![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Technology is the collection of state-of-the-art- techniques, knowledge etc on a certain subject.
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.
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
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
This article contains many factual errors but most significantly it opens with the following statement:
This is misleading, even meaningless, for the following reasons:
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
Perhaps wikipedia needs an information engineer to deal with this subject.
You could go with the definition of of the DCSA in the UK with is "Engineers turn ideas into reality" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.178.105 ( talk) 17:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
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?!
Any interest in articles about the History of Engineering? What I see this covering would include:
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
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!
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)
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:
which is similar to the American Heritage version. The OED notes an alternative route:
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
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 suppose that it wouldn't hurt to mention a couple insightful jokes on engineers:
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)
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)
I discussed the major branches of engineering section with fellow students and teachers at the engineering school that I attend and everyone I have talked to agrees that aeronautical engineering should be removed. I talked to a wide verity of engineers with different majors and backgrounds. The truth is the majority of engineering schools do not offer aeronautical engineering at all. So are they not engineering colleges besides the one in London referenced? Aeronautical engineering is a specialized branch of mechanical engineering. We can include other disiplines of engineering such as mining and petroleum if aeronautical is considered a main branch. Because one college offers it does not make it a main branch of engineering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.48.117 ( talk) 00:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)]
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)
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)
This article contains a number of factual errors. Most significantly it opens with the following misleading, even meaningless, statement:
It is an unsatisfactory definition the following reasons:
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
I think medicine is more like being a car mechanic than being an engineer designing a car, they don't improve or change anything, they only repair things. I think that there needs to an element of design and creativity in the definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.178.105 ( talk) 17:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The first link (automotive engineering) under 'see also' links back to this page... methinks that should be fixed?
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)
For discussion of the recently proposed merge of this article and Engineer, please see Talk:Engineer/Archives/2012#Merge?. Thanks. -- Allan McInnes ( talk) 20:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
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:
-- Allan McInnes ( talk) 17:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:Fields of engineering -- Allan McInnes ( talk) 17:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
Only one Da Vinci reference, and at the end? I'm dissapointed -- AnYoNe! 21:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Electrical, Mechanical, Computer, Chemical, and possibly Civil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.116.25 ( talk) 04:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Here is another reference for the main types:
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)
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)
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)
A point which came to my attention was whether Aerospace Engineering is historically a main branch. I have an opinion that there are several other branches which can be considered at par with it, say naval architecture. Please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrysalSnowlax ( talk • contribs) 03:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
("outdent") -- I think that eliminating this section entirely is throwing the baby out with the bathwater to some extent. This section has been moderately stable (ie edit war free) for about a year now, with the alternate article providing a good alternative to deleting this section. I think that the historical sections are quite important, and play an important role in allowing the reader to garner an appreciation for both the roles that engineers can play, and why as a society we have come to regard this as a discipline which is important -- I think that these points could not be well established simply providing a list, or short prose that describes engineering fields today. <speculation> This may be primarily due to the simultaneous diversification of fields that has come as a result of specialisation in modern engineering. (speculation accellerando) It is probable that these newly derived specialised fields inherit concepts that are fundamental and core to earlier more generic sub-disciplines, which in turn and were critical to society, probably during industrial times</speculation>.
In short, I think it is stable and well enough written as is, and changing it to represent a modern view may degenerate back into the mire that started this incredibly long talk section ;) ) User A1 ( talk) 13:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
In the discussion it was stated that a branch could be mentioned if engineers working in seperate fields would not be competent in the specified field. I believe that biomedical fits in this category (It requires specialist knowledge, not a general understanding of engineering). I'm not suggesting that it should be mentioned in the list of 5 main fields, but it should be mentioned amongst the examples in the list below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.188.79 ( talk) 22:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
"Whereas medical ethics is a well-established field with considerable consensus, engineering ethics is far less developed, and engineering projects can be subject to considerable controversy. Just a few examples of this from different engineering disciplines are the development of nuclear weapons, the Three Gorges Dam, the design and use of Sports Utility Vehicles and the extraction of oil. There is a growing trend amongst western engineering companies to enact serious Corporate and Social Responsibility policies, but many companies do not have these."
This statement isn't just biased (Are engineers really just a bunch of capitalistic, environment rapists? If so, how are engineers among the most trusted professions), it's also not accurate. The field of engineering ethics is extremely well developed and in many cases, clearer than medical ethics on the course forward in any given situation. Paramount to any engineers work is public safety. Secondarily, the avoidance of any conflict of interest (again, to ensure public safety), practing only in areas of your training and experience, and honesty in regard to the services rendered are all parts of the engineers code of ethics.
