Talk:Engineering/Archive 3

Wind turbine photo
It really doesn't seem like such a complex engineering marvel. I would consider the construction logistics to be more of a marvel. I propose replacing the photo with an image of something with greater broad, multidisciplinary engineering effort, such as something along the lines of:
 * A photo of the International Space Station
 * A photo of an F-22 Raptor
 * A blown-up wire-frame diagram of a Haul Truck
 * A photo of the Singapore Flyer

Thoughts? Efcmagnew (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, and I may not, I think I had the steam turbine at the top. I too would like to replace the turbine, preferably with something that actually shows the engineering side if things if possible. I have no suggestions however. User A1 (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What about a CAD/CAM drawing of an small part? An assembly? Jehan60188 (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Engineering Culture
I believe we need to develop a section on engineering culture and the engineer in society. Is anyone open to this? The role and image of the engineer and the engineering profession in society has evolved differently from country to country since the 19th century. It is often stated that the use of the word engineer and engineering is poorly defined in English speaking countries versus non English speaking countries where Engineers are held in high esteem. This mainly UK perception is wrong. For example contrast the image and role of the engineer between two English speaking countries - the UK and Canada. Engineering in UK has a terrible image and identity problem evidenced by the endless debates on the engineers status and the use of the word engineer by all kinds of semi skilled trades. Contrast this with Canada where professional engineers enjoy a high profile and status in society mainly due to the fact that the profession is licensed and is underpinned by law. This is only one example of a very complex subject that should be recorded in Wikipedia, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.185.160 (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

what about the pages for different licensing bodies? do those not cover the issue? Jehan60188 (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent photo addition
I have reverted the photo of a person sitting in front of a computer as not representative of Software engineering. I will seek the advice of a third opinion WP:3O. Other editors' comments are also welcome. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  16:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Other branches of engineering- 2013
I've just seen the amount of debate on the talk page there has been over an extended period on what constitutes a major branch of engineering, and realized that I've somewhat stepped into this via 2 edits concerning the engineering council. Concerning the "other" branches of engineering, there seems to be a somewhat impromptu list that has developed. I suggest that the UK Engineering Council membership, and the equivalent for other countries, constitutes one means of determining whether or not a branch of engineering is substantial. Gravuritas (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction
The article says electrical engineering started with William Gilbert in 1600. It also says electrical engineering started with Volta and others in the 1800s. I presume either answer is arguable, but not both at the same time. If we state unequivocally that electrical engineering started at time X, then we can only say that once. Art LaPella (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC) makes the edit buttons appear (but some text at the top disappears). Art LaPella (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I rephrased to remove the contradiction. By the way any reason "edit" buttons don't appear on these sections? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  03:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I couldn't fix the edit buttons, but I found that removing
 * Thank you very much for spotting the contradiction and for looking into this. Perhaps I should ask at the VP. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  06:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I asked at VP. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  06:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like one of the templates is using the  magic word. I haven't checked to see which one though. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 06:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. At least now the solution may be near after some more checking of the transcluded templates. Thank you very much Mr. Stradivarius. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  07:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. Special:ExpandTemplates is your friend here. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent. It makes editing much easier now. Thank you very much. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  07:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Needs better title
This article badly confuses experiential and theoretical science (Gilbert, Maxwell, et. al) with engineering. Phmoreno (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This also shortchanges both of these men, who were two of the most important scientists in history. Gilbert's work on the magnet had profound significance because of the thorough experimentation in an attempt to obtain and build on first principles. Maxwell was perhaps the most important theoretical physicist of the 19th century.Phmoreno (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to be confusing engineering and engineering degrees. You can be a perfectly good engineer without going to uni (it's much easier if you do tho). Greglocock (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed my comment about engineering schools because that information was added to the article and confuses the point I was trying to make here about science versus engineering. The fact is that Gilbert and Maxwell are remembered as scientists and I know of no "engineering" design or development done by either of these two. Volta was a scientist and inventor.Phmoreno (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * By my reading the article says that electrical engineering was based on Maxwell's work. It does not claim that Maxwell was an engineer. I think you are being a bit Pointy. Greglocock (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be better to say that Maxwell developed mathematical relationships (Maxwell's equations) that are part of the fundamental basis of electrical engineering theory.Phmoreno (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Devices
Per WP:LEAD we are not supposed to load the introduction of this article with minute details such as detailing types of devices right at the top of the article. Please discuss before inserting any more devices. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Structural engineering
It's a surprise to find that structural engineering is not mentioned at all in the article, given the importance of the profession in modern life. The article structural engineer makes things fairly clear - in the USA they are considered a subset of civil engineering, whereas in the UK (where I work as an architect) it is entirely separate. I'm not sure about the rest of the world. I realise of course there are many different engineering disciplines that could be mentioned and would overload the article if they were all included, but really, virtually every modern building uses an engineer and it seems peculiar not to think that worth a mention. ProfDEH (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct. In engineering firms in the U.S. where I worked for a number of years the job title was civil/structural engineer and they were typically civil engineers who specialized in structural work.  I added a paragraph and wikilink.Phmoreno (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but, in the absence of WP:RS calling this a main branch of Engineering, this information cannot be added to the article. It would just be unsourced original research. Dr.   K.  03:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * These are the three reliable sources that support the main four branches in the article along with the relevant quotes for ease of verification. None of these sources make any mention of Structural Engineering. Dr.   K.  03:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yup, not a main branch. It is a twig. Greglocock (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Should Structural Engineering be included as a Main Branch of Engineering?
Should Structural Engineering be included as a Main Branch of Engineering? Dr.  K.  15:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No, it should not. There is not a single reliable source calling Structural Engineering a Main Branch of Engineering. All the other Main Branches of Engineering have multiple reliable sources supporting them as Main Branches in this article. Please see discussion above. Until such time as reliable sources are provided calling Structural Engineering a "Main Branch of Engineering", this statement is simply original research. Also please see relevant discussions in the archives: Engineering branches (Archive 2) and Branches of Engineering (Archive 1).  Dr.   K.  15:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The licensing exam refers to structural as a specialty under civil engineering, which would confirm that it is not a main branch. NCEES exams Sorry for my error.Phmoreno (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You know, I was thinking when this started that structural was so closely related to civil that it must be some specialty of civil. But I didn't think of finding a source proving that connection. Thank you for the find and your honesty. Best regards. Dr.   K.  03:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on 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/20111104130716/http://www.eas.caltech.edu:80/about/chair to http://www.eas.caltech.edu/about/chair
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041027082520/http://www.asee.org:80/ to http://www.asee.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eas.caltech.edu/about/chair
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081220001131/http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humananatomy/skeletal/skeletalsystem.html to http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humananatomy/skeletal/skeletalsystem.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.asee.org/

