*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.
Partner With Us!
"Best Of Breed" Forums Add Stickiness To Your Site
(Download This Button Today!)
Member Feedback
"...I think the site is just incredible....I am learning more here than anywhere else before and am looking forward to being able to help someone .... this is my idea of what the Internet is supposed to do..."
I recently brought my little ones to my office, to see where I work.
They have only seen me "colour" my drawing, and working on my computer at home, and seem to think that engineering consists of: 1) drinking a lot of coffee (yes, I am cutting back) 2) colouring (I do a lot of back checking and review) 3) surfing the web (I do a lot of design and sizing on my computer)
However, this descripton aside, how would you describe/define engineering to a group of Grade 10s? I don't mean the specific type of engineers, like a piping engineer works on a project to bring oil from Alaska to Texas, but more generic
What does an "engineer" do?
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
Hello All, here, paraphrased (poorly) from a book or two I have read, is a description of what engineering is:
Engineering is the creation of artifacts to solve some problem or address some need of society.
This is kind of a broadest sense description, since, as we know, different types of engineers do different types of things in different fields. The context of the book(s) was partly on the difference between engineering and science, in that science is more often concerned with describing the world as it is, where as engneering is more often with changing some aspect of it.
Or, for another take (Per Dilbert)
Q: What do you do? A: I'm an Engineer
Q: But what do you DO? A: I'm assigned to a very important project.
Q: Yes, but WHAT do you DO? A: That's enought about me.
What made me think of that was a girl I talked to once upon a time, a potential date. When she asked what I did, I told her I'm an engineer. Of course: "so you drive trains?" ... After hearing what I actually did and some silence, she responded, "so you have to go to college for that?"
I was doing the Engineer activity pin for a group of Weblos (cub scouts in grade 5) and one asked me that question. I said "an engineer is someone who uses arithmetic to describe and modify the physical world". They all glazed over, but all of them are in engineering school this year. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Try the "Applied Scientist" definition and see if that gets a better reaction from grade 10s... "Engineers apply science to real-world situations to create new or better things, systems, and processes."
or (a little more cynically) ... "Engineers make stuff so that the marketing guys can get paid twice as much to sell it."
"Engineers apply science to real-world situations to create new or better things, systems, and processes."
When was the last time I created anything new? Maybe I helped build a new facility. Ok.
Was it better? Naw, same as this other one. I keep hearing "Just use the (put name here) from the (old project name here) job.
Quote (rbcoulter):
"Accountants of Technology"
Now that is interesting. What does it mean?
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
I decided on that definition in an effort to try to distinquish engineers from other related professions. Most textbook/dictionary definitions of engineering are not specific enough to distinquish between engineers and other related professionals (for example, chemists). What really distinquishes engineers is the broad knowledge of other disciplines and math that enables one to put "technology to the test". I observed that accountants have a relationship with business professionals/owners that is analagous to the relationship between engineers and technology developers (scientists, etc.).
Yeah, I've heard that too. I don't agree with it though.
I think the efficiency title belongs to daycare workers.
Daycare workers can do with $1 what anyone else can't do with less than $10.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
Mathematicians make up numbers and relations between them.
Scientists data-mine the real world searching for patterns and predictions to be described by the aforementioned made-up-numbers.
Engineers use their enormous brains (and catalogs, codebooks, and computers) to apply said patterns to a practical effect in the actual world.
Machinists, drafters, and designers decipher the engineers' Mighty Words (and drawings and solid files) and physically manifest the design.
Any of these processes seen from a lay perspective will either appear to be impossibly difficult or ridiculously easy. But still, I think if you can't describe any given task to a 10 year old, you either don't know enough about it or need to learn more communication skills.
I was at a social engagement and somebody asked me what I did. I said that I was a Mechanical engineer. Then the person asked me where my garage was, perplexed I said it was in my backyard. Then the person said wow you do all of your work in your back yard?
Usually an engineer is someone who drinks a lot of coffee, does a lot of coloring (green, yellow and red, most commonly), and surfs the web a lot.
That's certainly a descrption of a lot of engineers I know. I've cut down on the coffee in favor of dark chocolate-covered espresso beans.
On one floor of my office, the engineers are engaged in thinking up schedules, moving money from one place to another, thinking up plans for managing resources, and lots of other stuff they agonize over until the clerk-techs show them how to make a schedule and budget on the PM software. That's what engineers do.
Other engineers plan, design, build and operate things that make the world better or worse. Applying the accumulated technical knowledge of the last 12,000 years.
My personal favorite definition for an engineer is someone who will go through any amount of effort to avoid unnecessary work.
Well ... that encompass' a lot of people I know. Don't know if I would call them all engineers though. Hee Hee
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
I like BJC's definition "An engineer is someone who can do for a dollar what anyone else can do for two." In my line of business there are lots of people who think they can be engineers by suggesting to connect randomly sized vessels by randomly sized pieces of pipe of randomly selected material and move liquid and gas around by randomly sized pumps and compressors... in the end it may or may not work, but in any case it will cost a fortune. The difference between chemical engineers and other people that work in a chemical facility is that engineers can quantify.
"...engineers can quantify." That sounds very good epoisses, as does the quote about engineers doing for a dollar what anyone else can do for two. According to my net search that's attributed to Arthur M. Wellington.
Here's another I like that seems to define engineering: "Engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand, into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to withstand forces we cannot properly assess, in such a way that the public has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance." - Dr AR Dykes British Institution of Structural Engineers, 1976.
An engineer spends far more time figuring out how to do the $2 job for $1 than it ever would have taken to do it for $2. When one of my engineer friends and I team up on a household project, our wives automatically know to quadruple the time it should have taken to do the project.
