Topic talk:Engineering/Archive1

Can we combine electrical, electronic, embedded, and computer engineering in to one single:

"Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering"?

I was under the impression that Electrical and Electronic, and especially Computer Engineering syllabii were very different (I haven't written this course - merely browsing). Electrical concerns (trying not to be wrong or patronising) for example plug sockets and wires, or things of this scale. On the other hand, electronic is of the level of transistors, diodes, and circuitry.

--81.157.26.41 21:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am at university of toronto and we combine electrical and eletronic but computer is separate. However computer and electrical take the same courses for the first two years. Usually it is in grad school that you really see how things are divided. In graduate school there will usually be various departments under electrical and computer engineering like power, electronics, control, communications, electromagnetics, biomedical, photonics, computer engineering. Computer engineering is similar to computer science in that you study computers and programming. However computer engineering is extremelty practical whereas computer science tends to be far more theoretical and mathematical.

--128.100.7.202 02:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

EE/CE/CSci

These subjects warrant individual program titles at the University of Minnesota; however, all programs share one building, and in many cases, they share the same coursework. There is no distinction between electronics and electrical disciplines. The comment about "plugs & wires" and "electrical concerns" differentiates an electrician from an engineer. An electrician learns how to work with electricity and signals for other means. These skills are typically taught in a trade school or 2-year program. The Wikiversity:School of Engineering should focus on the latter definition of electronics. Engineers apply theory and analysis in the practical application of science. --JAQ 18:21, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I already have an engineering degree and an ability to work with basic wiring. Some projects I have in mind will soon require more advanced hands-on skills to install or fabricate equipment. In addition, some practical experience would be useful in planning and budgeting phases. Therefore I consider it top priority that if some tradesmen skilled in appropriate crafts show up to teach lab, fabrication, and/or installation, operation, or maintenance skills we should immediately give them top priority and billing and otherwise encourage them in every way possible. This will immediately begin to differentiate Wikiversity from typical diploma mills issuing work permits to entry level engineering candidates to a happening place for entrepreneurs, engineers, craftsmen and amateurs of all ages and walks of life to participate fruitfully in the pursuit of personal life goals. Lazyquasar 08:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Posing a Question

The definition of wikiversity is vague, but it necessarily differentiates itself from typical wiki format. Should engineering departments tailor interdisciplinary coursework to their specific departments (i.e. create new subject fields?) Or should their be an effort to reuse the same content to avoid duplication? --JAQ 18:27, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Waste of time discussing it as policy. Individuals will do as they please and eventually someone will write up best practices. This will initiate a firestorm of religious and ideological debate which will subside once each substantial minority faction has designed a satisfactory subsection of the experiential maze and appropriate entry points within the main learning portals. The majority party enforcers will not like it but will be unable to refute the fact that no large group really wants to force and participate hard enough to assure a successful fork. Lazyquasar 08:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Aerospace Engineering

Went to the page and the page was empty. I am proposing that Aerospace be placed at the "College" level. And thus propose "The College of AeroSpace Engineering". I feel that because of its vast calls on other colleges (engineering, physics, math, biology, etc...) and it's broad scope (space, aviation, rockets, orbital mechanics, human factors, life support, etc...). - Bobwinmill 17:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• No new inputs on this page except my own since May 12, 2005. I voted in favor of en.wikiversity. Please comment on my porposal above. - Bobwinmill 00:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I started out in Aerospace Engineering and after a year shifted to Engineering Physics at another university. It is basically an aggregate of specialized focuses from other more general fields. I see no reason it should be differentiated by a different name category from the other engineering departments. However, if you prefer to call it a dept./portal/branch, "The Space Base Place", or the College of Aerospace Studies or whatever ... go ahead! Keep in mind another faction may show up and establish or lobby for a differently named department, college, team, class or entity performing similar functions. Naming will be fluid for a while as we organize around the preferences and assessments of those who show up and participate and then probably stabilize as the opportunity cost in refactoring and shuffling material temporarily exceeds the perceived value enhancement available. We should be cautious about telling people what wikiversity isn't or mandating how they should work. We are likely to attract non traditional students and rather independent cusses willing to participate assertively unless we irritate them with excessive guidelines crystalized by the those who arrived at the front of the line. Wikipedia had a lot of initial problems with people wishing to set their preferences in stone. Since they had arrived first and invested effort in defining initial structures, formats, approaches and policies many felt they were entitled to heavier weight in discussion. Needless to say the seniority approach of the non existent cabal was not popular with a few newcomers. Some of the resulting labeling and lynching activities got a bit damaging to the community fabric. Lazyquasar 08:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Lazyquasar in one respect, names are going to be fluid for a while but looking at it from a 'college' perspective, I think for the time being, keeping aerospace within the realm of engineering is much more intuitive than creating a seperate category. Looking at the school of engineering, my suggestion is a formatting cleanup to make it a bit easier to take in, and that might clear up some of the confusion. --Kfitton 01:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Engineering Wiki

People who are intrested in this Wikiversity School of Engineering might also be intrested in Engineering Wiki. I invite u to join us.