This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Electrical engineering article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
Electrical engineering is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 26, 2006. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hey if anyone wants to update this section the IEE has merged now to form the IET, has more members etc 220.233.25.44 12:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
In the Practicing engineers section, there is this sentence "Outside of Europe and North America, engineering graduates per-capita, and hence probably electrical engineering graduates also, are most numerous in Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea". This doesn't make sense to me. Graduates are recorded as per-captia, which is true, but the rest of the sentence doesn't seem to follow. Frmorrison ( talk) 19:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, any one interested in starting an electrical engineering Wiki Project, similar to the following ones:
This user is an electrical engineer. |
with aims to improve the electrical engineering articles throughout Wikipedia, to have a central forum page for related discussions, to assign importance to different articles, to organize, etc.? According to Category:Wikipedian engineers, for example, there are 311 engineers in Wikipedia; I'm sure that many of these users are electrical engineers? I'll start a new category: Category:Wikipedian electrical engineers for the time being. If you are an electrical engineer, please add this category to your user page, or simply paste the userbox (above) to your user page, and it will categorize for you. Thanks and please leave comments. -- Sadi Carnot 12:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
@ 2007-01-20T18:22Z
@ 2007-01-20T23:37Z
@ 2007-01-21T03:42Z
@ 2007-01-21T03:49Z
" No offense to anybody intended, but I think that making a big stink about what you should be called is just pretentious and silly."
If I called myself something I'm not it would be untrue and misleading. If the category naming is sorted I could add myself to it, but not as it stands, I'm not a power plant engineer.
I don't see how the distinction is silly, they are 2 separate things. US terminology is not always universal. Tabby 23:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Now that I see that there is an Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics project page, I would suggest that that project page be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics and Electrical Engineering just as has been done at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, which encompasses four different but related disciplines. In this manner we can begin to establish different "engineering" Wikiprojects. -- Sadi Carnot 16:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
@ 2007-01-28T22:58Z
I have toned down the assertion that EEs are "responsible for..." certain technologies, including the GPS. Despite what the BLS reference says, I think it's something of a reach to claim that EE's are responsible for the GPS. Certainly there are EE aspects of GPS (the RF transmission and signal propagation, user segment receiver design, satellite onboard computers, etc.) But there are equally critical aspects which are not EE (e.g. the design and replenishment of the constellation, the orbit determination system, the onboard clocks, etc. [1]) Not surprisingly, of the two people generally credited with doing the most to bring the GPS into being, one ( Ivan Getting) is an EE (although educated as a physicist), and the other ( Bradford Parkinson) is an aerospace engineer.
If someone wants to rewrite the section to state that "According to the BLS, EEs are responsible for...", I won't object. But to flatly assert that EEs are responsible for the GPS is incorrect. -- Allan McInnes ( talk) 06:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The article is too much fixed on political backgrounds. That means: near only the american pioneers are illustrated and listed. Other important pioneer work and important persons like Alessandro Volta or André Marie Ampère are NOT listed. They should be listed under the main article Electrical engineering, at least in one sentence. Today's stand of technics are based on them.
Nothing against america or something like that. Just to remind on the other serious and important persons.
Just want to know, how is your opinion about that?
greetz SB
17.08.2007 07:26h GMT+1:00
"The term electrical engineering may or may not encompass electronic engineering. Where a distinction is made, electrical engineering is considered to deal with the problems associated with large-scale electrical systems such as power transmission and motor control, whereas electronic engineering deals with the study of small-scale electronic systems including computers and integrated circuits.[1] Another way of looking at the distinction is that electrical engineers are usually concerned with using electricity to transmit energy, while electronics engineers are concerned with using electricity to transmit information."
Electrical Engineers use electricity to transmit information as well (Satellite Communications, RF, Microwaves).
Electronics Engineers also use electricity to transmit energy (you need energy to operate electronic circuits)
The article should not go in details about that. The distiction between the two is that "Electrical Engineers deal with large signals, that is, large amounts of currents and voltages. Electronics Engineers deal with small signals, that is, small amounts-in the order of milli-volts, or milli-amps)
"Perhaps the most important technical skills for electrical engineers are reflected in university programs, which emphasize strong numerical skills, computer literacy and the ability to understand the technical language and concepts that relate to electrical engineering."