There are engineers who work with anthropologists to preserve artifacts and treat human remains with respect. There are engineers responsible for remediating damaged areas of the Everglades, developing the next generation of enviornmentally sound catalysts, developing new technologies for clean power, and supporting clean water across the globe. In all areas, they are working to make human life better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.219.133.131 ( talk) 15:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the the article, the first paragraph in particular, fails to really inform me of what Engineering actually is. The history section for example talks about the "fundamental inventions such as the pulley, lever, and wheel." as engineering as well as the Great Wall of China also being engineering. Surely if this were the case then the majority of human technological achievements are a result of engineering, yet the article doesn't mention this? Or am I simply confused about the real meaning of Engineering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hivemind5747 ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
creating "Engineering as a career" section would be a nice addition to this article. I have looked around Wikipedia and there is nothing on the process of becoming an engineer. Septagram ( talk) 05:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The image File:Dilbert animation cell.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 11:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Legislation is not the proper heading for the content that is described underneath it. Legislation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.186.11 ( talk) 13:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
"Engineering is the science, discipline, art and profession of acquiring and applying technical, scientific and mathematical knowledge to design and implement materials, structures, machines, devices, systems, and processes that safely realize a desired objective or inventions."
I think a better first paragraph is:
"Engineering is the discipline and profession of acquiring and applying technical, scientific and mathematical knowledge to design and implement materials, structures, machines, devices, systems, and processes that safely realize a desired objective or inventions."
Engineering is not a science...it's an engineering. Although I'm sure there are sciences devoted to studying engineering. And it's not an art, either, in my (educated) opinion. It is a discipline and a profession.
However, I'm curious as to what other people think...Thoughts? ThomasOwens ( talk) 23:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to open up the pissing contest but merely state facts. Incorporated Engineers (in the UK) from what I understand require a 3 year bachelors degree and are therefore subject to the Sydney Accord, not the Washington Accord. This means that Incorporated Engineers are not equivalent to Chartered Engineers, Professional Engineers, Professional Chartered Engineers, or any other members of the Washington Accord. AKA, Incorporated Engineers are the equivalent of Technologists in Canada, (I believe a similar term is used in the US). Please changes this. PS I'm not saying engineers are "better", I'm just pointing out that it's a different occupation and should not be included in this page as they have their own. 131.202.11.233 ( talk) 17:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
HOW CAN WE ADMIT IN YOUR UNIVERSITY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.40.142 ( talk) 14:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Technology is the collection of state-of-the-art- techniques, knowledge etc on a certain subject.
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.
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
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
This article contains many factual errors but most significantly it opens with the following statement:
This is misleading, even meaningless, for the following reasons:
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
Perhaps wikipedia needs an information engineer to deal with this subject.
You could go with the definition of of the DCSA in the UK with is "Engineers turn ideas into reality" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.178.105 ( talk) 17:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
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?!
Any interest in articles about the History of Engineering? What I see this covering would include:
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
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!
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)
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:
which is similar to the American Heritage version. The OED notes an alternative route:
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
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 suppose that it wouldn't hurt to mention a couple insightful jokes on engineers:
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)
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)
I discussed the major branches of engineering section with fellow students and teachers at the engineering school that I attend and everyone I have talked to agrees that aeronautical engineering should be removed. I talked to a wide verity of engineers with different majors and backgrounds. The truth is the majority of engineering schools do not offer aeronautical engineering at all. So are they not engineering colleges besides the one in London referenced? Aeronautical engineering is a specialized branch of mechanical engineering. We can include other disiplines of engineering such as mining and petroleum if aeronautical is considered a main branch. Because one college offers it does not make it a main branch of engineering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.48.117 ( talk) 00:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)]
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)
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)
This article contains a number of factual errors. Most significantly it opens with the following misleading, even meaningless, statement:
It is an unsatisfactory definition the following reasons:
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
I think medicine is more like being a car mechanic than being an engineer designing a car, they don't improve or change anything, they only repair things. I think that there needs to an element of design and creativity in the definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.178.105 ( talk) 17:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The first link (automotive engineering) under 'see also' links back to this page... methinks that should be fixed?
