Talk:Engineering
|
|
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?
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.
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
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 (http://www.asee.org/)), 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 (http://www.asee.org/about/publications/profiles/upload/2003engprofile.pdf). --JamesTseng 16:34, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
- 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)
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!
| Contents |
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 HeritageŽ 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] (http://www.ne.se) 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 (http://www.asee.org/). Engineering statistics 2003 (http://www.asee.org/about/publications/profiles/upload/2003engprofile.pdf). --JamesTseng 23:59, Oct 26, 2004 (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)
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 (http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/web_exclusives/more/more_studentbody.html) --JamesTseng 16:29, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Gone. Vsmith 12:51, 21 Dec 2004 (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)