Suggest a reword to reflect the reality that universities _seek to_ teach the most important stuff, since whether they succeed or not is another matter. To assume they do would be significantly mistaken IME. Tabby 23:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I just added a link to the Engineering Learning Wiki (external links section). To learn more, please link to this talk page / post. User_talk:Iterator12n#Engineering_Learning_Wiki
I'd like to open a debate on a possible external link listing for this page. I previously had added a link for a site I publish on this page ( EE HomePage.com). This was deleted by one of the moderators as SPAM. I've also since learned of the WP:COI guidelines, and agree it's best to have the community vet such submissions here.
As a practicing EE, one of the problems I encountered in the past was easily finding in-depth reference and tutorial information, and open source tools to help me in my job. Search engines were not up to the task; I often spent hours searching for basic information. I wanted a framework like CiteSeer to organize materials related to a EE course of study. Specifically, the ability to use one resource as a lead to discovering other, related, content. That's what EE HomePage.com does. It pulls together information on relevant open source tools and textbooks, as well as related professional organizations and societies - all geared specifically to practicing EEs, educators and students. That information is indexed by topic, author, resource type, etc, and supplemented with additional, unique, editorial content. So the information there is much more than a set of links, certainly not an encyclopedia article, but (I think) a lot of use to those in the field. The IEEE-USA has agreed (see the January 2007 "IEEE-USA President's Column").
I've read the external links guidelines, and it seems that posting my submission here is the best way to proceed. At this point, I'll be content to sit back and see how the debate evolves. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my submission of EE HomePage.com for the "External Links" listing of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstanley103 ( talk • contribs) 01:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
In the electronics secion there is the statement "By contrast, integrated circuits packed a large number—often millions—of tiny electrical components, mainly transistors, into a small chip around the size of a coin. " Modern pentium processors contain hundreds of millions of transistors. To modernize this I would reccomend changing "often millions" to often "hundreds of millions" Kanst ( talk) 03:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Electrical Engineering is very much an interdisciplinary field. I feel that the page would be helped by taking the some of the fields currently in the Related Fields section, and expanding upon them in the subfield section. MEMS and Biomedical Engineering, while interdisciplinary, are very important fields for electrical engineers at the moment. If someone was to read this page for a glimpse of what an EE does, it would be beneficial for them to be able to learn about MEMS and Biomedical fields. 71.232.116.152 ( talk) 02:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Good evening! I'm leaving this comment to point out that Electrical and computer engineering redirects to Electrical engineering while Electrical and Computer Engineering redirects to Computer engineering, which is not logical. I believe (and I think you're going to agree) that they should redirect to the same article. However, I have not taken any action because I can't decide where they should redirect to. I hope someone else decides correctly and fixes this :) -- TEO64X 10:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that you are probably right that this edit is unsuitable for inclusion but there does exist some verifiability of the claim. SpinningSpark 12:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The History section, even under "Modern developments," only seems to go through 1973. I'm sure there must have been some advancements since then. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I am could add something like the M.E.s' " Frontiers of research" section? Brian the Editor ( talk) 00:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The term "exponentiate" in the article is pseudo-precise, doesn't appear at dictionary.com, and needs to be changed to "increases". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 ( talk) 14:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
what is alternate for flexibles while connecting transformers with busduct..need sugessions
I have reverted the recent string of edits by User:DMChatterton. While some of this is probably good material, a lot of it is unacceptable for a featured article. I took a look at possible copyediting, but it is going to be a lengthy job due to the number of edits made spread over many sections. Basically, my objection is the material is introducing an anglo-centric bias, but I will explain more fully to the user on their talk page. SpinningSpark 13:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
To my knowledge, the Telegraph could be considered to be the first electrical device, and those who developed it were the first electrical engineers.
