Talk:Electrical engineering/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Headings

Hi,

For the subfields section, I've converted to a new format that is a combination of the two previous ones. The last one I felt did not emphasise the subfields enough. I hope this is a satisfactory compromise.

Sincerely,

Cedars 02:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

OK--Light current 02:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed we have a featured article!. But how did this happen? I mean who decides on it and grants featured status? I suppose congratulations to all concerned must now be issued? If it is featured, I suggest no more major edits are done on it for a while at least without proper agreement of all parties concerned..--Light current 02:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles are promoted by User:Raul654 if consensus to promote is achieved in the nomination and all actionable objections are resolved. The article can still be edited like before but major edits should be discussed (just as they probably should have been before the nomination). Cedars 01:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and congratulations on achileving your aim!--Light current 01:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

History

In autumn 2005, I wrote the main part of the history of electrical engineering. This description of the history is currently part of the article. A brief depiction of the beginning of electrical engineering at different universities worldwide is included. However, the part of the first chair of electrical engineering worldwide founded at the Darmstadt University of Technology in 1882 was cancelled twice. I added this part once again in order to give a correct and impartial survey. I hope that other authors also intend to write their contributions in an impartial style. Adamy 9:47, 17 March 2006 (MEZ)

Yes well this does back up my claim that the article does not present a worldwide view. I ve tried to fix it so many times but have ben opposed so often that its just not worth trying any more. The European view point is given very little consideration in my view. Perhaps Electrical engineering in Europe might be an answer.--Light current 10:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Electrical and computer engineering merge

Yes, lets merge it into the the Computer engineering para of this article to get it out of the way!--Light current 14:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why? That would increase the size of the article. Worse, it relegates computer engineering to a subset of EE. That's fine for 20 years ago, but CpE has evolved significantly into a distinct field of study since then. If anything, I think it speaks to the (lack of) quality of the computer engineering article. EDIT: Keep forgetting to sign.--Sporkot 02:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The size of elec eng has not been increased, because all the stuff on electrical and computer engineering was already there anyway. It is sometimes done by EEs and this is all the electrical engineering article is saying. If it is also done by non EEs, thats what the CpE article should say. You will notice that computer engineering has its own page. All we have done is to remove the rare case of electrical and computer engineering as a subject with its own page. As to the quality of the computer engineering article: if it aint good enough, improve it!--Light current 03:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I was formerly a CmpE major and at my school (Georgia Tech), CmpE is just a subset of EE. CmpEs just specialize in digital design and VLSI. Anyway, FWIW... -- uberpenguin @ 2006-03-26 03:17Z

Just because a university merges majors does not mean that they are not two distinct areas. Computer engineering is a realm unto itself.

I said FWIW. My only point is that there are some people who make little distinction between EE and CmpE, though the distinction is there. I don't particularly think that the CmpE article should be merged into this one because of that, however. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-03-28 05:47Z

Hub page notice

I have included a hub page notice at the to of this page. its self explanatory. I hope that this can stay here as its an important navigational concept I feel and will help readers.--Light current 05:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Electrical engineering as a career

Any one think we could spilt off the professional stuff to a new page??--Light current 23:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am against splitting the EE article because I feel the EE article provides a good summary of EE as it is. Cedars 11:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Survey on redirecting electrical and electronics engineering

Hi everyone,

There is a survey here on whether the electrical and electronics engineering article should be redirected to this article. Your input on the matter would be very much appreciated.

Thank you for your time.

Cedars 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The correct procedure would be to put a merge tag on electrical and electronics engineering and seeking consensus on that before redirecting the page.--Light current 01:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have put the merge tag on electrical and electronics engineering for you and I would ask you to respect the consensus of opinion on it as I will!.--Light current 02:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Light current. Cedars 07:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Electrical Engineering vs Electronic Engineering

The articles on each should say at the top exactly what they cover, since these terms are highly confusable (in the US at least). If We're going to use the more specific european terms, then that should be noted at the top of both pages. Fresheneesz 03:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

See the second paragraph of the lead. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 00:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Extract from featured article on main page:

Where this distinction is made, electrical engineering is considered to deal with the problems associated with large-scale electrical systems such as power transmission and motor control

whereas electronics engineering deals with the study of small-scale electronic systems including semiconductors and the design of integrated circuits.

