Talk:Electronic engineering/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

Page creation

Electronics [1]

Basic page put back together. Still needs more work before deleting duplicated items from electrical engineering page.--Light current 16:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Could have been left as a subfield from electrical engineering - but there's half a million extra articles in Wikipedia. --Wtshymanski 23:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I dont get your meaning about the half million extra articles. Care to explain that one?--Light current 16:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Electronics engineering is definitely a separate discipline from electrical engineering. SEE Talk:electrical engineering--Light current 23:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

They are completely different: electric engineers use voltage and current mainly to bring power, while electronic enginners use them to bring information. An electric train is projected by an electric engineer, a mobile phone by an electronic one. In several universities they are two different courses. Alessio Damato 13:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Please add your vote on Talk:electrical engineering Thank you!--Light current 19:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Duplication of material

Most of the material on this page is duplicated from the current version of electrical engineering. Why are there two pages, instead of the original redirect to electrical engineering, or the renaming of electrical engineering to "electrical and electronics engineering" proposed in the debate on talk:electrical engineering?

Duplication of information is a Bad Thing, because it's next to impossible to keep both pages synchronized. --Christopher Thomas 02:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside of America there is a huge distinction between Electronic Engineering and Electrical engineering. For most people, finding information about electronic engineering under the page 'Electrical Engineering'. There should be two different pages for these two unique topics. / To prevent the duplication you have a problem with simply move it to the correct page. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) on 22:32, 15 February 2006.
"Electrical Engineering" and "Electronic Engineering" can suggest different directions of the same field, but there's not a clear distiction between them. There are universities with departments of "Electronic Engineering" or "Electrical and Electronic Engineering" (all that I've found are outside the U.S.), but I haven't found any university that actually gives an "Electrical Engineering" degree in one department and an "Electronic Engineering" degree in another. The IEEE is the "Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers", not so much because there's a clear distiction between them as because it's an international organization and the different terms are preferentially used in one country or another. By contrast "Electronics" tends to be a more hands-on subject, taught at the high-school level by someone who also teaches "basic electrical wiring". The IEEE magazine, however, carries advertisements for jobs doing high-voltage electrical work as well as chip design and even embedded-systems design. I vote for merging "Electronics Engineering" with "Electrical Engineering", and changing the "main article" link in the "Electronics" section of "Electrical Engineering" to point to "Electronics". DavidLeeLambert (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you substantialy on Electical/Electronic.
Electrical Engineering and Electronical Engineering are considered different fields, especialy outside the US. Electronics is substantialy well defined to need its own wikipedia article. Standard practice would seem to me to sumarize Electronics in Electrical, but to address it in a seperate article.
As far as I can see, the Electronics article is not just a duplication of information on the electrical page. --Barberio 05:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this page not incorrectly titled? I have a degree in 'Electronic Engineering' I have never heard of 'Electronics Engineering' as much as I have never heard of Chemicals Engineering or Electricals Engineering.The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) on 22:32, 15 February 2006.
You appear to be correct in that the subject is called Electronic engineering ( or sometimes Electronics )--Light current 06:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Article and talk Content moved from Electronics engineering to here and REDIRECT place at Electronics Eng.
Please dont forget to vote on this on talk:electrical engineering--Light current 18:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Clean up

I feel this article could really do with improvement. It seems to dart all over the place plus most of its material seems to be a duplication of electrical engineering. Cedars 03:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes well I havent had 3 years yet to faff about with it have I? This will be the main article soon--Light current 03:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Im just wondering if this stuff would be better placed under electronics, leaving the new electrical engineering and electronics engineering pages to concentrate on the professional aspects of these careers a rather than their history. Comments?

--Light current 16:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Electronics Engineering/Electronic Engineering

Is there a good argument for using the former? I am a degree-qualified electronic engineer & a member of the IEE. Neither I nor my colleagues ever use the plural. Furthermore, every job advert I've looked at uses electronic engineer (singular). This is a UK perspective - which term is used in the rest of the world? It would be nice to standardise the term used in this article (and obviously I'd prefer the singular!) 17:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

also the line in the first paragraph: "Its practitioners are called electronics engineers in Europe." I am a European, i got my degree in electronic engineering in Europe, i work as an electronic engineer in Europe, my job description has been electronic engineer and I have never, never heard anyone refer to it as electronics engineering or have been referred to as an electronics engineer. Because of this, i am removing the sentence ( 11:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC))

I am a European Electronics Engineer, educated in the UK, and my degree title is/was Electronics Engineering (but they've now dropped the "s"; maybe it was a typo by an Indian?!).
Presumably, this is because I am an engineer whose job it is to design/maintain electronics, rather than "electronic" (!)... (I'm not an engineer made of circuits and chips either!).
Having said that, I do take the point that Mechanical Engineers design/make/maintain

Mechanical things, and Chemical Engineers design/make Chemical things, and Civil Engineers design/maintain "Civil" things etc... so on that basis I have no problem with being called an "Electronic" Engineer... however, I do actually think the title "Engineer" is more problematic - Engineers operate Engines (Steam Engines traditionally): most engineers are more accurately described as Architects; so if we're arguing the toss over names, I'll call myself an Electronic Architect, until I start working on Electronic Engines (!) ...mind you, if working on a Ship as a Electro-Technical Officer, it'd be accurate to call me a Marine Engineer, being that I'd be mucking about with a (ginormous) engine, but I digress! {User: MacDaddy} —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In India, the term used is 'Electronics Engineering' and engineers are referred to as Electronics engineers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shekure (talkcontribs) 11:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In India, we say Electronics Engineering. If we say Electronic Engineer, the first word is an adjective to the second word and not a discipline. We can say Electronic Device, Electronic Robot, etc... where the word "Electronic" is a composition adjective. But we can't say "electronic" engineer. Do we say "Electric engineer"?!