Just a thought. Sunshine Warrior04 ( talk) 07:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
(undent) So, should we reinstate the review? In other words, were valid issues identified and has work been done/will work soon be done that will rectify any valid issues? Dana boomer ( talk) 23:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Uninvolved close, RFC issue appears to be resolved
|
---|
closing on request. IRWolfie- ( talk) 12:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC) |
Is it acceptable to insert unreferenced material into a Featured Article? Spinning Spark 20:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC) User:Wtshymanski has inserted several unreferenced passages into this article. [2] [3] Despite being asked not to do this, he has repeatedly reinserted this material, or a version of it. [4] [5] [6] He has shown by his comments on this page that he has no intention of providing references, [7] and disputed this point with the FA delegate. [8] I would have thought that the policy WP:V was clear enough, that challenged material should not be reinserted without references, but just in case I am missing something I am raising this RFC. Even if the material should prove to be 100% accurate, it is lazy editing and unfair to other editors to expect them to do the hard work of researching reliable sources. Spinning Spark 20:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Whether or not an article is featured is irrelevant. We have two pages that are relevant:
In other words, yes, if something is common knowledge, it can be inserted into an FA without a citation, but discussing first is polite, since one person's common knowledge may be another person's trip to WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
|
The history between "History of electrical engineering" and this articles history don't match up. Specifically the date of the magnetron and RADAR development. A sentence or two on analog computers should also be there. They are very important and widely used in controls. Gsonnenf ( talk) 16:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I have removed most of this paragraph from the article;
The idea that analog signal processing is divorced from its implementation, but digital signal processing is not, is highly dubious. A system described in terms of differential equations can be directly implemented in analog hardware with a one-to-one correspondence between analog hardware blocks and the terms in the mathematical description. A digital system could not have such a direct correspondence. Further, a digital system cannot implement an IIR signal exactly, not even in theory, without making some form of approximation. An analog system, on the other hand, has no problem with this. I think what the author was probably trying to say is something along the lines of this: a digital signal process can be translated into software without reference to the hardware it is to be implemented on. Hardware, and its design, is still required of course, but it can be something standard and ubiquitous regardless of the complexity of the signal process. Spinning Spark 22:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
FYI, a proposal has been made to cover the topic of this article in a dedicated wikiproject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Electrical_Engineering -- 70.49.124.225 ( talk) 06:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Neither
digital computers,
antennas,
radar, nor
electrooptics was mentioned as important subfields of electrical engineering, especially in the introductory sections of this article. I have a B.E.E. and an M.S.E.E., and I have also taught at several schools in the United States. On the undergraduate level, these divided the subfields of electrical engineering, usually quite specifically, into these subfields -- given here in a random order, so do not read anything into the order:
1. Digital electronic circuits & digital computers, including computer architecture.
2. Communication systems (analog & digital) - senior level.
3. Control systems (analog & digital).
4. Basic through intermediate analog circuits - all required courses, of course.
5. Basic and analog electronic circuits - e.g. starting with diodes and transistors and progressing though analog op-amp circuits.
6. Electic power usage, conversion, and transmission - e.g. generators, motors, transformers, and big electric power systems with long-range transmission.
7. Basic through senior-level electromagnetic theory & applications, starting from the level of sophomore physics and continuing through Maxwell's Equations, with applications in transmission lines, microwaves, waveguides, and antennas. The transmission lines aren't the ones used to send electric power from here to there, but rather the ones used in radio communication systems ("cable TV"), sensor systems, and radars.
At many of these schools, there was also a "catch-all" category for courses in instrumentation, optics, and whatever else was left over.
We had some elective courses, and I personally liked subfields #2 and #7 so much that I took one elective course in communications (the only one that was offered) and two elective courses in electromagnetism (the only two that were offered), "Microwaves" and "Antennas".
The courses in communications grabbed my attention, and I was good at them, so when I went to graduate school at Georgia Tech, I had already made up my mind that I was going to take as many courses in communications as I could. Then my graduate advisor told me that I ought to take a three-course sequence in digital signal processing from big experts in that field, so I did, and I loved those. Then the rules said that all M.S. candidates there must complete graduate courses in three different subfields, so I took two in electrooptics - mostly laser theory - one undergraduate and one graduate, since I didn't know anything about that subfield. That was a good idea. Anyway, everything worked on my three subfields, and I completed my minor subject in mathematics, and I earned my M.S.E.E. right on time.
Really, someone really needs to write and edit on this article who really knows about electrical engineering, and not just someone who quotes things from articles and magazines about the subject. Also, really digging though some college catalogs, and understanding what you are reading is necessary.