My bolding and spacing. How different can you get?--Light current 01:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the two terms are distinct in UK and Europe shows that separate articles are needed. If Americans, Australians, Canadians etc want to call everthyhing electrical engineering, they can (in the privacy of their own countries), but we should not allow their preferences to mislead the rest of the world! --Light current 02:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the two professions are growing more and more together in profession and in school. Yet they are still different and should be treated as such. I had to decide between electronic or electic engineering. I chose the first one and do not regret it yet. --Hayashi-no-Kame 14:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sensible fellow!--Light current 14:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't debate any of this, but I think it's splitting hairs to make a big fuss over nomenclature. I'm in one of those schools that uses "electrical engineering" to describe everything save for the people who only do digital VLSI ("computer engineers", they say...). I personally do semiconductor device research; a realm that is closer to condensed matter physics and chemistry than anything else. I really have no problems being lumped in with people who work on long-distance power transmission or telecommunication, because there's nothing in the name. How do you differentiate a EE from a physicist in semiconductor research? Their education may have taken slightly different angles, but they are doing practically the same work and using the same skills. All engineering is applied science and at some point it all converges with theoretical science, so call yourself whatever the heck you want. We're all using Maxwell's equations, Poisson's equation, Kirchoff's laws, and Fermi-Dirac statistics when it comes down to it... Where do you stop the subdivision? If it's important enough to divide electrical and electronics engineering, why should us "semiconductor physicists" be lumped in with the "RF amplifier designers"? Our jobs are pretty different, methinks... Anyway, for the purposes of the article I think it's sufficient to note that some folks feel it's necessary to draw a distinction between electrical and electronics engineers, and others don't. Both disciplines have the same science behind them, so I don't see much reason to split up the articles. -- mattb @ 2006-09-04 23:27Z

World wide view--Light current 23:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's nothing but an excuse used to justify personal preference. The fact that some people make the distinction and others don't is not contestable and should be mentioned. The question is as regards to whether there is sufficient non-overlapping content to justify the creation of two articles. I don't think so. -- mattb @ 2006-09-04 23:47Z

Let me put it another way, in my experience, a good "EE" (whatever that means to you) can work in any of these sub-fields with a little bit of training and I think one reason for the distinction is to help remove the notion that "EE" automatically implies "power grid engineer". Perhaps going the way of the IEEE would be a nice suggestion; calling this article "Electrical and electronics engineering". Of course, that goes on my aforementioned position that there isn't enough content to justify two separate articles. Surely others will disagree with me... -- mattb @ 2006-09-04 23:53Z

If you tell me what the world wide view is (after proper research) Ill go along with it!--Light current 23:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No original research. As far as I can tell, nobody that we can cite has done a study on the regional usage of the terms. So I think we'll have to figure it out for ourselves. -- mattb @ 2006-09-05 01:50Z

In that case we are still stalemated.--Light current 02:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, but that's because I don't see this as a big issue while you seem to. -- mattb @ 2006-09-05 02:11Z

Featured article status at all costs?.

Actual main page stuff as it actually appeared on 26 Mar 06;

Today's featured article

Hitachi J100 adjustable frequency drive chassis

Electrical engineering is a professional engineering discipline that deals with the study and application of electricity, electromagnetism and electronics. The field first became an identifiable occupation in the late nineteenth century with the commercialization of the electric telegraph and electrical power supply and now encompasses a range of sub-disciplines including power, control systems, electronics and telecommunications. Whilst these terms are often used to mean the same, electrical engineering is sometimes distinguished from electronics engineering. Where this distinction is made, electrical engineering is considered to deal with the problems associated with large-scale electrical systems such as power transmission and motor control whereas electronics engineering deals with the study of small-scale electronic systems including semiconductors and the design of integrated circuits. Advances during the 20th century in radio technologies, followed by the invention of early computers and integrated circuits, led to the development of the specialized field. Meanwhile, universities were developing formal programs of study, and today, the field's practitioners generally hold an academic degree in their discipline and may be certified by a professional body. (continued...)