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) 22:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 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/20070216235716/http://live.asce.org/hh/index.mxml?versionChecked=true to http://live.asce.org/hh/index.mxml?versionChecked=true
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929162436/http://www.careercornerstone.org/pdf/nuclear/nuceng.pdf to http://www.careercornerstone.org/pdf/nuclear/nuceng.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414014038/http://emiusa.org/index.html to http://www.emiusa.org/index.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20140619142335/http://www.georgededwards.co.uk/policy/why-does-it-matter-why-are-engineering-skills-important to http://www.georgededwards.co.uk/policy/why-does-it-matter-why-are-engineering-skills-important
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006103241/http://www.georgededwards.co.uk/the-era-foundation-report.html to http://www.georgededwards.co.uk/the-era-foundation-report.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070317145554/http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ime/mission.html to http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ime/mission.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927180822/http://www.chiefengineer.org/content/content_display.cfm/seqnumber_content/2697.htm to http://www.chiefengineer.org/content/content_display.cfm/seqnumber_content/2697.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070419194433/http://www.users.drew.edu/~ejustin/leonardo.htm to http://www.users.drew.edu/~ejustin/leonardo.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229060701/http://www.nspe.org/GovernmentRelations/TakeAction/PositionStatements/ps_lic_qual_prac.html to http://www.nspe.org/GovernmentRelations/TakeAction/PositionStatements/ps_lic_qual_prac.html

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) 14:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring to add bad sources and unneeded verbosity at the lead
It has to stop. The sources are terrible: The description, right at the lead, aside from being overly detailed and verbose, also distorts the very meaning of Engineering, because it defines it as a "profession". Engineering is not confined only to the concept of a profession. It is primarily a discipline of Applied Science. Calling it a "profession" at the lead is misleading and unacceptable. Dr.  K.  06:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph
Between the edit on 14:42, 26 January 2018 and the edit on 00:28, 27 January 2018, the first paragraph lost a lot of content. Today (11:01, 15 March 2018), it's a little better.