An Engineer either designs a new system or improves an existing system to solve a technological problem (s) utilizing available resources under some constraints.
Growing Population: Sociological Problem not a technological one. Growing Traffic: Technological Problem Widening the road: Improving an existing system ( A system can be a road, an automobile, a reactor etc.) Building a new road: Designing a new system Available resources: Workforce, materials etc. Constraints: Available space, budget etc.
More humorous one:
Engineering is a child born out of the wedlock between Science and Economics.
Definitely. And what a long and torturous marriage that has been between the "Mars based Science" and "Venus based Economics" which left the "Earth base Engineering" completely bewildered!!
The military can grant their own "Military Engineer" designation outside of the engineering association.
Someone in another thread mentioned this.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
Engineering is a branch of knowledge and as such is usually considered a science. The science by which the properties of matter and the sources of power in nature are made useful to mankind in structures, machines, goods and services.
An engineer would then be an individual specializing in one of the branches of engineering.
For those interested in a quasi-contradictory meaning: engineering time is the nonproductive time of a computer, devoted to maintenance and servicing.
I'm well aware of the dialectic around the concepts of science and the scientific methods. However, there are branches of engineering that are no doubt very close to the most exacting definitions of science.
For example: the deliberate modification or "engineering" of the gene structure, as in breeding improved plants or animal strains aka genetic engineering. Or the application of biology to engineering and electronics especially of brain functions to computers bionic engineering. Or, BTW, ergonomics and biotechnology.
That's just them naughty scientists stealing the engineering word to give themselves some credibility.
More seriously, sure, some of what we do is scientific. There again some of what real scientists do (say Feynman diagrams) is pretty much rule of thumb, or orders of magnitude estimation, inside a conceptual framework.
Yet, vast lumps of what we do, that keeps aeroplanes flying, bridges up in the air, chemicals sploshing about, and engines going round, is based far more on experience and approximations than any thorough, deep, understanding of the way the systems behave in theory.
If I might borrow some leet slang, we, quite literally and meatphorically, /hack/ the physical world.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
Following your line of thought I'd say that scientists do the same. The hallmark of a scientific theory is not what it seems to explain, but rather what it predicts.
More often than not it proceeds by a reverse use of logic. Sometimes predictions turn out to be wrong. But when they aren't as, for example, after the canonical Newton laws of mechanics F=ma, and F = GMm/r2 showed to suit nicely the predicted planetary orbital periods (an experimental verification), the reverse logic was used to confirm the truth of the expressions.
Sometimes a mathematical instrument is used to prove a theory. Take, for example, the Poisson statistics; it is used to "confirm" atomic random decay, although no one knows for sure how this decay really happens, not even if the decay is actually random. But if the statistics "works", as in this case, the theory is considered valid.
No doubt the old idiom: the proof of the pudding is in the eating is used as the gauge of success of many a human undertaking.
Engineering is a branch of knowledge and as such is usually considered a science.
Are you saying then that engineering is not unique, but is in fact science? And by extension, we are not engineers, but scientists?
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
A chemical engineer is someone who talks engineering in the presence of chemists, chemistry in the presence of engineers, and politics in the presence of both.
I was prompting for your definition of an engineer.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
I have noticed over the years, having lived a considerable time on both sides of the Atlantic, that the term "scientist" seems to be used more broadly in the US than in Britain and the associated countries of the former British Empire. I recall Alistair Cooke saying on one of his "Letters From America" broadcasts that "scientist" was a word that was actually coined in the US, so I assume Americans are at liberty to use the term as broadly as they choose, since after all, they invented it. And to continually complain, as I once did, that "Rocket Scientists" are really "Rocket Engineers", is certainly a lost cause, and probably an overly narrow view - although it should be mentioned that when these things go wrong, for some reason they are always referred to as "Engineering Failures". On the other hand, I also recall reading that no less an authority than Richard Feynman has said that everything they did during WWII at Los Alamos was actually Engineering, not Science. But I imagine there are few members of the general public who would make such a distiction.
It was said that scientists build in order to learn and engineers learn in order to build. I believe that this old distinction is becoming blurred and exhausted. Science and engineering frequently overlap. Examples abound.
Engineering is now categorized as a subfield in the science kingdom. This is perhaps because all engineers use scientific methods, and all of them theorize, each one in their particular field of expertise.
By accepting this new taxonomy I must admit that we are engineers in the sense I explained in my previous post and are part of the scientific family as well.
Also, I think we don't theorise as much as we guess most of the time.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
What is an engineer. I heard a definition atributed to an engineer with a Phd. in engineering. "If you can design something, build it, and it works, you are an engineer." I may have missed it but I was surprised not to see zero mentioned in thread769-94507. Computers, working at the basic level with ones and zeros would be severly handicapted without their zeros. Zero and orders of magnitude, does order of magnitude have any meaning in regards to Roman notation? I am sure there are many other examples of the importance of zero in everything from basic arithmetic on up. yours
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
Hi Ashereng The point I was trying to make (not very well I guess) was that 1> I didn't think that Roman numerals had a zero and 2> It may be hard to express orders of magnitude in Roman numerals. I may be wrong on one or both counts. respectfully
So we have lots of opinions on what an engineer does in general, and the orignial poster tells us that he colors, surfs the web and drinks coffee. Maybe we need some more data points. I am a liscensed mechanical engineer.
I spend a lot of time messing with computers, surfing the web, and drinking coffee, but I also:
Travel a good bit.
Over see others doing maintenance work on process machinery
Gather data from instruments and run calculations on that data (more computer time).
Ride helicopters out to off shore oil platforms.
