:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I misinterpreted your meaning. Was not "These similarities..." referring to the earlier points raised in the same paragraph, i.e. both fields provide real-world solutions, the human body has functions that can be modelled using "engineering methods". If not, to what was it referring? --Allan McInnes (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm

Only one Da Vinci reference, and at the end? I'm dissapointed --AnYoNe! 21:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Branches of Engineering

Hello,

I added the "Branches of Engineering". At this point i expect a lot of comments from materials, mechatronic, biomolecular, biomech and all sorts of disciplines saying "why are we not there" as well as "Why is software eng in there?" (we all know soft eng is not a real eng ;) ). Well, as long as it doesnt become a list then that's good. Does anyone else think that it is important to do this? I felt that it was a bit weird to hit civil engineering without even a quick description of what sort of things they do. Thanks User A1 15:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just saw some new ones creep their way in due to an anon. Comp.(which mostly soft/a soft eng.) & Enviro. have been added. Let's try to keep it short, for the reader's sake. Just as a point, both environmental and computer eng's respective articles refer to them as sub- pr combined disciplines of civil/chemical and electrical. I think we are descending a tree here, for which we should carefully stay at the top level. User A1 08:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've now seen the list expand a lot, and it makes the article hard to read. Can we have only branches of engineering where a reasonable person educated in each branch would not be expected to readily understand the work of an engineer in another branch? I realise this is not a purely objective definition, but i hope it is better than the list just going ad infinitum. We have descended the slippery slope, and mixed my metaphors. User A1 14:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I do seem to talk to myself a lot here, so if anyone is reading this here goes; I have made a separate article where we can be as detailed as we like and truncated the list on this page. Hopefully this is an acceptable solution, although heavily biased from my perspective on what schools are in engineering faculties for major universities. Often software and electrical are both offered by the same school (school for electrical and soft. engineering f. example) User A1 —Preceding comment was added at 14:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Computer and possibly industrial should be added. Although, I think the best idea is to remove this whole section and simply have a link to all the branches. Opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.116.25 (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, hello 71.197.116.25 and thankyou for commenting on this talk page. Before I start to express my opinions on the relative merits of the edits in question, I have added a warning about the Three Revert Rule to your talk page. Now to get to the subject matter - If you examine the article's history I introduced the section "branches of engineering", which I soon came to discover was ever growing in size, reducing the article's legibility. I added the section to give readers a concept of what it is an engineer does, and how the field is roughly divided. However I realised that it was slightly unfair to include only those disciplines, so I attempted to reach a compromise by creating a secondary article List of engineering branches to give people the space for their list, without cluttering the article. Once I did that, others seemed happy (although I have had no feedback, other than a reduced number of edits, barring your and 24.72.11.216 recent additions. Now the list in this article is only aimed to give the most general branches of engineering, with the remainder in the linked article, but still designed to give readers a concept of the structure (I was thinking back to my high school days, where it was unclear to me what each engineer does). So with that in mind I am unclear why industrial engineering and comp eng should be in there, instead of just purely in the list at the tail. Computer engineering is a branch of electrical engineering, as is stated on its page. Secondly Industrial engineering is a less prominent branch of engineering as it is more abstracted from the physical sciences and closer related to logistics & supply systems management than other disciplines. As an introduction to engineering as a whole this, although a valid branch of engineering is more obscure than say civil. Please note that I have reverted your edits until other editors, such as User:Tasoskessaris have placed their initial comments here. Once this is done I think we can consider which branches should be included. Kind Regards, User A1 11:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi 71.197.116.25. Thank you for participating. I knew from your well composed edit summaries that you were a person of reason. I'm glad to see you here. I agree with you that this section could be moved. I am not clear what would be best. A move to a less prominent place within the article let's say near the bottom or to a separate article. But if others want it here I don't mind. On the other hand I agree with A1 regarding the taxonomy of the principals as they currently appear on the list. So let's discuss this a bit further. Take care for now. Dr.K. 13:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