Because some of the caveats I had insisted upon in the article have been edited out, this now gives an unbalanced view to the general readership of the main page. This is just what I was trying to avoid (misleading the readers). We must avoid repetitions of this debacle in future and try to achieve worldwide view rather than featured article status at all costs!".. --Light current 02:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Article vandalism

Someone needs to revert this back to an older version. Some idiot decided to go around deleting articles and basically turnign them into blog entries about how Wikipedia is communism. If Wikipedia doesn't do so already, perhaps thay should consider banning ips for serious offenses? (like deleting the article and replacing it with one that says Wikipedia = communism)

Copied from talk:electrical and electronics engineering

== Wake up Cedars!!! ==

What do you think? Or have you lost interest now that EE has becom a featured article?--Light current 20:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electrical_and_electronics_engineering"

This page was last modified 21:51, 26 March 2006. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. --Light current 21:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Electrical Engineers as lighting designers

I looked in the article and in the talk pages (archives) and couldn't find anything about electrical engineers doing any lighting and electrical systems design for buildings. I work at a consulting engineering firm. We do PME for large buildings, mostly hospitals, but also schools, plants, apartment buildings, etc. So when I saw electrical engineering was today's featured article I hoped that there would be some mention of what my co-workers do. But no. It seems like there could at least be a short phrase at the end of the third paragraph in the intro where it already says "Examples of the projects modern electrical engineers may work on include the design of telecommunication systems, the operation of electric power stations and the design of electronic household appliances." along the lines of:

"and the design of electrical systems and lighting for buildings."

Is there any reason why I shouldn't add this?

Thanks, --Eric Jack Nash 22:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats because youre talking proper electrical engineering here whereas the article confuses electrical and electronics engineering!--Light current 23:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It does indeed! hydnjo talk 00:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Eric,

Thanks for your comments. I was mindful of building services when revising the article and so the article does actually mention building services (although not in those words) and has done so since August of 2005. Quoting from the article:

“ From the global positioning system to electric power generation, electrical engineers are responsible for a wide range of technologies. They design, develop, test and supervise the deployment of electrical systems and electronic devices. For example, they may work on the design of telecommunication systems, the operation of electric power stations, the lighting and wiring of buildings, the design of household appliances or the electrical control of industrial machinary. ”

However if you feel you can improve the article further please feel free to do so.

Cedars 11:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Electrical engineering, broadly

This field of study leads to a variety of application science. The branches have been explained in the expansions of this article. I'll continue to refine the differences so far as they make sense to do so. If you have any problem with my differentiating then by all means fix my edits. Thanks, hydnjo talk 00:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just seen the merge notice. What a complicated mess this is to become! hydnjo talk 00:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Complicated , yes. A mess - not if handled with care and due consideration and understanding on all sides (Well perhaps youre right!)--Light current 00:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Power Electronics

IMHO Power Electronics is a Sub-Discipline of Electrical Engineering and not simply a device of Power Engineering as it is put in the main article. There is about as much study in this branch of electrical engineering as there is in any other. I say this myself being an electric engineering student, the sub-disciplines we have to choose from in my university are:

• Power Systems (power engineering if you will)
• Applied Electronics (includes microelectronics)
• Telecommunications
• Power Electronics
• Control and Signal Processing
• Project Management

Being that we have to choose at least 4 of those in order to graduate, I'm taking the first five and might as well take all six. Brazilian Universities are quite different from the American and British ones, of course, but still... there is a

And by the way, I think this article is not at all that good to have been nominated for featured article. However proud I am to have my field of studies published in the main page, this article still needs some work on it until it gets real good. VdSV9•♫ 15:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I thank the above user for telling us of the South American education system. I hope other people from around the world will do the same so we can present a worldwide view. What will you be calling yourself when you graduate?--Light current 21:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The title in portuguese is Engenheiro Eletricista (Electrical Engineer). But there are also courses in other universities specifically on electronic engineering. VdSV9.

Aha so there is a difference in South America also!!--Light current 17:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's just the emphasis of the course. We also have a course called Industral Automation and Control Engineering, which is clearly another subfield of Electrical (focusing more on mechatronics, control and computing) that has been expanded through specialization. I don't see where you're trying to get now, can't we settle on having the Eletrical Engineering as it is and expanding the other fields of study as such? VdSV9•♫ 19:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

-With a New Zealand degree from the University of Canterbury electrical engineers begin to branch off in their 2nd professional year into 4 disciplins, power, communications, electronic and computer. Its a four year course consisting of an intermediate year and three professional years. degree is BE(hons).....if you wanted to know132.181.7.1 07:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Lede

Now that electrical and electronics engineering does not exist as far as WP is concerned, should we remove ref to it in the lede to make it look better and read smoother?--Light current 00:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it should stay since it is a term sometimes used to describe the topic described in this article. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 03:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

moved from my talk

Electrical engineering

Hi Light current,

You recently reverted all my changes to the electrical engineering. These changes were made after a thorough review of the article, please explain why you objected to:

• Unwikilinking "nozzles"?
• Changing the degree length from "four or five" to "three to five years"?
• Converting "fields" to "sub-disciplines" consistent with the rest of the article?
• Removing the redundant history summary from the history section?