Climb up into the drive train of wind turbines
Visit refineries, LNG plants, and chemical plants.
Oversee the attachment very large and heavy chunks of steel to cranes and fly that steel through the air.
Something along the lines of - until you realise there is something wrong then you are a craftsman, but once you realise the existence of defects then you start to improve the product and engineering starts.
Trouble is, people have been improving the way they do things (lighting fires, killing mammoths, making pots) for just about as long as they have been people.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
Engineering, due to its predictive nature, should allow one to take on projects that would not be possible thru craft techniques due to the amount of trial and error required.
That said, plenty of trial and error still seems necessary. I guess we just reduce it to the point where we can (hopefully) attract investors.
Then there's the definition we learned in university:
A scientist asks, "How does this work?"
An engineer asks, "Given a basic idea of how this works, how can I use that knowledge to solve these particular problems?"
The arts major asks, "Would you like any fries with that?"
Little did we know that less than 20 years later in Toronto, the engineer would often as not be asking the arts major "Where to, sir?" and the arts major would be asking how much the cab fare would be!
UcfSE (Structural) I have watched this post to see if anybody corrects you and so far nobody has. An engineer does not drive a train, he/she runs it. As a machinist does not drive a lathe, he/she runs it. B.E.
berkshire, that is because I didn't need correcting as everyone else understood, especially given the humorous nature of my comment. Perhaps in your careful supervision of this thread you missed my second post on 20 Apr 06. I guess all the smoke from those coal-burning water guzzlers toasted some senses of humor. By the way, no one runs a train, or a lathe for that matter. To run is to "LR" it faster than walking or jogging. I believe the word is operate, and I don't mean what a surgeon does.
I personally think that there is a tremendous degree of ignorance regarding engineering in the general population. Many people seem to think that "engineers" are greassy fingered mechanics who work on cars/trains. I think what we do would be closer to science from the laymans perspective.
I think
Engineer = inginuity
An engineer should have/has the ability to apply abstract scientific principles to a real world problem to creat a working solution. At least initially, then the design/process is refined/optimised by the engineer finally resulting in the creation of these empirical laws that we all love so much!!
I think engineers (engineering scientists or scientific engineers)have a tremendous amount to offer considering the depth and breadth of our technical education and the global overview of processes our work gives us.
niallmacdubhghaill, I know that many people, my wife among them, think "engineer = repairman", and are always asking if I can fix this or that broken thing. They also may think any engineer completely understands every technical thing (some do, I'm not one of them).
About applying scientific principles, one of my text books says something like "engineers apply science to solve problems, but when no science exists, the problem must be solved anyway". Very much true.
I agree that being an engineer is often misinterpreted. But While agreeing on what you said, I also think that's also due to the amazing expanse of the overly-flattering terminology that's spawning - mainly in the USA, but everyone is picking up the trend. Know what I mean? Some time ago, there were "mechanical engineers" "civil engineers" "electric engineers" and a few more. Then there were computers and there were "computer engineers", "software engineers" and a few more.
Now however it seems just about everyone doing some kind of half-creative work is something-something engineer. There are now interior design engineers, exterior design engineers, TV installation engineers, all sorts of things pop up on people's business cards... I dunno, just a few years ago they were reffered to as "the interior decorator", "the gardner" and "the cable guy". Or, very often, just by the "kid next door" refference. A half-drunken fella standing in the studio mixing what some pimply teenagers are ranting and trashing guitars is some kind of an engineer. Audio engineer? Acoustic engineer? I heard such references. Then there's human resources engineers, sanitary conditions engineers, and I swear soon the lady taking my 1EUR for use of a public loo will be called a "public conveniences engineer" and will have you subpoenad for reffering to her in any other way.
I think that cartoon about superheros put it right: "In a land where everybody is Super, nobody is". I DO sometimes wonder myself, who IS an engineer, and who isn't, regardless of the title they have...
You know, if someone were to go around calling themselves a doctor or a lawyer, the respective associations would quickly jump on the offending individual. I believe that even though there exists the title "chartered" engineer and "professional" engineer, there is still very little protection of our title. This is what results in this misunderstanding of what consitutes a real engineer. I think that engineers should have an association dedicated to aggressively and publically defending our title. A group like this could also go a long way to eliminating/reducing the scare-mongering and propaganda that goes on by the media/political establishment regarding topics such as energy generation, waste treatment and other controversial topics such as GMOs, stem cell research. In these areas particularly, there is little more dangerous than well intentioned people bad/no information
The medical and law societies that doctors and lawyers belong to are an advocacy group for the respective professions. They serve the member's interest.
Engineering societies that govern engineering (note the term govern) serve the public interest - not the engineer members.
Engineers need an advocacy group, distinct and separate from the "governing" societies, to serve our interests. Until that happens, we will be second tier citizens.
In the meantime, how do we define what an "engineer" is? Because without it, there will be more "TV Installation Engineers" and such coming soon.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
Ashereng, the way the doctors and lawyers (and CPA's too)do it is with education and licensing requirements, and while I am not in favor of eveybody having to have a PE to be an engineer (I don't), from the societal (?) standpoint, this is what seems to work. You don't have a license, you don't practice. You might call yourself a doctor, but its illegal. This is not to say that there are not disadvantages to that scheme.
Having said that, I supose its possible that the "TV Installation Eningeers" lobby could get the laws passed such that they would have to be licensed, and therefore would be "real" engineers. No gains made after all.
Around here the real estate industry has somehow gotten it so that any flake who sells real estate (no offense intended) is a Realtor, with a cap R. I don't see that for any other profession.