D.A.W. - BEE -
Auburn University
MSEE -
Georgia Institute of Technology
more graduate courses from the
University of Southern California
98.67.175.254 (
talk)
17:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Cleaned up this because it was unverified (and mostly wrong) material on a "rivalry between Edison and Tesla". The War of Currents was George Westinghouse and Thomas Edison, Tesla only had a small roll in it. "Nikola Tesla" did not make "long-distance electrical transmission networks possible" - that would be the guys who invented transformers, not Tesla. The second paragraph on a Tesla/Edison legacy was all unverified opinion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 03:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I stumbled across this article and could hardly believe it is still listed as an FA. It is seriously under-referenced; the second half of the article lacks even a single citation. I would have taken it straight to WP:FAR but their rules state that a notice must be posted on the article talk page first. If this hasn't been improved in a week or so I will be nominating it there. Cheers -- Loeba (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Tesla seems to have been inserted into this article with the text "rivalry between Edison and Tesla, called the War of Currents" [9]....nope.... that was Edison and Westinghouse. I did some cleanup but many people were involved in the development of AC, so a picture of just Tesla with the caption "developed transformers and induction motors for use in AC" seems a bit WP:UNDUE. I think we are better off with no image for that aspect, since the other option is to try to jam in 4 or 5 pictures of the other people instrumental to AC development. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 02:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Tesla was more of an Electrical Engineer then Edison and because this is an article on electrical engineering (not the war of the currents) his photo deserves to be in the article more then Edison. Edison did not even go to a University, if anything Edison photo need to be on the article titled invention or business not electrical engineering. 2602:306:CC1F:9EA0:304C:2BE8:EBB9:4484 ( talk) 01:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course this is not an article about "People who had a University education" or not the addition of people is done in order to humanize the discipline like any other article in Wikipedia. However, by today standers, like the article talks about a University education is impotent or have past the FE examination which you still need to have at least gone to an ABET-accredited engineering program; unless if referring to a train driver. But putting an University education on the side as Michael Faraday image is also in this article (a self educated book binder) and the fact that Edison own article dose not even call him an engineer but you insist in placing him over Tesla on an article which talks about engineering. Which I may add, is how traditionally the images have appear anyway on this article. Whit semantics of Edison's lack of formal education out of the discussion as Edison had a large impact on electrical engineering for "better or worse" and is a giant in the history and invention of electricity and image deserves to be place in this article. I will not remove his image and replace it only with Tesla as you have done, a knee-jerk reaction. A knee-jerk reaction base on an entire culture of American neo-conservatives who seem to build themselves on a type of "knee-jerk" reaction to any kind of criticism of the kind of pseudo-patriotism they poses.
See also Joseph Swan for the invention of incandescent light, today's larges-scale electrical supply network works on AC not DC. An all out war to establish an electrical engineer standard; won by AC a current standard worked on by Nicol Tesla, and had a large impact on electrical engineering for the better with University education. Edison work with his "team of engineers" in DC development (and there were many more engineers who work in his other inventions in the first industrial research laboratory). There is no reason to single out one guy per the current wording of the article we can be more inclusive. Four images is not to much for an article this size. Especially when the next image is of Guglielmo Marconi a men made famous for the transmission of radio waves across the Atlantic using a considerable amount of Tesla patents. Having an image of a British, American, Serbian (American) and Italian makes the discipline appear more global. As it should be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHC8AbQROvc 2602:306:CC1F:9EA0:CD1A:C745:FB49:7765 ( talk) 06:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. FYI a Tesla Coil is a transformer. 2602:306:CC1F:9EA0:CD1A:C745:FB49:7765 ( talk) 07:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Moved Michael Faraday to address basic pertinence per WP:IMAGE. Remove Edison image as his image is only in "most" not all of the paragraph his image is next to and seems to be taking from the point of the article ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING. His image seems to keep bringing the "rivalry" of DC vs AC between Tesla. Added the image of Dolivo-Dobrovolsky who is the "person who actually did development the 3 phase standard we use today," and because this is the standard we use today it is most appropriate. BTW, AC "worked on by Nicol a Tesla" means AC worked on by Tesla. It does not mean he was the "inventor of those standards" or "even the primary person behind those standards" although he probably is. Will not get more into this or the development of radio per WP:SOAP do the same. 2602:306:CC1F:9EA0:3CD8:792D:2EEA:8E36 ( talk) 22:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Electrical engineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I think there is a big oversight in not mentioning Nikola Tesla as the original developer of the radio technology. Marconi just copied and modified Tesla's designs, and was illegitimately awarded the patents for it. This was admitted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1943 then they restored Tesla's patents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omni ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Electrical engineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The telecommunications engineering, at least as we understand it in Europe, is not an electrical engineering fields. Mostly because not all telecommunications systems use electrical systems for they means, but also mechanical, pneumatic, acoustic o even chemical systems. Telecommunications engineering uses some knowledge of electrical fields but in a same way than this one uses physics, and nobody says than electrical engineering is a field of physics. -- 84.78.243.156 ( talk) 18:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