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)
For discussion of the recently proposed merge of this article and Engineer, please see Talk:Engineer/Archives/2012#Merge?. Thanks. -- Allan McInnes ( talk) 20:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
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:
-- Allan McInnes ( talk) 17:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:Fields of engineering -- Allan McInnes ( talk) 17:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
Only one Da Vinci reference, and at the end? I'm dissapointed -- AnYoNe! 21:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Electrical, Mechanical, Computer, Chemical, and possibly Civil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.116.25 ( talk) 04:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Here is another reference for the main types:
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)
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)
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)
A point which came to my attention was whether Aerospace Engineering is historically a main branch. I have an opinion that there are several other branches which can be considered at par with it, say naval architecture. Please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrysalSnowlax ( talk • contribs) 03:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
("outdent") -- I think that eliminating this section entirely is throwing the baby out with the bathwater to some extent. This section has been moderately stable (ie edit war free) for about a year now, with the alternate article providing a good alternative to deleting this section. I think that the historical sections are quite important, and play an important role in allowing the reader to garner an appreciation for both the roles that engineers can play, and why as a society we have come to regard this as a discipline which is important -- I think that these points could not be well established simply providing a list, or short prose that describes engineering fields today. <speculation> This may be primarily due to the simultaneous diversification of fields that has come as a result of specialisation in modern engineering. (speculation accellerando) It is probable that these newly derived specialised fields inherit concepts that are fundamental and core to earlier more generic sub-disciplines, which in turn and were critical to society, probably during industrial times</speculation>.
In short, I think it is stable and well enough written as is, and changing it to represent a modern view may degenerate back into the mire that started this incredibly long talk section ;) ) User A1 ( talk) 13:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
In the discussion it was stated that a branch could be mentioned if engineers working in seperate fields would not be competent in the specified field. I believe that biomedical fits in this category (It requires specialist knowledge, not a general understanding of engineering). I'm not suggesting that it should be mentioned in the list of 5 main fields, but it should be mentioned amongst the examples in the list below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.188.79 ( talk) 22:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
"Whereas medical ethics is a well-established field with considerable consensus, engineering ethics is far less developed, and engineering projects can be subject to considerable controversy. Just a few examples of this from different engineering disciplines are the development of nuclear weapons, the Three Gorges Dam, the design and use of Sports Utility Vehicles and the extraction of oil. There is a growing trend amongst western engineering companies to enact serious Corporate and Social Responsibility policies, but many companies do not have these."
This statement isn't just biased (Are engineers really just a bunch of capitalistic, environment rapists? If so, how are engineers among the most trusted professions), it's also not accurate. The field of engineering ethics is extremely well developed and in many cases, clearer than medical ethics on the course forward in any given situation. Paramount to any engineers work is public safety. Secondarily, the avoidance of any conflict of interest (again, to ensure public safety), practing only in areas of your training and experience, and honesty in regard to the services rendered are all parts of the engineers code of ethics.
There are engineers who work with anthropologists to preserve artifacts and treat human remains with respect. There are engineers responsible for remediating damaged areas of the Everglades, developing the next generation of enviornmentally sound catalysts, developing new technologies for clean power, and supporting clean water across the globe. In all areas, they are working to make human life better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.219.133.131 ( talk) 15:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the the article, the first paragraph in particular, fails to really inform me of what Engineering actually is. The history section for example talks about the "fundamental inventions such as the pulley, lever, and wheel." as engineering as well as the Great Wall of China also being engineering. Surely if this were the case then the majority of human technological achievements are a result of engineering, yet the article doesn't mention this? Or am I simply confused about the real meaning of Engineering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hivemind5747 ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
creating "Engineering as a career" section would be a nice addition to this article. I have looked around Wikipedia and there is nothing on the process of becoming an engineer. Septagram ( talk) 05:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The image File:Dilbert animation cell.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 11:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Legislation is not the proper heading for the content that is described underneath it. Legislation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.186.11 ( talk) 13:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
"Engineering is the science, discipline, art and profession of acquiring and applying technical, scientific and mathematical knowledge to design and implement materials, structures, machines, devices, systems, and processes that safely realize a desired objective or inventions."
I think a better first paragraph is:
"Engineering is the discipline and profession of acquiring and applying technical, scientific and mathematical knowledge to design and implement materials, structures, machines, devices, systems, and processes that safely realize a desired objective or inventions."
Engineering is not a science...it's an engineering. Although I'm sure there are sciences devoted to studying engineering. And it's not an art, either, in my (educated) opinion. It is a discipline and a profession.
However, I'm curious as to what other people think...Thoughts? ThomasOwens ( talk) 23:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to open up the pissing contest but merely state facts. Incorporated Engineers (in the UK) from what I understand require a 3 year bachelors degree and are therefore subject to the Sydney Accord, not the Washington Accord. This means that Incorporated Engineers are not equivalent to Chartered Engineers, Professional Engineers, Professional Chartered Engineers, or any other members of the Washington Accord. AKA, Incorporated Engineers are the equivalent of Technologists in Canada, (I believe a similar term is used in the US). Please changes this. PS I'm not saying engineers are "better", I'm just pointing out that it's a different occupation and should not be included in this page as they have their own. 131.202.11.233 ( talk) 17:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
HOW CAN WE ADMIT IN YOUR UNIVERSITY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.40.142 ( talk) 14:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)