I think that if we want to be considered in the same breath as doctors and lawyers, then we should be in favor of the legal requirement to have a PE to be an Engineer and to be called an Engineer. (Notice the cap E. Hee Hee)
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
In Ontario we have http://www.ospe.on.ca/ as an advocacy group for Engineers. This is separate from our regulation group http://www.peo.on.ca/ although the former is an "offspring" of the latter.
I do not personally know of too many engineers that are members of the OSPE however, possibly because it is still a fledgling group (only around for less than 5 years I think).
Are they in favor of the legal requirement to have a PE to be an Engineer and to be called an Engineer?
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
It is always interesting to see what people think engineers are. However, the most ironic thing is that almost every product and/or service or process that people use everyday has gone through the hands of some engineer.
All the computers, cell phones, cars, planes, etc... that everyone is using exists because of people doing engineering. All the cool high-tech "toys" that people like to buy. The machines that harvest food and mass produce food and other products for us to live are all created by engineering.
I know everyone here knows this, but perhaps tell someone that if everything that had been dealt with by an engineer disappeared, there wouldn't be much left in our modern world. Then you can point out how engineers were involved in these products/processes.
I am no longer a member of the OSPE so don't know their stance on having professional engineers only as "engineer". However, as an advocacy group charged with the task of promoting the engineering profession, I would think that they would want to (need to?) be "elitist" in their approach. For my own part, the only thing that they promoted during my time with them was the fact that you can get cheaper home & auto insurance if you are a member. I found this to be a rather insulting stance from an organization trying to promote "my profession". I may become a member again in the future if they can get their sh.., er, stuff together.
The PEO on the other hand is very clear that only professional engineers can use the title "engineer" and have it trademarked. There are some limited industrial exemptions. There are documents at the PEO website to that effect, but I cannot directly link you to them as the web address does not change while navigating the site.
This quote may not say exactly what an engineer does, but I like this quote to describe the way engineers can (and should) behave. I first heard this quote years ago when I was in school from a fellow engineering student, and I have it framed on my desk now. It is sort of a goal for myself.
"An engineer? I had grown up among engineers, and I could remember the engineers of the twenties very well indeed: their open, shining intellects, their free and gentle humor, their agility and breadth of thought, the ease with which they shifted from one engineering field to another, and, for that matter, from technology to social concerns and art. Then, too, they personified good manners and delicacy of taste; well-bred speech that flowed evenly and was free of uncultured words; one of them might play a musical instrument, another dabble in painting; and their faces always bore a spiritual imprint. "
I got myself a software called "Language Engineering Dictionary". As I'm not a native English speaker, I thought this was a dictionary of technical English which would be most helpful with my work, as most of the stuff I have to write or read is in English (even though I'm in my homeland where English isn't the 1st language). But it's not. It's a tool for "language engineering". Come ON.
I would define an engineer as a 'responsible builder'
Engineers use scientific principles to ensure that what they design will function properly and safely, yet also make sure it's not more costly than it needs to be.
That description isn't really unique. A responsible builder could also be the carpenter framing my house.
Do you agree?
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
I think that there should be a necessity to be either a Chartered or Professional Engineer (depending on geographical location)in order to practice as an engineer. I think institutions like AIChE, IChemE, IEI and any other engineering institutions should have more international co-accreditation such that only indivuduals with the requisite education can hold the title "Engineer". It would take time, but if companies were to begin instituting a requirement to have a PE or CEng status to become a senior engineer, I think in the long run it would be better for all of us.
Can you explain why, exactly? And how would you enforce comity? and equal standards worldwide?
I'm not against the idea as such, I've just never run into an Institute (or equivalent) that I'd desperately want to be a member of, to misquote Groucho.
To give one example. In the UK as a broad brush the engineering institutions are largely concerned with providing an ever increasing number of graduates into industry so that our wages remain low due to competition from the untrainedor inexperienced.
Meanwhile on the other side of the Atlantic most state PE organisations have non-compete clauses so that our wages remain low due to 'competition' from the inefficient.
Good innit?
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
regarding conformity, it would be up to the relevant institutions to agree on standards, but I cant imagine that there would be a huge difference in standards between chartered and professional engineers on both sides of the atlantic. I would not suggest that engineering become a unionised profession, or anything like it. I think that that goes against everything we work for (efficiency, productivity etc) but I just feel that as a profession, we should have a more powerful advocate group who would have many duties, including protection of the title "engineer" and the disemination of information to the general public regarding what I regard as essentially propaganda propagated by various governments/environmental groups/citizen groups regarding issues such as global warming/waste treatment and disposal/energy. I have a very limited understanding of the PE system in the US, and it seems that these licences differ state to state, which is not helpful, and I dont understand what you mean my "non-compete clauses" but it sounds daft to me. I think that many institutions exist, their level of effectiveness can be questioned.
I am still trying to find a good definition of what an engineer is. It seems that after 80 replys here, people still can't agree on what an engineer is, does. If we can't agree, how is the general public going to understand what we do?
When we say doctors, we typically think of the GP or surgeon, even though there are a whole host of other doctors who do very different things.
We we say engineers, we can't think of one or two definitive images. Hence, people don't understand us, what we do. Can we blame them for using engineer after "convenience engineer", "audio installation engineer", "office efficiency engineer" and "garage door installation engineer"?
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
I think engineering field has grown too big to make a 1-sentence definition, or anything even remotely close to it. It goes for other professions too. EG, when you say "doctor is a person who heals/cures people", how does this apply to, for instance, plastic surgeons who specialise in beauty treatment?
That is the beauty of it. The doctors/medical profession focus the definition of their profession to one or two definitive images. This makes it easier for the general public to understand what they do and appreciate the value they provide.