This is where I find myself working for a few years now and it feels like a specialisation much the same as power electronics, telecomms etc did. I cannot speak for all bio areas. What I have been working on is cardiac focused and I deal with electrical properties of biological materials as much as the electronics I am using to make changes to the biological materials. If I were to be limited to the existing categories, then, like a great many engineers in the 2010's and 2020's, I would need lots of categories to encompass the areas I deal with in sufficient detail to make the claim on the category. I am only proposing adding biomedical engineering and I am interested to know what others think of the proposal. Honestly, I can see arguments both ways. PedantEngineer ( talk) 15:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Electrical engineering article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
Electrical engineering is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 26, 2006. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hey if anyone wants to update this section the IEE has merged now to form the IET, has more members etc 220.233.25.44 12:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
In the Practicing engineers section, there is this sentence "Outside of Europe and North America, engineering graduates per-capita, and hence probably electrical engineering graduates also, are most numerous in Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea". This doesn't make sense to me. Graduates are recorded as per-captia, which is true, but the rest of the sentence doesn't seem to follow. Frmorrison ( talk) 19:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, any one interested in starting an electrical engineering Wiki Project, similar to the following ones:
This user is an electrical engineer. |
with aims to improve the electrical engineering articles throughout Wikipedia, to have a central forum page for related discussions, to assign importance to different articles, to organize, etc.? According to Category:Wikipedian engineers, for example, there are 311 engineers in Wikipedia; I'm sure that many of these users are electrical engineers? I'll start a new category: Category:Wikipedian electrical engineers for the time being. If you are an electrical engineer, please add this category to your user page, or simply paste the userbox (above) to your user page, and it will categorize for you. Thanks and please leave comments. -- Sadi Carnot 12:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
@ 2007-01-20T18:22Z
@ 2007-01-20T23:37Z
@ 2007-01-21T03:42Z
@ 2007-01-21T03:49Z
" No offense to anybody intended, but I think that making a big stink about what you should be called is just pretentious and silly."
If I called myself something I'm not it would be untrue and misleading. If the category naming is sorted I could add myself to it, but not as it stands, I'm not a power plant engineer.
I don't see how the distinction is silly, they are 2 separate things. US terminology is not always universal. Tabby 23:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Now that I see that there is an Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics project page, I would suggest that that project page be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics and Electrical Engineering just as has been done at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, which encompasses four different but related disciplines. In this manner we can begin to establish different "engineering" Wikiprojects. -- Sadi Carnot 16:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
@ 2007-01-28T22:58Z
I have toned down the assertion that EEs are "responsible for..." certain technologies, including the GPS. Despite what the BLS reference says, I think it's something of a reach to claim that EE's are responsible for the GPS. Certainly there are EE aspects of GPS (the RF transmission and signal propagation, user segment receiver design, satellite onboard computers, etc.) But there are equally critical aspects which are not EE (e.g. the design and replenishment of the constellation, the orbit determination system, the onboard clocks, etc. [1]) Not surprisingly, of the two people generally credited with doing the most to bring the GPS into being, one ( Ivan Getting) is an EE (although educated as a physicist), and the other ( Bradford Parkinson) is an aerospace engineer.
If someone wants to rewrite the section to state that "According to the BLS, EEs are responsible for...", I won't object. But to flatly assert that EEs are responsible for the GPS is incorrect. -- Allan McInnes ( talk) 06:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The article is too much fixed on political backgrounds. That means: near only the american pioneers are illustrated and listed. Other important pioneer work and important persons like Alessandro Volta or André Marie Ampère are NOT listed. They should be listed under the main article Electrical engineering, at least in one sentence. Today's stand of technics are based on them.
Nothing against america or something like that. Just to remind on the other serious and important persons.
Just want to know, how is your opinion about that?
greetz SB
17.08.2007 07:26h GMT+1:00
"The term electrical engineering may or may not encompass electronic engineering. Where a distinction is made, electrical engineering is considered to deal with the problems associated with large-scale electrical systems such as power transmission and motor control, whereas electronic engineering deals with the study of small-scale electronic systems including computers and integrated circuits.[1] Another way of looking at the distinction is that electrical engineers are usually concerned with using electricity to transmit energy, while electronics engineers are concerned with using electricity to transmit information."
Electrical Engineers use electricity to transmit information as well (Satellite Communications, RF, Microwaves).
Electronics Engineers also use electricity to transmit energy (you need energy to operate electronic circuits)
The article should not go in details about that. The distiction between the two is that "Electrical Engineers deal with large signals, that is, large amounts of currents and voltages. Electronics Engineers deal with small signals, that is, small amounts-in the order of milli-volts, or milli-amps)
"Perhaps the most important technical skills for electrical engineers are reflected in university programs, which emphasize strong numerical skills, computer literacy and the ability to understand the technical language and concepts that relate to electrical engineering."
Suggest a reword to reflect the reality that universities _seek to_ teach the most important stuff, since whether they succeed or not is another matter. To assume they do would be significantly mistaken IME. Tabby 23:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I just added a link to the Engineering Learning Wiki (external links section). To learn more, please link to this talk page / post. User_talk:Iterator12n#Engineering_Learning_Wiki
I'd like to open a debate on a possible external link listing for this page. I previously had added a link for a site I publish on this page ( EE HomePage.com). This was deleted by one of the moderators as SPAM. I've also since learned of the WP:COI guidelines, and agree it's best to have the community vet such submissions here.