Meanwhile I am going to try and find a more appropriate image for the article. If you want to help improve the electrical engineering please discuss your changes. Some of us have been working on this article for a long time and have seen it go from peer review to featured status, we have also been part of the Wikipedia community for a long time. Hence I believe you will find our insights very useful.

You removed an important picture that was in the version feature on the main page. I simply reverted the page to that versio. If you are making multiple changes all at once, then this is what may happen if you are reverted. THis is obvious!

What do you mean by: Some of us have been working on this article for a long time and have seen it go from peer review to featured status, we have also been part of the Wikipedia community for a long time. Hence I believe you will find our insights very useful.

Ive been one of them. Did you not notice? Why are you now trying to rip out some of the stuff that got the article featured in the first place? Just leave it alone.--Light current 02:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sincerely,

Cedars 02:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

--Light current 12:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Bad line

The first line in the article reads:

Electrical engineering (sometimes referred to as electrical and electronics engineering) is a The sandbox is blocked out you retard so stop telling me to use it.

This is an error. I think someone will want to change it. I don't know what was meant or what the previous version was, so someone else is more qualified to change it than myself.

It's been fixed. Next time, remember that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and consider fixing it yourself! You're just as qualified as the rest of us. =) —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 03:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for changes

Hi all,

After some months of tranquility Light current is reverting the article to a new version of the page he made. He is doing so without discussing his changes or attempting to reach some sort of compromise. I've tried several variations of the page none of which seem to satisfy Light current. To hopefully reach some sort of comprimise I will outline the reasons for my changes here.

• Terminology

I feel the terminology article offers little information beyond that offered by the second paragraph of the lead.

• "Four to five" to "three to five"

Among others, the University of Bath offers a three year Bachelor of Engineering degree.

• Third paragraph of the lead

The third paragraph of the lead is a summary of the article, not a part of the history of electrical engineering. It should either appear with the lead or not at all. Placing it with the history is misleading and leads to repitition because it summarizes

• Fields to sub-disciplines

The word discipline and field are used inconsistently through the article, we need to pick one and stick with it.

• Photograph

The Hitachi J100 adjustable frequency drive chassis is a large image that clutters the lead. If there is a desire to cut down on the lead than this image should be removed.

Hopefully this is helpful and will lead to a peaceful resolution of this issue.

Cedars 06:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

All the above points should have been addressed BEFORE the article was made a FAC. I purposely stooped editing the article whilst it was an FAC and subsequently. I have only recently edited the lede becuase I thought it was too long and one para of it seemed to fit better in the history section. If you want to go back to that, i agree. But dont use that extremely minor change of mine as an excuse to make other damaging major changes that have not got consensus.

It is you CEDARS who is making major changes to the page top from the version accepted as the featured article (with lede pictures) with no discussion. You are using the excuse of my minor test changes to wreak havoc with the pictures. STOP IT!!

Apart from the sheer audacity of these actions, I cant understand why you want to change it now after wide consensus on the featured version. Do you think you can change things on an FA whwnever you want? If so, I cant see why the hell you were so intent and insistent about getting it into the FA form in the first place if you now think it needs changing. Your actions are very suspect indeed and your motives seem those not of improving the article, but those of revenge against me at the expense of the article.