All or nothing makes plenty of sense. Either include the main branches, or just leave the link to the separate article. I have added a revert warning to your page, as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.116.25 (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This sounds more like an ultimatum than a discussion point. Reverting in the middle of a discussion is not good form either. I am disappointed because my initial impression was different but as it seems wrong. I also don't see why Computer Engineering which is a branch of Electrical should be included in any case. I also agree with A1 on his appraisal of Industrial. So you have two editors disagreeing with you. Being in the minority one would think you wouldn't try to impose your views so unilaterally. This goes against Wikipedia consensus rules. Dr.K. 22:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm very biased - I believe the primary engineering disciplines are Civil engineering and Mechanical engineering; it is possible that Electrical engineering could be added, but that's easily an outbranching of mechanical engineering --> That's one short list, though! My best suggestion (which has much less bias) is to find a very reliable source that lists the primary engineering disciplines. Also, the order of the article could be altered slightly, maybe the "Branches" section should go below "Methodology"? ZueJay (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That's real hardcore. Out of curiosity how does Electrical derive from Mechanical? Dr.K. 01:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hehehe... Relying on my limited education of engineering history and my definition of the mechanical engineering discipline, harnessing electricity has required the utilization of some mechanical or materials elements. Mechanical engineering can be very broadly defined to include not only mechanics but materials and thermodynamics, elements critical to electrical engineering. ZueJay (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS is difficult in this situation, however my original idea for reliable sources was to take the name of schools within the engineering faculties at Major Australian Universities (also Other major Aus Unis and use those. User A1 01:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to ZueJay) Ok, fine. Engines, turbines, motors etc. produce electricity. But at least you've got to grant it to the Electricals that they process it after the Mechanicals generate it. (Reply to A1) As far as sources the ones you cited look good. Dr.K. 02:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That might lead to a world perspective issue - maybe we can tackle it from a historical perspective? Historically speaking, military engineering and civil engineering (more commonly refered to as architecture during ancient times) were the primary engineering disciplines. As society advanced technically, mechanical and electrical engineering arose which soon grew in to a mix of engineering disciplines including... ZueJay (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Good points. We can use the historical perspective you suggest to seque into the modern classification of the main branches. Dr.K. 02:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the list should be:

Electrical, Mechanical, Computer, Chemical, and possibly Civil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.116.25 (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Computer Engineering according to Britannica is a subspecialty. Dr.K. 07:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote from the ABET Program Self-Study Report for Electrical and Computer Engineering of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute: The only two programs of study presently offered by the Electrical and Computer Engineering department are “Electrical Engineering” and “Electrical and Computer Engineering,” the subject of this report. Within the ECE major, students may pursue concentrations in several subspecialties, including power systems, microelectronics, signals and communications, control systems, and computer engineering. Dr.K. 08:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Then let's simply make it Say: Electrical/Computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.116.25 (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Or Electrical and Electronic Engineering as Britannica has it. Dr.K. 18:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

did I forget IEEE? Dr.K. 18:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW Civil according to Britannica is one of the oldest disciplines. Dr.K. 20:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion:

branch list like so:

   * Aerospace Engineering - The design of aircraft, spacecraft and related topics.
   * Chemical Engineering - The conversion of raw materials into usable commodities.
   * Civil Engineering - The design and construction of public and private works, such as bridges and buildings.
   * Computer & Electrical Engineering - The entire process of designing and coding computers, electronics, and computer related devices.
   * Mechanical engineering - The design of physical or mechanical systems, such as engines, kinematic chains and vibration isolation equipment.
  

may need to change the description, but you get the idea... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.116.25 (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Electrical and Electronic(s) Engineering is better for three reasons:

1. Britannica refers to it that way
2. IEEE is the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. It has computer engineering but inside the fold of Electronics Engineering
3. Electronics is a wider field than Computers. Dr.K. —Preceding comment was added at 20:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally, ABET's predecessor American Engineers' Council for Professional Development was formed by seven Engineering societies. I think the disciplines reflected in those societies are also to be considered as the main branches of Engineering. Dr.K. 21:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific here is the the breakdown:

1. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)----> Civil Engineering
2. the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers (now the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers)--->Mining and Metallurgical Engineering or Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineering
3. the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)---> Mechanical Engineering
4. the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (now IEEE)---->Electrical and Electronics Engineering
5. American Institute of Chemical Engineers--->Chemical Engineering Dr.K. 21:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

To the above we could add Aerospace Engineering. Dr.K. 21:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If what you say is true, simple call it "Computer/Electrical Engineering"

http://www.engr.uiuc.edu/outreach/Ingenious/index.php?id=types —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.143.243 (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I like Electrical and electronic, makes sense and has a good ring to it too :) User A1 02:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Right on ;) Dr.K. 02:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, i like it because it fits with IEEE. User A1 02:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And with Britannica and American Engineers' Council for Professional Development analysis as above. Dr.K. 02:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Too much posting! Anyway, I found this on the IEEE website.

Through its global membership, IEEE is a leading authority on areas ranging from aerospace systems, computers and telecommunications to biomedical engineering, electric power and consumer electronics among others.

User A1 02:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There you are. Why re-invent the wheel? Dr.K. 02:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Computer DOES need to be included somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.143.243 (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's already included:

1. In the Electronic part of Electrical and Electronic Engineering
2. On the main list of Engineering disciplines. Dr.K. 02:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned before, I am fine as long as it is listed as a branch on the main engineering page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.143.39 (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

We appear to be at something of an impasse. You have stated little reasoning to support your opinion, however you keep repeating your position. We have attempted to provide alternative solutions, yet the only one that seems to be reasonable, in your view, is the "its in or nothing is there" option. I am at a loss as to why this is the case, nor why the alternatives are unacceptable. User A1 21:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why "computer" (an electrical product) should be put in the same class as "electrical", a force of energy. If "computer engineering" is allowed, then why stop there? Why not allow "television engineering" or "toaster engineering"? Oicumayberight 21:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also about not inventing new terms. If the general discipline is called Electrical Engineering or Electrical and Electronic Engineering by such sources as IEEE and Britannica to name a few, why bother inventing a new term only for Wikipedia? And a term that restricts the scope of Electronics? Electrical and Electronic Engineering has wider scope than Electrical and Computer Engineering. Any dictionary can tell you so. Dr.K. 22:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

For one example, Computer Engineering is a very common degree in universities. I think it's only fair to mention it in the list. Simply put: Computer/Electrical, or abolish it all together is my best recommendations, yet it is constantly refused, I don't know why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.143.39 (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If every degree of every related profession and discipline were mentioned in every article related to that profession and discipline, then every wikipedia article would look like the List of academic disciplines article. Oicumayberight 23:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So far no one has been able to provide me with a reason as to why "Electrical (and Computer)" is unacceptable. (Dr.K stated his agreement as well -- see above). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.143.39 (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all the syntax you propose does not exist. Computer slash Electrical is not a term neither it is a discipline. Show me a university that calls its department Comuter/Electrical Engineering. You don't name departments using slashes between words. Your proposal lacks the proper syntax. Second why put computer first. Show me a university that puts Computer first and Electrical second. Third you have not addressed the fact that Electronics is wider a field than Computers. If we are to name the principal fields of Engineering, Computer Engineering is a subspecialty. You may be a fan of Computer Engineering but your logic is false and you cannot impose it here. Computer Engineering is a field but it belongs in the general list, not in the principal branches list. I suspect you think that principal branches means more importance and glory. It has nothing to do with this. It is a matter of proper classification. Simply put the great and important subject of Computer Engineering is simply a sub-branch of Electronic Engineering. You cannot go around that. Initially I said that I agreed but I only meant with your direction, meaning that I saw how you changed from Computer only to at least include the word Electrical as well. That's why I also proposed Electronic Engineering in the next sentence to help you along and hoping that you will come around to see the logic. . Why limit yourself to computers when you can have electronic filters, radios, cellphones microwaves and computers. That's the real main branch. Why doesn't IEEE call itself IECE? C of course stands for computers. Because of course Electronics is a more inclusive word. Dr.K. 00:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read my recent comments. I did not propose a syntax with a slash. I believe there were some parantheses involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.143.39 (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And I proposed it that way to be alphabetic. Feel free to re-arrange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.143.39 (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine but even with the parentheses the logic of the arguments after that still stands. Here we have the definition of Electronics:

American Heritage Dictionary e·lec·tron·ics (ĭ-lěk'trŏn'ĭks, ē'lěk-) Pronunciation Key n.

1. (used with a sing. verb) The science and technology of electronic phenomena. 2. (used with a pl. verb) Electronic devices and systems: The electronics aboard the new aircraft are very sophisticated.

This includes XBOX, PS3, aircraft guidance systems, cell phones, Control systems, amplifiers, filters, digital microprocessors and computers. Therefore Electronics is a wider field than computers. Dr.K. 00:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Then I see no reason why it simply cannot say "Electrical (including Computer) engineering." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.143.39 (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Using that logic, you'd have to mention everything else "included" in that definition as well. What makes you think computers are so much more important than the technology computers rely on. Computers are nothing more than electronic devices. Computing is nothing more than electronic signal processing. Oicumayberight 02:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Because Electrical and Electronics includes computers and we don't describe branches by using extra terms such as including because everyone knows they are included if you use the correct term. Let's look at another example: West Yorkshire Partnership in the UK quote:

Most engineers are trained in one of the main branches of engineering –mechanical, chemical, materials, electrical and electronic, or civil engineering, with many more specialist branches within these. See? The Brits know that there are are more specialist branches such as computers but they know they don't have to mention them one by one. Dr.K. 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Another example: Imperial College London England: Studying engineering at Imperial: Engineering courses are offered in five main branches of engineering: aeronautical, chemical, civil, electrical and mechanical. There are also courses in computing science, software engineering, information systems engineering, materials science and engineering, mining engineering and petroleum engineering. Imperial College is one of the best Universities in the world. Dr.K. 01:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

UK Engineering Council Report on the Engineering Profession: ....encompasses the main branches of engineering civil, mechanical, electrical, chemical. Dr.K. 02:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.engineergirl.org/Vang/types.html main types —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.143.39 (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/site.php?postnum=285 another reference for computer... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.143.39 (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

But these are types of Engineering. Computer Engineering is a type of Engineering. It simply is not the main type.

Here is another reference for the main types:

Finally: From Edinburgh University (1st in the UK for computer science): Welcome to Chemical Engineering @ Edinburgh Chemical Engineering, which is celebrating 50 years this academic year, is part of the School of Engineering and Electronics (SEE), which includes the other three main engineering disciplines of electrical and electronic engineering, civil engineering and mechanical engineering. This is my final example. I retire from this discussion after this, as I have better things to do than to argue the obvious ad infinitum. Dr.K. 04:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And what you said about the references you provided is misleading. Nowhere in the two references you provided the word main appears. You just provided a list of disciplines. Not the main disciplines. Dr.K. 04:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Here it is, as a main disciplines, since you seem to have an affinity for that term, however carelessly it may be used. http://www.ece.iastate.edu/

From your page I gather you're an engineer, and perhaps you have a grudge against this for some reason, but every site refers to it as Electrical and Computer engineering -- I see no reason why we should not treat them as equally here.