As a practicing EE, one of the problems I encountered in the past was easily finding in-depth reference and tutorial information, and open source tools to help me in my job. Search engines were not up to the task; I often spent hours searching for basic information. I wanted a framework like CiteSeer to organize materials related to a EE course of study. Specifically, the ability to use one resource as a lead to discovering other, related, content. That's what EE HomePage.com does. It pulls together information on relevant open source tools and textbooks, as well as related professional organizations and societies - all geared specifically to practicing EEs, educators and students. That information is indexed by topic, author, resource type, etc, and supplemented with additional, unique, editorial content. So the information there is much more than a set of links, certainly not an encyclopedia article, but (I think) a lot of use to those in the field. The IEEE-USA has agreed (see the January 2007 "IEEE-USA President's Column").
I've read the external links guidelines, and it seems that posting my submission here is the best way to proceed. At this point, I'll be content to sit back and see how the debate evolves. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my submission of EE HomePage.com for the "External Links" listing of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstanley103 ( talk • contribs) 01:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
In the electronics secion there is the statement "By contrast, integrated circuits packed a large number—often millions—of tiny electrical components, mainly transistors, into a small chip around the size of a coin. " Modern pentium processors contain hundreds of millions of transistors. To modernize this I would reccomend changing "often millions" to often "hundreds of millions" Kanst ( talk) 03:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Electrical Engineering is very much an interdisciplinary field. I feel that the page would be helped by taking the some of the fields currently in the Related Fields section, and expanding upon them in the subfield section. MEMS and Biomedical Engineering, while interdisciplinary, are very important fields for electrical engineers at the moment. If someone was to read this page for a glimpse of what an EE does, it would be beneficial for them to be able to learn about MEMS and Biomedical fields. 71.232.116.152 ( talk) 02:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Good evening! I'm leaving this comment to point out that Electrical and computer engineering redirects to Electrical engineering while Electrical and Computer Engineering redirects to Computer engineering, which is not logical. I believe (and I think you're going to agree) that they should redirect to the same article. However, I have not taken any action because I can't decide where they should redirect to. I hope someone else decides correctly and fixes this :) -- TEO64X 10:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that you are probably right that this edit is unsuitable for inclusion but there does exist some verifiability of the claim. SpinningSpark 12:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The History section, even under "Modern developments," only seems to go through 1973. I'm sure there must have been some advancements since then. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I am could add something like the M.E.s' " Frontiers of research" section? Brian the Editor ( talk) 00:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The term "exponentiate" in the article is pseudo-precise, doesn't appear at dictionary.com, and needs to be changed to "increases". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 ( talk) 14:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
what is alternate for flexibles while connecting transformers with busduct..need sugessions
I have reverted the recent string of edits by User:DMChatterton. While some of this is probably good material, a lot of it is unacceptable for a featured article. I took a look at possible copyediting, but it is going to be a lengthy job due to the number of edits made spread over many sections. Basically, my objection is the material is introducing an anglo-centric bias, but I will explain more fully to the user on their talk page. SpinningSpark 13:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
To my knowledge, the Telegraph could be considered to be the first electrical device, and those who developed it were the first electrical engineers.
