Talk:Control engineering

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alex24wolter82, Holtz148, NickHernandez2121.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Example
I see space travel is given as THE example of field using control engineering, this could mislead the reader into seeing this as an advanced technology that has no everyday application. The presence of the photo could even give the illusion that it is a space-related article. In fact almost any consuler appliance/vehicle is using feedback loops (I know everyone editing this article is well aware of that, but not your average reader). I try to rephrase the example.--Corentinoger (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I see using control engineering as a tool for designing an ion-plasma engine as a means of common auto engine to replace our antiquated OIL based engines. This would solve our OIL dependency, and whomever does this will be an instant world HERO. ( [LOU DAWG RA14h53m2730s D-22°53'31.20"] in the sky) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.207.56.218 (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I think a simple refrigerator or Air Conditioner example is much more applicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.121.201.254 (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This is true, but it's a much more exciting example. Maybe the addition of photos of refrigerators and A/C units to show the broad field of applications would suffice. LaPlancha (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Generally known
Given that 'Control Engineering' is generally known as Control Theory, on which there is already an article, does this page really serve a purpose, or might it be better to simply redirect to Control Theory? Jenesis 21:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This article may be more accessible to a wider readership, and consequently is a bit bland. I think it reasonable to have more than one article on the subject, one elementary and universally accessible, the others covering aspects of the subject in greater depth.  In having a single dimension criterion of quality (articles are scaled on a naive 'good/bad' rating, rather than more precise 'superficial/deep', 'prosaic/numerate', or I'm sure a hundred other criteria which could be applied) a potential wealth of knowledge is discounted as bad presentation.  Most articles which qualify as 'feature' or 'good' tend to be pretty shallow.Gordon Vigurs 10:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This article could be seen as a point of entry to everything related to control. Control has theory, applications, general principles and structures in my view. So I would suggest to keep this page, and keep the focus of Control theory on the theory.Jan Richter 17:47, 13.10.2006 (UTC)


 * There has been a discussion on the link between control theory and control engineering. It is argued that this link is becoming weaker everyday (and this has been occurring for decades). This is referred to as "the GAP" and is a relevant problem that has seriously affected the credibility that the industry has on control theory research. I have seen control researchers underestimating the consequences of this, and I believe this is mainly caused to the fact that they have created their own "closed loop" in which citing each other on refereed journals is enough to get paid. So, this is not simply a matter of level of detail, although I agree Wikipedia should create something to handle this, but is a matter of approach, engineering is NOT (only) mathematics. From my experience I can tell you that digital control engineering is very different from pole placement and mathematical computation of optimal control laws. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.192.5.216 (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the other responses, that Control Engineering can be a valid stand-alone topic with its own page. However, I wonder why it has a subsection "Control Theory". Wouldn't it be better to simply link to the Control Theory page, to avoid duplicate content? Craq (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Reorganise the See also section?
The section See also appears to be unordered to me. I propose to organise it either aplhabetically, or to structure it according to control design, analysis, applications, etc. I would do this but would like to see your opinion first. Jan Richter 17:52, 13.10.2006 (UTC)

Possible error, need confirmation
In the sentence:

"Therefore, at the design stage either digital components are mapped into the continuous domain and the design is carried out in the continuous domain, or analogue components are mapped in to discrete domain and design is carried out there."

Shouldn't it be:

"Therefore, at the design stage either ANALOG components are mapped into the continuous domain and the design is carried out in the continuous domain, or DIGITAL components are mapped in to discrete domain and design is carried out there." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.171.110.233 (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I dont't think so -- it is saying that if you want to do everything in the continuous domain, you must find a mapping for those signals that you have that are not continuous. User A1 (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting content
The descriptions of modern and classical control theory, in the section "Control theory", conflict with the descriptions in the main article about "Control theory". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.155.63.22 (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Control systems
''This section is out of place. Please remove or merge it into the other sections'' Anonimous comment in article moved to talk page by user:KKoolstra

List of Control Engineering Software
Based on a suggestion from User A1, I would recommend creating a section in this article entitled, "Control Engineering Software" and linking this section to a List of Control Software. There are many software packages in this area of engineering and listing them in the See Also section seems out of place. Mduench (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me User A1 (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Control 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827235300/http://controls.engin.umich.edu/wiki to http://controls.engin.umich.edu/wiki

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Definition of Process
There it is again. The word 'process' being used when introducing the topic of control systems or control engineering. It is not even defined. In fact, it is rare to see any control engineering text book define 'process'. Before anybody even begins to explain control systems or control engineering, the word 'process' needs to be made clear - in terms of controlling a 'process'. That is - on the control system side of things, what exactly is a 'process'? KorgBoy (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

"Careers" section
The "Careers" section seems problematic. Its education requirements, pay rates, and links are all US-centric; some are explicitly so, and I've inferred the others to be as well. Also, information on job opportunities is likely to become quickly dated and does not seem encyclopaedic to me anyway.

Any thoughts on how we can improve this section, or whether it should be dropped? Is there a policy on careers information? (All I can find are articles about careers, and info on editing Wikipedia as part of one's job.) -- Perey (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)