This college you provided doesn't claim it as a main branch. A main branch has to be called main in order to be main. All of the references I provided you with, call electrical main. Do you know better than Britannica, Imperial College etc., not to mention the other editors of this page? This college of Engineering may be specializing in computers that's why it includes them with Electrical. But that doesn't it make it a main branch. And yes I am an Engineer. Engineers never have grudges. They only have logic. One has to become an engineer to understand this. I thought I would have to answer you for one last time. I hope someone else tries this from now on because this is an absolute waste of time. It is like arguing evolution with a creationist. Dr.K. 13:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr, K. I think your last few sentences have not done you justice, although I do share your frustration with this topic, as it would appear we all do. I have asked for assistance from a neutral editor in this regard with a view to solving the conflict. I agree wholeheartedly with your comments (bar your last) which I think have formulated a good argument. Hopefully we will resolve this rather inflated issue soon. Thanks User A1 13:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks A1. I hope I haven't started another debate! What I meant was that creationists vs evolutionists is an old debate and everyone involved have strong opinions on the subject with little likelihood to change them. Which happens to be true. I don't see how this could be bad. Dr.K. 14:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think my earlier idea makes sense -- simply provide a link to the article with all the types. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.156.48 (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reason for objecting against a simple redirect to the page listing all the different branches? If users want to see a list of them (which is probably why they would click on "Branches," anyway) then there ya go. Pyrofork 18:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I do object to the main branches of engineering getting buried in a diluted list. I liked the idea of using the IEEE main branches in this page and then a link to a page with the long list for those who wanted to see more. Maybe the long list should be a category page instead. To me, it's obvious that there are main branches in engineering related to each form of energy just like there are main branches related to each form of energy in physics. It would be a shame if this page doesn't get to have a simple list just because someone wants to treat computing like it's some new form of energy when it's really just algorithms and methods of digital signal processing. Oicumayberight 19:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please try to remember that the issue here is not "prestige", but rather listing the types of engineering -- what better way to do that then on the "list of branches of engineering article." The main article is meant to discuss what Engineering (broad) is, and should be spared from your innate desire to somehow promote certain types over the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.156.48 (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So let's see Oicumayberight has an innate desire to promote certain types of Engineering, I have a grudge, A1 must have something similar. Encyclopedia Britannica has something else as well, Imperial College, University of Edinburgh are also wrong. I suggest Wikipedia gives you the keys to this article and you write what you want. Dr.K. 20:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on your responses, can you really blame me? I've tried to compromise every known way, yet for some reason you're adamantly opposed to the idea of a list, which even has agreement both on this page and the assistance page. Again, the main article is meant to discuss what Engineering (broad) is, not the listing. That can be dealt with on a separate page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.156.48 (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a historical fact that Engineering has main branches. The article of Engineering should mention the main branches. You are trying to suppress history. (Modified:) History must be reflected in the main article. Dr.K. 21:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Dr.K. 21:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to supress history? That's not a personal attack at all... Anyway, we've long debated such a simple issue... should the branches be discussed on the main page or the page entitled "Branches of Engineering." Please see reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.156.48 (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: List_of_basic_engineering_topics#Electrical_engineering. Dr.K. 02:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: List_of_basic_engineering_topics#Branches_of_engineering. Computer Engineering is not even listed as a Branch. Dr.K. 02:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me out with a couple things? Then we will be in agreement -- I hope.

1) How does Aerospace not fall under Mechanical, civil, or electronical? 2) I believe we should add Computer Engineering on the full branch page 3) Out of curiosity, what kind of engineer are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.156.48 (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Aerospace is traditionally independent, even though it does fall under Mechanical.
2. Computer Engineering is called a branch after the modification you made. It is not however a historical main branch, neither a current main branch
3. That would be too telling. Dr.K. 04:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

1) Could I not argue the same thing for computer engineering?

2) Yes, but as a said, I'm talking about the actual branch page. 3) If I guess right, would you tell me? :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.156.48 (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The actual Branch page? Of course. Please go ahead.
2. I am an Engineer. I can't lie. Nice try though :) Dr.K. 04:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Guess:chemical or civil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.155.156.48 (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I always try to be civil :) Dr.K. 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear engineerings build weapons, civil engineers build targets. =P Anyway, thanks for help, catch you around