Just a thought. Sunshine Warrior04 ( talk) 07:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
(undent) So, should we reinstate the review? In other words, were valid issues identified and has work been done/will work soon be done that will rectify any valid issues? Dana boomer ( talk) 23:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Uninvolved close, RFC issue appears to be resolved
|
---|
closing on request. IRWolfie- ( talk) 12:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC) |
Is it acceptable to insert unreferenced material into a Featured Article? Spinning Spark 20:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC) User:Wtshymanski has inserted several unreferenced passages into this article. [2] [3] Despite being asked not to do this, he has repeatedly reinserted this material, or a version of it. [4] [5] [6] He has shown by his comments on this page that he has no intention of providing references, [7] and disputed this point with the FA delegate. [8] I would have thought that the policy WP:V was clear enough, that challenged material should not be reinserted without references, but just in case I am missing something I am raising this RFC. Even if the material should prove to be 100% accurate, it is lazy editing and unfair to other editors to expect them to do the hard work of researching reliable sources. Spinning Spark 20:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Whether or not an article is featured is irrelevant. We have two pages that are relevant:
In other words, yes, if something is common knowledge, it can be inserted into an FA without a citation, but discussing first is polite, since one person's common knowledge may be another person's trip to WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
|
The history between "History of electrical engineering" and this articles history don't match up. Specifically the date of the magnetron and RADAR development. A sentence or two on analog computers should also be there. They are very important and widely used in controls. Gsonnenf ( talk) 16:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I have removed most of this paragraph from the article;
The idea that analog signal processing is divorced from its implementation, but digital signal processing is not, is highly dubious. A system described in terms of differential equations can be directly implemented in analog hardware with a one-to-one correspondence between analog hardware blocks and the terms in the mathematical description. A digital system could not have such a direct correspondence. Further, a digital system cannot implement an IIR signal exactly, not even in theory, without making some form of approximation. An analog system, on the other hand, has no problem with this. I think what the author was probably trying to say is something along the lines of this: a digital signal process can be translated into software without reference to the hardware it is to be implemented on. Hardware, and its design, is still required of course, but it can be something standard and ubiquitous regardless of the complexity of the signal process. Spinning Spark 22:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
FYI, a proposal has been made to cover the topic of this article in a dedicated wikiproject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Electrical_Engineering -- 70.49.124.225 ( talk) 06:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Neither
digital computers,
antennas,
radar, nor
electrooptics was mentioned as important subfields of electrical engineering, especially in the introductory sections of this article. I have a B.E.E. and an M.S.E.E., and I have also taught at several schools in the United States. On the undergraduate level, these divided the subfields of electrical engineering, usually quite specifically, into these subfields -- given here in a random order, so do not read anything into the order:
1. Digital electronic circuits & digital computers, including computer architecture.
2. Communication systems (analog & digital) - senior level.
3. Control systems (analog & digital).
4. Basic through intermediate analog circuits - all required courses, of course.
5. Basic and analog electronic circuits - e.g. starting with diodes and transistors and progressing though analog op-amp circuits.
6. Electic power usage, conversion, and transmission - e.g. generators, motors, transformers, and big electric power systems with long-range transmission.
7. Basic through senior-level electromagnetic theory & applications, starting from the level of sophomore physics and continuing through Maxwell's Equations, with applications in transmission lines, microwaves, waveguides, and antennas. The transmission lines aren't the ones used to send electric power from here to there, but rather the ones used in radio communication systems ("cable TV"), sensor systems, and radars.
At many of these schools, there was also a "catch-all" category for courses in instrumentation, optics, and whatever else was left over.
We had some elective courses, and I personally liked subfields #2 and #7 so much that I took one elective course in communications (the only one that was offered) and two elective courses in electromagnetism (the only two that were offered), "Microwaves" and "Antennas".
The courses in communications grabbed my attention, and I was good at them, so when I went to graduate school at Georgia Tech, I had already made up my mind that I was going to take as many courses in communications as I could. Then my graduate advisor told me that I ought to take a three-course sequence in digital signal processing from big experts in that field, so I did, and I loved those. Then the rules said that all M.S. candidates there must complete graduate courses in three different subfields, so I took two in electrooptics - mostly laser theory - one undergraduate and one graduate, since I didn't know anything about that subfield. That was a good idea. Anyway, everything worked on my three subfields, and I completed my minor subject in mathematics, and I earned my M.S.E.E. right on time.
Really, someone really needs to write and edit on this article who really knows about electrical engineering, and not just someone who quotes things from articles and magazines about the subject. Also, really digging though some college catalogs, and understanding what you are reading is necessary.