Engineers/engineering's does not have a cohesive definitive image. What wepresent is so fratured that the general public is confused, and so they dismiss the value that we offer. What the general public sees is "If they can't tell me what they do, then it must not be very important."
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
i think the engineering profession and the title is abused in some areas. where i'm from there really isn't any governing body that regulates the profession. they don't know what engineering really is. as a consequence, it seems that anyone does anything remotely technical can and do call themselves engineers and there isn't anyone to stop them. you have technicians, electricians and service people calling themselves engineers. where i work, i tell them i have an engineering degree and think i can function as an industrial electrician; two completely different animals altogether. i just don't think its supposed to work that way.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
i'm from the caribbean. i'm not staying here as i mentioned in another thread. its funny how they always complain that the young people don't want to stay here or come back once we're gone but when we do they proceed to do nothing with us. we have tons of people on my island with engineering degrees as well. i'm an operator at a power plant on temp contract; i hate it and am not really suited for it. its the best i can do now though. i'm considering other career options once i move to canada other than engineering.
flch95, Im not from Canada, but to my understanding, in Canada they have a strong Engineering Society. However, I do know your disappointment of loosing your Engineering Identity to technicians or even to the guy how cleans buildings (janitorial engineering).
Tobalcane "If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."
Getting back to the original post, I have a feeling that most of you haven’t given tours to groups of school kids in your workplace, because most of your clichés and one-liners would make the average person even more oblivious to what engineers do. Remember who the audience is. My simple explanation would be something like this:
Engineers design and build everything from computer chips and polymers to car engines, dams, bridges and spaceships. They combine technology with their strong backgrounds in math and science to create safe and reliable systems and processes that benefit all of society. Virtually every product and service that we enjoy today can be directly attributed to the work of an engineer.
There are many types of engineers. The typical minimum requirement for an engineer is a bachelor’s degree in one of the basic engineering disciplines, such as civil, mechanical, electrical, chemical, etc. Many engineers go on to advanced degrees in more specific fields (aerospace, oil and gas, computer software, plastics, automotive). In many circumstances, engineers are required to be licensed to do certain types of work. The job functions of an engineer can vary greatly from intensive design calculations, to hands-on R&D, to supervising large construction projects.
An engineering degree gives a person a well rounded technical education. Some other professions prefer and/or require an engineering background. Many astronauts, fighter pilots, and plant managers have engineering backgrounds that are crucial to their abilities to perform their job responsibilities.
That’s how I would explain it to a group of kids.
"I have had my results for a long time, but I do not yet know how I am to arrive at them." Karl Friedrich Gauss
No offense nate, as accurate and complete as your definition of what an engineer does, it is still confusing to me.
I would prefer a more succinct definition like "a doctor makes people well again", for engineers.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
So Ashereng, Do you think it is possible to arrive at such a definition as diverse a group as we are? Obviously we would have to find a definition that applies to all engineers and excludes all other professions.
What is the common denominator for engineers? I think that it would have to be design. Yes, other people design things, such as artists, but there is a difference in the process, so we have to distinguish from that as well.
In a short simple definition then, I would say that "engineers are technical designers". Whether it be a product, a system, or a process, engineers in their true sense are designers of something. True, many engineers do non-engineering things such as managing, leading improvement teams, supervising construction crews, etc. but those activities I believe are outside of our engineering definition. Just as I'm sure doctors do other things besides making people well again like managing and coaching little league.
"I have had my results for a long time, but I do not yet know how I am to arrive at them." Karl Friedrich Gauss
Do you think it is possible to arrive at such a definition as diverse a group as we are? Obviously we would have to find a definition that applies to all engineers and excludes all other professions.
This I see as the problem. We are a diverse group, and we each want our specialty to be included in the definition of "engineering".
Not all doctors make people well again.
I think what we need is to single out one or two aspect of engineering as our "definitive image". Everyone just live with that and promote it. Then, we can market that to the general public without confusing them.
By the way, if we define engineering as "technical designers", then we really are NOT engineers. We are technicians or designers.
I was thinking something more along the lines of of a catchy marketing slogan.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
Engineers - Society's problem solver. You break it, we fix it.
Nah, sounds a bit dorky.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
I am not and, short of a miracle, never will be a PE in any discipline, so I will not even attempt to offer a definition for what one does.
I don't believe it is possible to give a simple one or two line definition for what Engineering Professionals or Professional (or Licensed, or Certified) Engineers actully do. The levels and roles played within different (or even similar) disciplines are just too varied ... as per the Doctor analogies.
In the simplest terms I can think of, an EP is someone who possesses a skillset (physical and/or academic) which allows him/her to perform an engineering function as a livelihood.
Corey, In my post about the Eng-Tips members, I was assuming this thread applied to the broad definition of engineers: those who are doing engineering work, degreed engineers, engineering professionals (whatever that difference may be), and licensed PE's. I was not referring to PE's only since I am not a PE either. The only "engineers" I remember being excluded from our definition were carpet installation "engineers", lawn mowing "engineers", etc.
Cheers.
"I have had my results for a long time, but I do not yet know how I am to arrive at them." Karl Friedrich Gauss
nate ... I interpreted your post as a reference to Eng-Tips being exclusively for PEs (aka real engineers). There are some members who believe it should be that way.
My apologies to you if my interpretation was incorrect.
Engineer One who uses physics,materials science and applied mathtematics to create and maintain assemblies of physical materials that provide a usefull function.
I agree that some branch of physics has to be involved. It can't just be problem solving (everyone does that). But then, are software engineers really "engineers"?