Engineering applies more than "scientific knowledge and mathematical methods" - I don't think many people would associate economics (cost is a huge engineering driver) or the social sciences (philosophy and ethics, sociology, and psychology come to mind) as falling into "scientific knowledge". Thinking of someone who is visiting this page to learn about engineering, I think it should be clear that it's not all science, math, and technology. We also lost innovation, maintenance, and research and the idea of tools, components, materials,

I applied the following sentence to the article:

Engineering is the application of science and practical knowledge to the innovation, analysis, design, construction, and maintenance of structures, machines, materials, systems, processes, and organizations.

This seems to be generally inclusive of the work done by engineers. Thanks to the article on science, "science" is inclusive of economics as well as the social sciences and this slightly longer than now but shorter than before first paragraph gives a better picture of what engineering is and therefore what different engineers do.

--Thomas J. Owens (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Wellington
Wellington's adage about an engineer being able to do for one dollar what any fool can do for two was removed today. I think that this is worthwile having in the article as of historical significance as Wellington is the source of this oft repeated phrase. I agree that it is not entirely accurate (or at least not the whole story) and this could have been explained better, but economics was a much bigger driver in Wellington's day than safety. Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 20:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Engineering Consulting?
Hello I am wanting to add Engineering Consulting into the Other Branches in the main branches of engineering section. The plan is to create a stand alone page for engineering consulting and tie it into the other branch section

I have a few sources thought out but I wanted approval from this group before starting on the page.Brent Shepherd (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The usual advice (WP:WTAF) is to start from the other end. Write an article (your userspace would be good) as Engineering consulting first, then move that into article space, then add a descriptive paragraph and links to it from here.
 * It's a good topic, certainly. I'm surprised we don't already have something. We have engineering management but nothing for consulting and consulting engineer is just a redirect to the bland engineering article so far.
 * That said, if you're new here it can be a little fierce sometimes and a few dozen edits to existing work can often be useful practice before anything from scratch. Feel free to message me about anything.   I'd also suggest using talk: pages and discussion a lot. That can often avoid problems with other users before they arise. I'd also suggest (as always) an "essay plan" before writing the prose.  Typically that's just the headings, or you can stick notes on the article talk page (even User talk:Brent Shepherd/Engineering consulting). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I will message you with questions as i get them and maybe to let you review the article as I start writing it.


 * I agree that our coverage of engineering consulting should be expanded. Are there any reliable sources that refer to consulting as a "branch", though? VQuakr (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There are a few different scholarly articles and some different site info that explains what engineering consulting is and how it how if differs from the other forms of engineering

Engineering definition
The current definition is a quote that was clearly written by someone tying to CYA because the institution they worked for was big enough to have enemies or have been attacked in the past.

Perhaps it could be changed to a human readable definition like this

Engineering is: "Making things you want, out of things you can get, for a price you can afford."

I tried to make this change (I just added the new def didn't delete so the pedants wouldn't flip) but found I had indented all the section below the edit so I reverted the article feel free to help if you want to improve readability. I mean really does anyone who is a practicing engineer like the current one? (slap me down if you want but do it on talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.68.19.212 (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Mechanical Engineering
Added field of study. Please advice if there is more to this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D kim 410 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Engineering responsibility description
I have added engineering ethics citation to the very last paragraph of Relationships with other disciplines section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D kim 410 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Other branches of engineering
I have added aerospace engineering and marine engineering. Please feel free to add more branches of engineering and description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D kim 410 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Engineering in Ancient China
I think a discussion of the civil engineering waterworks of Liangzhu culture probably warrant inclusion under "History". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liangzhu_culture Multicappie (talk) 10:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Multicappie