Im willing to discuss other changes, but not the top pictures, which I will ask you to replace immediately. Otherwise I will shortly. I await your response--Light current 11:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I will let others judge the voracity of your opening statement by examining the edit history of the page.--Light current 12:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No actually I did mean VORACITY!--Light current 20:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about the discussions that took place in the past about this article, so I won't say anything about it. There is only one thing that bothers me: Does the Ipod deserve 2 pictures in the same (general) article? I know some people think it is the most amazing piece of engineering of all time, but I am personally more inclined to think it is nothing more than a portable music player... -- CyrilB 12:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course you are right to suggest that the picture if the iPod does not properly represent the scope and focus of Electrical engineering as a whole. THe previous two images at the page top from each end of the EE spectrum did just that until thay were removed by Cedars. --Light current 13:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Having the IPod pic on the top of the article is plain stupid. I vote for LC on this. VdSV9•♫ 19:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The terminology page was added after a long discussion and was pretty much of a consensus to put an end to the discussion. It should remain there. The Voltmeter image is fine, the two images that were there previously were fine too, but could have their sizes better aesthetically thought of (the the large image should be on the bottom and the smaller on top). Nozzles uniwikilinked, for obvious reasons.VdSV9•♫

The first paragraph of the history should go back... but the end of it is misplaced. And as for the 3-5 or 4-5 years... VdSV9•♫ 20:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, if you say that having two or three (whatever) schools of engineering that have 3 years courses is enough for having usually 3 to 5 years in the article, I'm fine with it. The way I see it, it USUALLY takes 4 or 5 years (with exceptions of some lame three year courses (of course we don't need the word LAME in the article)). Sorry, I'm being kinda childish here, but it takes about two years just to grasp the basics in say physics, calculus, etc... IMHO a 3 year course of engineering needs some preparation that otherwise would be included in the course.

And as for the pictures' order, LC, by having the large pic on top and the small on the bottom, you make the paragraph cluster to the left and leave a long blank between the contents table and the second pic. If you must have them in that order please, have their sizes reverted... like this... VdSV9•♫ 11:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ratio

2:1 against you!(Cedars) :-))--Light current 00:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Amusingly enough, I've come to believe that Cedars has a good point in changing the two pictures for just one. I mean, I was having the idea that a second pic larger looked good, but that depends highly on what resolution the user's monitor is in and also the contents box being "open" or "closed".

Maybe we could have the multimeter picture back up or just one of the current images or some other thing, like an important scientist... say, Ohm (I mean, the base of the basics is Ohm's Law... so I think it fits... or maybe something that depicts Ohm's law itself) Any ideas on this?

These two pictures seemed appropriate after the whole mess about EE or EEE... since they portrait both "one electrical and one electronic" devices. But articlewise, and aesthetically... hmm no. Not here. Maybe having them in the (terminology) page they suit better. With different captions, obviously.

-- VdSV9•♫ 20:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No the two existing pics give a balanced view of the scope of EE. Otherwise it would be one or the other and then ther would be WAR (I mean real WAR). Also these pics are what the article was featured with. I see no sensisble justification for changing them at all. --Light current 22:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with VdSV9, it makes more sense to have just one image at the top of the page. There is no reason for there to be an edit war over something like this - we should instead work together to make the article the best that it can be. Remember also that it was the article, not the pictures, that were featured. Though if the pictures were featured I'd be happy to keep them in the article (see WP:FPC to nominate). Cedars 00:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

OK then. Lets just have the variable freq drive controller. I will sacrifice the picture of the transformer that I provided.--Light current 00:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I had an idea that might please you, LC. What do you say we put both these pics, with their current caption, in the Practicing Engineers section, and find a brand new one (I've made my suggestions, any one else?) to put up on the lead? -- VdSV9•♫ 14:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes OK (Im being nice till the end of April!)--Light current 15:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice as opposed to a pain in the ass? ;b jk... -- VdSV9•♫

Yup! (take advantage while you can!)--Light current 20:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW Whats b jk... mean?--Light current 23:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

jk, or J/K means just kidding, I think you figured that part out...

';b' is the same as ';p' which is a combination of ';)' and ':p'. I just like using the other options for 'sticking out my tongue'. :q and :d also work well for that matter, or using the equal sign for the eyes... like this:

=pppqdbqdbpqbpqdbpqbdpqbdpqbdqpdqbpdbqpdbdddbpqdbqpbbbb VdSV9•♫

Better just stick to words! ;-)--Light current 12:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

List of places to earn degree?

Where can we find a list of places that offer the EE degree? Is this in Wikipedia? If so, should it be linked from here? 129.120.106.90 21:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Look on Google!--Light current 21:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

please talk about the H.T. switchgears

hi, this vipul want to know about the switchgears

See power engineering or circuit breakers. 8-) If neither of these answer your question please let me know.--Light current 10:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)