"Electronics Engg. is to the Electronics subject reference" as "Electrical Engineering is to the Electrical subject reference"

Also the term "Electronics" exists individually and refers to the subject, but "Electronic" makes no sense when considered separately and can exist only as a prefix because it is only an adjective.

About Plurality: The word "Electronics" is plural only whern it is considered individually and the reference is to the electronic components/ devices . But, in the term "Electronics Engg" it is singular and refers to the subject/ stream/ discipline of engineering.

The word Chemical is both an adjective and subjective noun, but in the term Chemical Engineering, we mean and refer to the subject and not the adjective.

Check the expansion of IEEE in the IEEE website. It is "Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers". And IEEE is the world's leading technical professional association. We can trust it.

Other examples are Mechatronics, Thermodyanamics, Physics...Vayalir (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Electronics Engineering is both, the grammatically correct way to refer to it, as well as the official way used by international bodies and associations of professionals, scholars and researchers (IEEE as the best example) as well as governmental offices.

Still, the words programme and program refer to the same thing but what variates is the spelling.
the word Mobile is pronounced differently in UK English than in US English,
maybe what we have here is a case of British English vs American English ?

It is a huge mistake though that the article is named Electronic Engineering and not Electronics Engineering as the former is not the widely adopted form in the World, if it is different in UK then that's another problem.

The current article should be deleted and the content pasted onto a new "Electronics Engineering" which is in fact the most accepted form.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Electrical engineering talk

Hi, please comment at Talk:Electrical engineering about a page move to this project, specifically: Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics to Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics and Electrical Engineering. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 16:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Assorted Points

" In 1942, Konrad Zuse presented the Z3, the world's first functional computer."

The prototype of the Atanasoff-Berry Computer computer was successfully demoed in 1939.

"Electronics is often considered to have begun when Lee De Forest invented the vacuum tube in 1907 ."

He didnt, Lee De Forest was the man that introduced the control grid. Diode vacuum tubes came before that.

"These non-integrated circuits consumed much space and power, were prone to failure and were limited in speed although they are still common in simple applications"

The fastest circuitry is still discrete. The relationship between date, speed and level of integration is significantly more complex than the above suggests, and as it stands I think its a bit misleading.

"The invention of the triode amplifier, generator, and detector made audio communication by radio practical."

Again I'd say there was more to the situation, and the above isnt really true.

Practical transmitters could be made without triode (L+C+arc+carbon mic) (preferably + passive resonant filtering)

and ditto crystal receivers, which could drive a loudspeaker using a carbon amplifier or turntable amplifier. Not a triode in sight. (And with a tt amp, no battery either.)

And in fact this was often done, as a way to avoid the high cost of valves/tubes. Its a shame these early sets haven't survived the passing years as well as the early valve sets have. Tabby 08:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


Someone kindly correct it to redirect to this page.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance templates

I have removed the multiple maintenance templates on this article. They seem to have been placed following the dispute over the article title singular/plural issue. It seems to me a pointy thing to do and is not aimed at actually improving the article. This is a mature article, not a new submission with obvious things like wikilinking needed. Of course, all articles can be improved and suggestions can be made here. Anyone is also entitled to revisit the name issue if they feel there is strong evidence for one form or the other. Playing games on the article page, on the other hand, is not helpful to our readers. SpinningSpark 21:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear User, there is no such thing as a "Mature article" as you claim, there are featured or non featured articles (you can tell by the star on the right in the case of featured) and even in the case of a featured article tags can be added when its quality is deemed not on pairs to what it is expected of such type of community effort (i.e outdated).
On a second note, As I added to your personal discussion place, tags are removed previous agreement! and not otherwise.
Additionally as stated in the first segment of the discussion section, the most accepted form is Electronics Engineering therefore that's how the article should be addressed. If Mathematics or Physics would be referred to as Mathematic and Physic in a few countries the article should still have to be named after the most widely (or officially accepted) form. I will see (I Have no time really) how to address the chosen wording for the name of the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong on every point. Of course there are such things as mature articles, just because there is no guideline defining "mature" or process to achieve it does not mean it does not happen. An article that was written yesterday will have all sorts of obvious things needing attention which can be dealt with by templates. Problems in a mature article on the other hand are not throughout the article, but rather specific points which should be addressed individually. Tags are not removed only by agreement, tags are removed when the problem is dealt with by anybody. My point to you is that it is childish to plaster the article with templates because you disagree with the title. The right way to resolve the matter is to produce reliable sources which state that one form is incorrect, or at least rarely used and then make your case on this talk page. What other disciplines do is really beside the point, there is no requirement for consistency, only verifiability. On Wikipedia content is always ultimately decided by what the sources say, not by comparing to mathematics or whatever. SpinningSpark 21:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
If my article on Mathematics is called "Mathematic" and all over the article the topic subject is refer to as "Mathematic" because (let's say it's true as a matter of example) that is the way it is called in the UK (just a bizarre example), then it is not a minor point to be resolved it is a fundamental aspect, as an encyclopedia should start by addressing the things how they should; for example, FIFA is the governing body for Football Association not for soccer or footie or calcio, therefore the article in wikipedia has to be called, and the subject matter referred to as, the most accepted form and the special cases be noted not otherwise. Having said that, article tagging is not childish; Mature Articles are not defined as such anywhere as you state (plus the article does have serious problems in prose, tone, etc); Reliable sources have been already provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you have authoritative sources that states "electronic engineering" is wrong or a minority usage (as opposed to sources which merely use "electronics")? SpinningSpark 23:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)