Reverted edits 6-26-2020
I reverted some recent edits with the edit summary: "restore to last version as edited by AnomieBOT at 01:53, 26 June 2020.  (1) Computer Engineering is a field as described; (2) interdisciplinary engineering is real--it combines multiple fields (3) Colliers definition does not support the text.  It's not the correct definition of engineering used on this page.  This page is about the profession of engineering, not things like train engineers, people who make engines, etc. Discuss: [here]". --David Tornheim (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Re your third point, i.e. adding a reference to the definition of "engineer" from Collins dictionary . Definition 1 on that page says "An engineer is a person who uses scientific knowledge to design, construct, and maintain engines and machines or structures such as roads, railways, and bridges." In what way is that materially different from the definition of engineering given in the lead of this article? Rosbif73 (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * From the WP:LEDE "The discipline of engineering encompasses a broad range of more specialized fields of engineering, each with a more specific emphasis on particular areas of applied mathematics, applied science, and types of application. See glossary of engineering." The first line of the WP:LEDE is more limited than the broader definition.  . Note that Bureau of Labor Statistics says entry level requires Bachelors. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I still fail to see how engineering as defined in the lead diverges substantially from engineer as defined in point 1 of Collins and how that makes that cite not support the text. And as to citing a US government Bureau for qualification requirements, let me remind you of my point on Talk:Elon Musk (where this discussion started), that wikipedia is supposed to take a global point of view to avoid systemic bias. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That was a very poor edit. (1) Computer Engineering is a field as described; is no justification to include Comp. Eng. in the main branches. You added Comp. Eng. when the sources do not mention it as a Main Branch. Instead of reverting to WP:HIJACK the sources of the MAIN branches which do *not* include Computer Engineering, you should have moved COMP. to other branches. As far as Interd. Eng. at least you should have moved its level up. The way you reverted it to, made it appear as if Interd. Engineering was a main branch, which it is not. I did all of that in my new edit. Be more careful when you edit any article, including this one. By the way, there were multiple big dicussions about the main branches. which can be found in the archives. I had participated in all of them and I keep this article in line with those discussions. Do not alter the main branches unilaterally. Dr.   K.  15:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with your edit moving engineering to not be a main branch. I wouldn't have reverted if you had done that initially.  I was considering moving it myself last night, because I noticed it was in the wrong section, but it was getting late.  You added Comp. Eng. when the sources do not mention it as a Main Branch.  I did no such thing.  The material was added to that section by a new editor  two months ago.  I reverted and restored the section on Computer Engineering which you had entirely deleted along with reverting the other edits too.  So I really don't appreciate that you are accusing me of that, when I know better. Just for the record, I have a bachelors and masters in Electrical Engineering, and was entitled to add Computer Engineering to my first degree title, but was advised against it because at the time it was considered a less recognized field by employers.
 * there were multiple big dicussions about the main branches. which can be found in the archives. Do you expect editors to read the entirety of every talk page and its archives before making an edit?  If you want editors to the article to be aware of an ongoing or past discussion(s), I suggest you add a link to it in the edit summary, so they don't feel like they are being sent on wild goose chase.
 * If you had simply made the edit of moving it saying, "move Computer Engineering to appropriate section; not a main field of Engineering" and avoided the inflammatory accusation of WP:HIJACK, which sounds like one is hijacking or trying to WP:OWN the article, the above two paragraphs and their negativity directed at me could have been avoided and we could have been on our merry way with a collegial improvement to the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Let's focus here. My comments about past discussions may or may not be helpful to you. But that's not the point. Per your comments here and on my talk, you claim you are an experienced editor. If that is so, why did you revert my edit in its entirety? That was very rude and unnecessary. You reverted my first edit although in that very first edit I had made the claim of HIJACKing not against you, but against whomever had added Computer Engineering into the main branches. If you really understood my first edit why did you revert me and restore Computer Engineering back into the Main Branches? I would not expect such restoration from an experienced editor. It was a careless edit which restored the hijacking of the references, although I pointed it out in my edit-summary: Computer engineering is not a main branch. Check the intro of the main branch section and its sources. Removed per WP:HIJACKING. Did you check the intro of the main branch section to see if the sources supported Computer Engineering as a main branch as I pointed out to you? Not only you did not, but you summarily reverted my edit. Is this how an experienced editor is supposed to act? Pointing this out to you again, after your rude and unnecessary revert of my edit has nothing to do with inflammatory comments or AGF. In fact, your wholesale revert of my edit despite my detailed explanation in my edit summary was inflammatory. Btw, I removed Computer Engineering entirely because I consider this to be a slippery slope. If in addition to the main branches everyone feels free to add the description of their favourite branch of Engineering in this generalist article, it would become unnecessarily duplicative and long. Dr.   K.  22:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Grammatical Edits
My account does not have privileges to edit this page (too few edits). Would someone who can please fix the grammatical and formatting errors under Bioengineering? The section is not in title case and the paragraph has capitalization issues. I understand there is a conversation about whether this section should be included to begin with, but if it is going to be on the page, it should at least adhere to the formatting of the rest of the page.