My neighbor (a "people person") once said that my job is easy because I only work with inanimate objects. I didn't strangle her. :)
I don't like the 'Design & build" part in one of the definitions above. Build implies production lines etc, which for the most part wouldn't be staffed by engineers. Also maintenance is mentioned above again that implies the washing machine repair man/mechanic type thing. I know production/manufacturing & maintenance engineers will probably disagree but there you can't please everyone.
Design isn't strictly accurate either, a lot of engineers spend most of their time analyzing things (e.g. stress, cfd, reliability, safety, etc) or in either how to build them / maintain them as above more so than actually designing them in the first place. Plus from what I've seen in the US a lot of the actual designers aren't considered Engineers, as they don't have a degree/PE etc.
Plus on the topic of engineers needing to be PE or Chartered to use the title: all I can say is that most of the best 'engineers' I worked with didn't even have full degrees (mostly apprenticeships & the equivalent of trade school) let alone PE; and some of the worst engineers I've worked with were Chartered.
Whilst the principle of having to meet some minimum level of education/experience in order to use the title Engineer is good in theory, I would argue the current Chartered/PE/EIT way of doing things probably excludes too many good engineers and still allows some useless ones in.
Nate2003 effort on 6 June is better than anything I could probably come up with but as you’ll guess from what I’ve put, I wouldn’t totally agree.
Good grief! You can tell this is a bunch of "engineering professionals". This is the kind of question you pose to an engineer for cheap entertainment while you listen to them turn a Gordian Knot into a Fractal.
How's this for a list of requirements (Good Lord knows we need guidelines or we'll drive off the road)?
1. Needs to be generally correct, ONLY. 2. Will hold a child's attention past the fifth word. 3. Fifteen words or less (preferably less). 4. Most listeners will not need to ask for definitions/followups explainations (provided #2 hasn't been violated .... the attention, not the child).
Of course, some of our explainations would probably meet grounds for prosecution.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
I thought "rule of thumb" was the engineer's currency.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
Production Engineer - assembles various resources to arrive at a product
Process Engineer - assembles various inputs to arrive at a system
Mechanical / Electrical / Civil etc Engineer- assembles various components to arrive at an assembly / product
Design Engineer - assembles various calculated subroutines / portions of conclusions / concepts / proved by science and technology to size a component or a product - which applies to all designs
procurement Engineer - needless to define - obvious from the above definitions
Sorry mechatronic, disagree with your definition of Process Engineer. They actually don't assemble various inputs to arrive at a system most of the time. They modify the various inputs to achieve a desired effect/product most of the time.
What about engineers who come up with novel solutions? Do they simply "assemble" a new solution from bits and pieces of common knowledge. If yes, then that is also what scientists do - they build upon smaller building blocks.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
Doctor : One who heals people. Lawyer : Reader of contracts. Pharmacist: Dispensor of medicines.
Doesen't seem complete does it?? In fact most people do these things themselves to some degree. They heal themselves, study credid card applications, pick pain relievers. Most people also engineer things. Build shelves for the laundry room, table for the patio, design entertainment center, pick accesories for their computers.
So a definition based on the work done is insuffecient to qualitatively demark a profession.
It is in fact a certain competency in particular studies that define the professional not what he does.
Doctor : One who heals people. Lawyer : Reader of contracts. Pharmacist: Dispensor of medicines.
So, what is your 3-4 word definition of engineer?
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
2dye4: I must disagree. I've worked with lots of inexperienced engineers whom are precise well beyond the requirements. This is wasteful in terms of resources. An engineer must meet the requirements while optimising the given resources. This nearly always involves compromise of requirements (just how far beyond the minimum acceptable) and resources. Precision is just as susceptible to this compromise as other design criteria.
No businessperson wants to pay more (overhead) than is necessary (impacts profit). Nor should he, frankly.
First I must apoligize for forgetting the basic question. I believe I am caught up in the attempt to define engineering in order to seperate it in some meaningful fashion from anybody who is just handy with tools. The poster wanted to know how to describe the work to a group of 10th graders. I will try an answear to that question.
Engineers study how to best use resources to make usefull things by applying the study of physical science and math.
ashereng: Engineer: Builder of stuff
Quantum50: I am afraid I don't what your critique is meant to convey. You describe a person who wastes time on issues that have no monetary benefit to the overall design. Sort of a person lost in the corners of a design and missing the big picture. I see nothing in my definition of an engineer that would correlate with this idea. In my experience it is the people lacking real skills as I defined them, that waste the resources and time in a project by lacking the ability to analyze with insight the problems at hand.
Science is study of nature and arriving at conclusions based on what is proved / observed repetitively in various places and times and people who are invloved in this are sceintists
Engineers apply science , they are application oriented while scientists are study oriented , again it does not mean Engineers dont study
When I said "assembly" probably I should have added more - assembling or bringing some thing together or correlate the knowledge ...
Process Engineers as you say bring desired effects , to do that they need to some way or the other the above exercise ..
Having said that, if some Engineers are bringing some novel solutions , again they are doing the same exercise .
(improving some thing by applying science)
Again I must agree these are my understanding , and expression of any understanding needs very good command over langauge which I lack
secondly you must agree " words are necessary evils"
Sorry, 2dye4. I didn't include the reference to my "critique". It was when you asserted that ".... precision is the engineers currency." I simply disagreed.
Anyone know what happened to the thread on How to improve myself that related to this question, it was titled something like 'I don't get it' about who gets to be an engineer. Was it deleted for being off topic?
Seems like a chicken egg situation.
Which comes first?
Defining who is an engineer would help to define what an engineer was.
Vice Versa defining what an engineer is would certainly help define who was an engineer.