D.A.W. - BEE -
Auburn University
MSEE -
Georgia Institute of Technology
more graduate courses from the
University of Southern California
98.67.175.254 (
talk)
17:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Cleaned up this because it was unverified (and mostly wrong) material on a "rivalry between Edison and Tesla". The War of Currents was George Westinghouse and Thomas Edison, Tesla only had a small roll in it. "Nikola Tesla" did not make "long-distance electrical transmission networks possible" - that would be the guys who invented transformers, not Tesla. The second paragraph on a Tesla/Edison legacy was all unverified opinion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 03:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I stumbled across this article and could hardly believe it is still listed as an FA. It is seriously under-referenced; the second half of the article lacks even a single citation. I would have taken it straight to WP:FAR but their rules state that a notice must be posted on the article talk page first. If this hasn't been improved in a week or so I will be nominating it there. Cheers -- Loeba (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Tesla seems to have been inserted into this article with the text "rivalry between Edison and Tesla, called the War of Currents" [9]....nope.... that was Edison and Westinghouse. I did some cleanup but many people were involved in the development of AC, so a picture of just Tesla with the caption "developed transformers and induction motors for use in AC" seems a bit WP:UNDUE. I think we are better off with no image for that aspect, since the other option is to try to jam in 4 or 5 pictures of the other people instrumental to AC development. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 02:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Tesla was more of an Electrical Engineer then Edison and because this is an article on electrical engineering (not the war of the currents) his photo deserves to be in the article more then Edison. Edison did not even go to a University, if anything Edison photo need to be on the article titled invention or business not electrical engineering. 2602:306:CC1F:9EA0:304C:2BE8:EBB9:4484 ( talk) 01:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course this is not an article about "People who had a University education" or not the addition of people is done in order to humanize the discipline like any other article in Wikipedia. However, by today standers, like the article talks about a University education is impotent or have past the FE examination which you still need to have at least gone to an ABET-accredited engineering program; unless if referring to a train driver. But putting an University education on the side as Michael Faraday image is also in this article (a self educated book binder) and the fact that Edison own article dose not even call him an engineer but you insist in placing him over Tesla on an article which talks about engineering. Which I may add, is how traditionally the images have appear anyway on this article. Whit semantics of Edison's lack of formal education out of the discussion as Edison had a large impact on electrical engineering for "better or worse" and is a giant in the history and invention of electricity and image deserves to be place in this article. I will not remove his image and replace it only with Tesla as you have done, a knee-jerk reaction. A knee-jerk reaction base on an entire culture of American neo-conservatives who seem to build themselves on a type of "knee-jerk" reaction to any kind of criticism of the kind of pseudo-patriotism they poses.
See also Joseph Swan for the invention of incandescent light, today's larges-scale electrical supply network works on AC not DC. An all out war to establish an electrical engineer standard; won by AC a current standard worked on by Nicol Tesla, and had a large impact on electrical engineering for the better with University education. Edison work with his "team of engineers" in DC development (and there were many more engineers who work in his other inventions in the first industrial research laboratory). There is no reason to single out one guy per the current wording of the article we can be more inclusive. Four images is not to much for an article this size. Especially when the next image is of Guglielmo Marconi a men made famous for the transmission of radio waves across the Atlantic using a considerable amount of Tesla patents. Having an image of a British, American, Serbian (American) and Italian makes the discipline appear more global. As it should be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHC8AbQROvc 2602:306:CC1F:9EA0:CD1A:C745:FB49:7765 ( talk) 06:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. FYI a Tesla Coil is a transformer. 2602:306:CC1F:9EA0:CD1A:C745:FB49:7765 ( talk) 07:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Moved Michael Faraday to address basic pertinence per WP:IMAGE. Remove Edison image as his image is only in "most" not all of the paragraph his image is next to and seems to be taking from the point of the article ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING. His image seems to keep bringing the "rivalry" of DC vs AC between Tesla. Added the image of Dolivo-Dobrovolsky who is the "person who actually did development the 3 phase standard we use today," and because this is the standard we use today it is most appropriate. BTW, AC "worked on by Nicol a Tesla" means AC worked on by Tesla. It does not mean he was the "inventor of those standards" or "even the primary person behind those standards" although he probably is. Will not get more into this or the development of radio per WP:SOAP do the same. 2602:306:CC1F:9EA0:3CD8:792D:2EEA:8E36 ( talk) 22:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Electrical engineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I think there is a big oversight in not mentioning Nikola Tesla as the original developer of the radio technology. Marconi just copied and modified Tesla's designs, and was illegitimately awarded the patents for it. This was admitted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1943 then they restored Tesla's patents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omni ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Electrical engineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The telecommunications engineering, at least as we understand it in Europe, is not an electrical engineering fields. Mostly because not all telecommunications systems use electrical systems for they means, but also mechanical, pneumatic, acoustic o even chemical systems. Telecommunications engineering uses some knowledge of electrical fields but in a same way than this one uses physics, and nobody says than electrical engineering is a field of physics. -- 84.78.243.156 ( talk) 18:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
This is where I find myself working for a few years now and it feels like a specialisation much the same as power electronics, telecomms etc did. I cannot speak for all bio areas. What I have been working on is cardiac focused and I deal with electrical properties of biological materials as much as the electronics I am using to make changes to the biological materials. If I were to be limited to the existing categories, then, like a great many engineers in the 2010's and 2020's, I would need lots of categories to encompass the areas I deal with in sufficient detail to make the claim on the category. I am only proposing adding biomedical engineering and I am interested to know what others think of the proposal. Honestly, I can see arguments both ways. PedantEngineer ( talk) 15:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)