Thanks Novemberjsierra (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2021
Today, there are six major branches of engineering: <a href="https://adaptandlearn.online/levele2?q1=Engineering&q2=Mechanical%20Engineering" title="Mechanical">Mechanical</a>, <a href="https://adaptandlearn.online/levele2?q1=Engineering&q2=Chemical%20Engineering" title="Chemical">Chemical</a>, <a href="https://adaptandlearn.online/levele2?q1=Engineering&q2=Civil%20Engineering" title="Civil">Civil</a>, <a href="https://adaptandlearn.online/levele2?q1=Engineering&q2=Electrical%20Engineering" title="Electrical">Electrical</a>, Management and Geotechnical, and hundreds of different subcategories of <a href="https://adaptandlearn.online/home?q1=Engineering" title="Engineering">Engineering</a>Engineering under each branch. Pamela9768 (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 08:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Cleaning
Instructions on cleaning a 1932 landscaping telescope 2600:100B:B110:C738:0:56:E0EC:2A01 (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Welcome! Most of Wikipedia isn't focused on how-to guides, but you could try the reference desk. VQuakr (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 October 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ayushs3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wirthj0.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2022
Add a reference to:

'Scientists may also have to complete engineering tasks, such as designing experimental apparatus or building prototypes. Conversely, in the process of developing technology, engineers sometimes find themselves exploring new phenomena, thus becoming, for the moment, scientists or more precisely "engineering scientists".'

Found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering#Science:~:text=Scientists%20may%20also,precisely%20%22engineering%20scientists%22.

Reference to insert:

https://www.esm.psu.edu/academics/undergraduate/what-is-engineering-science.aspx Muriosity (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I will add it. Deltaspace42 (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Deltaspace42 (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Engineering versus science
Section 9.1 offers a mischaracterization of science. Theodore von Kármán's quote "Scientists study the world as it is; engineers create the world that has never been" omits established branches of science such as chemistry. As the chemist Marcellin Berthelot wrote in 1876, "chemistry creates its own object." Chemists have been creating new molecules and substances since the very beginning of the discipline. In fact, the distinction between a synthetic chemist and a chemical engineer is often one of scale only: laboratory versus industrial plant.

Vincenti's statement that problems in engineering research are "too complex to solve exactly" also mischaracterizes the kind of problems encountered in scientific research. Disciplines such as computational chemistry are devoted to the development of numerical algorithms because the electronic Schrödinger equation cannot be solved exactly for anything with more than one electron. And for more complex molecules, it is necessary to resort to semi-empirical methods, because computers are not yet powerful enough.

The entire section 9.1 would be changed to better reflect the true distinction between science and engineering. I also miss a link to the Engineering Science page. Juanrga (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * When chemists engineer new molecules they are doing chemical engineering. The quote is slightly humorous. Greglocock (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They are actually doing engineering chemistry. :) Juanrga (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Engines
  106.66.36.204 (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Engines
, 106.66.36.204 (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2023
Add citation to the text below:https://www.google.nl/books/edition/The_Future_of_Post_Human_Engineering/Pu8YBwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=engineering+research+employs+many+semi-empirical+methods+that+are+foreign+to+pure+scientific+research,+one+example+being+the+method+of+parameter+variation&pg=PA141&printsec=frontcover "Second, engineering research employs many semi-empirical methods that are foreign to pure scientific research, one example being the method of parameter variation.[citation needed]" Internetsleuth (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good work, thank you! — Sirdog (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Definition section
Is this really needed? There is a definition of engineering in the lead already. Rocfan275 (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)