I'm inclined to think 'what an engineer is' should come first but am not totally sure.
Seems everyone skews their definition of engineer depending on what their specialty is, or even on their qualification/experience/background.
Perhaps only a suitably knowledgeable non engineer could define it? However given we’re supposedly a secretive profession where would be find such an individual who wasn’t tainted by their own perspective?
I like aardvarkdw's descripition the best so far. Not too wordy, does not mention science (engineering is often ahead of science), and includes shaping the physical world.
Pardon, should have said "mentions knowledge, but not science". The best engineers I have worked with, degreed or not, knew nearly everything about SOMETHING.
I have read the whole thread. Now I am fully qualified to tell you guys who you really are. :)
An Engineer is someone who: - Has an engineering education, - Applies math, science and technology, - Creates and designs things.
and who may have optional attributes, such as:
- Creates things that are cool - Makes sure things are done, takes charge, takes responsibility - Problemsolves/troubleshoots - Uses precision calculations and rules of thumb - Learns and stays up to date with technology - Browses Eng-Tips.com and drinks coffee.
Catchy slogans or sleek one-liners do not come to mind but I think they are not needed.
On the topic of "Designers" vs "Engineers" in the US. Most of the US "Designers" are computer draftsmen with no engineering education. They, however, can design things just like engineers. That does not mean they are engineers though. Also, it does not mean that engineers cannot be considered designers in a broader sense of the word.
Do we need a certification, PE and such? I think large companies have taken care of that already. It is not possible to get an engineering job to make cars, planes and trains without a degree. Sure, you can make a car and sell a few of them and call yourself an engineer. Like it is possible to mix some concoction of herbs and chemicals and sell it to cure health problems. Then you can call yourself a doctor. Until you get caught. Doctors may have the same problem too when someone with a PhD in English calls himself/herself a doctor. But do they care? They know that those doctors won't practice on their sick clients, so why should we care about TV installation engineers?
Sure, if TV installation jobs were the only ones that were available then we would be all up in arms about who has the proper qualifications and who gets to do this important job of TV installation. But luckily this is not the situation in most places. My condolences to the person from the Caribbean, it seems to be a major concern there.
All of the drafters/designers/engineers I worked with in the UK who didn't have a degree did have considerable education in the form or apprenticeships/trade school (HNC/HND) etc.
I've come across at least one guy here in the US whose only formal training was apparantly drafting no real engineering.
Maybe that is part of the difference.
On the topic of the definition though, Supercar I like your attempt but I've known Engineers who spent most of their time analysing/testing other peoples designs, not so much designing them themselves. Whilst part of the development process is this really 'creating and designing'?
I think that the 'creating and designing' part is crucial. Even the verb 'to engineer' means to create and to design.
On the other hand, I am a Test Engineer myself. So now what should I make out of this definition?! LOL! You've got me here.
My excuse is that I have an *ability* to design the things that I test. But is this the case with all test engineers? Could a guy be a testing authority, an experienced and knowledgeable engineer, but have no clue how the thing is made and how it is working? I bet not. I think you have to know what it is in order to analyze and test it. How it is made, how it should not be made, how it works and how it may fail. So maybe we should change it to "Has knowledge and ability to design and create things”?
An engineer creates a design on paper/CAD, predicting the proper function, before the item is brought into being. A layman builds something by trial-and-error, and we find out if it functions properly afterward.
From personal experience, I beg to differ with you. Our engineers spend enough time reworking things that they designed that it all amounts to trial and error. I have found that a layman usually has a more vested interest in designing something that will work the first time as they have fewer resources with which to experiment, whereas an engineer is getting paid resonably well to try out more unusual ideas in an attempt to do something better that often times does not meet with expectations.
Right after college, after a few months on the job at a big OEM, I had a chance to be interviewed for a mini-promotion. Everyone knew each other, and as it often happens, the outcome of the interview was already pre-determined, no matter how the interview would have went. But nevertheless, they had to go through the motions to show some fairness to everyone and to fill the position properly.
One of the questions was of a behavioral type. Something like what would I do if I had a disagreement about some engineering problem. I said, well, engineering problems are simpler than most other problems -- you just apply the right formulas, do the math and the answer is clear. End of argument and disagreement. They looked at me and at each other and then either rolled their eyes or smirked. I failed badly.
Not only did my answer was too simplistic, but it also demonstrated my novice understanding of the engineering process used in that department. Obviously, if there is a disagreement, then a simple answer us usually not sufficient. But also, those engineers rarely had to do any engineering calculations in their jobs. So suggesting that some problem could be solved by simple math was like heresy to them. Later I found out that some of those guys did not even know the simple engineering formulas that the text books had about their gadgets. Many of them never had to open any text books to learn do their jobs -- just beat on the supplier until the damn thing works. Unfortunately to some, and fortunately to others, this is often the essence of engineering at the OEM level.
Supercar, you have very nicely explained the situation prevailing across the industry you exposed to . The similar condition applies to various Engineering industries - operating plants to consulting companies.Dependence on supplier is maximum where equipment are supplied "packaged" to suit the project / plant
You are very right in saying giving straight answers will never be sufficient to bring out "complex" problems existing in various departments.
Ever walk around a big hotel, notice a guy wearing the tag "engineer" with the hotel's name on his shirt? This would be a facilities engineer, the guy that keeps all the huge HVAC and other equipment running. I haven't been able to decide--is he the real engineer because he gets his hands dirty (like college educated engineers used to have?) and fixes real problems in real time, or am I the real engineer because I have a few engineering degrees and can make some fancy pictures and graphs, but never actually touch the thing that I am designing/analyzing?
A man is flying in a hot air balloon and realizes he is lost. He reduces height and spots a man down below. He lowers the balloon further and shouts: "Excuse me, can you tell me where I am?" The man below says: "Yes, you're in a hot air balloon, hovering 30 feet above this field."
You must be an engineer" says the balloonist.
"I am" replies the man. "How did you know."
"Well," says the balloonist, "everything you have told me is technically correct, but it's no use to anyone."
The man below says "you must be in management."
"I am" replies the balloonist, "but how did you know?"
"Well," says the man, "you don't know where you are, or where you're going, but you expect me to be able to help. You're in the same position you were before we met, but now it's my fault."
I have been trying to define my position for the past year. Currently my job title is design engineer. Now I do design things and I have a BSME but am a truly an engineer? I have been designing plastic parts for the past year and my company requires a engineering degree. But 95% of my time is spent creating CAD models and spitting out drawings. other then my inexperience with plastic design (which i wouldn't of learned in school anyways) I believe my technical school degrees more than qualified me to be a drafter. At my last job I was called an Engineer and I had never done so much CAD in my life! Even when my job title was cad operator! I had been a drafter for a good portion of my career so I kind of laugh when they call me an engineer.
In the past two years i have not had to rely on any of the math or science i took in school.(except for maybe 1%). I feel i have wasted my 7 years at night school and plenty of cash to be a CAD operator for the rest of my days. I am now very cautious when someone calls me and says they have a great engineering opportunity for me!
So I wonder...what the heck am I? Bored out of my mind thats for sure.
Sorry Snt, I was actually guessing at cksh nationality, should have made it clearer. But I would have guessed the same for you.
My point was back in the UK there didn't seem to be quite the same level of distinction/prejudice between Drafters/Engineers/Designers etc (but my experience was a little limited). So cksh you could call yourself an engineer without worrying too much if you really were one.
I'm not saying it was better, or worse, just different.
If you're getting paid as an Engineer and are happy then no problem, if you're bored though then I guess you could either ask for some responsibility/tasks/position that would interest you or look around.
I'd love to be using CAD rather than project managing and writing specs, requirements, test plans, procedures etc. Wanna swap?
From an English dictionary
Compact Oxford English Dictionary
engineer
• noun 1 a person qualified in engineering. 2 a person who maintains or controls an engine or machine. 3 a person who skillfully originates something.
• verb 1 design and build. 2 contrive to bring about.
It’s only the online compact version, I don’t have shelf space for the full version!
Unless a company has a policy of promoting non-degreed folks, I can't see how a Draftsman/Designer can be fairly compared with a degreed Engineer. I also don't see why hiring managers ask for that degree when one is not really needed. Why hire Mario Andretti to drive a dump truck?
I graduated from a major university with a BSME in 1984. I was given very little practical knowledge to take to the workplace (since then went to grad school for MSME). When I got into the workplace as a naive newgrad, it became clear that the engineer was expected to be able to the job of the draftsman, designer, engineer, buyer, technician,... So I quickly learned to do layout design and drafting and learned it quite well.
Since then the draftsmen have dissappeared. There are still designers (and I' glad there are!) but it seems that there is always so much work that the engineers are doing almost full-time layout design, sometimes more than the designers (who are doing drawings). Now I earn close to $90k US and am doing drawings of brackets! Where's the logic? Where's the economy? While I'm drawing brackets my analytical skills are wasting away. The employers want their cake and they want to eat it to! Don't they realize that it makes no sense to have experienced, well-educated engineers on the tube full-time doing layouts and drawings?
Engineers design, build, and test concepts in an effort to create or improve a product.
Lots of people have said design and build... But testing is the third leg of the stool in the creation process. (How do you know your design or improvement has worked???)
KENAT, From you earlier post, I think you are associating "build" to closely to manufacturing. "Build" could simply mean prototype, turn a concept on paper into a tangible product.
Not all engineers get to test. Civil structures generally are built to a code that's (in part) based on someone else's tests. Why? Because Calvin & Hobbes cartoons notwithstanding, we don't get to test our structures to failure and then rebuild them, so instead we stick to our conservative codes.
I got into a big hoo-hah over that one with a firm that typically designs for another field. They don't much care about standard code details because they just build what they want and test it. They just couldn't understand that we just don't have that option with a bridge. In theory, we could test individual details, but someone would have to include the money for such testing in the contract, and that means convincing the state or municipality that the epense for such testing is justified rather than simply following the code, etc., etc.
Maybe it's based on my experience. At my last place in aerospace/defence in the UK I didn’t build prototypes.
We had an experimental work shop who did that. We’d give them drawings (or at a push sketches & verbal instructions) and they’d produce the prototype. Not to say I didn’t spend a lot of time there helping them answering questions and clarifying things but I couldn’t claim to have built them myself. The one time I got more hands on was when it was something that the customer (usually RAF) had to assemble or something which interfaced to existing equipment., in which case I would help do the ‘trial fit’.
Maybe something like:
An engineer carries out all or part of the process of designing, overseeing manufacture, testing, in service/through life support and disposal of a product.
However having re-read that sentence it kind of sucks so perhaps someone smarter than I could come up with a more eloquent way of stating the same.
An engineer: this person will produce the most with the least amount of efford and recieve the most amount of stars in exactly the correct time whilst enjoying a nice cup of coffee and deligating his troops.
Or in other words: (The image of the duck racing in the pond.) The secret of live is to keep cool and calm on top but to paddle like crazy underneath.
Maybe some of our more language-enabled contribuotors can help, but isn't the German spelling of engineer "Ingeneur"? Like more in keeping with "ingenuity"?
That brings us to a fork in the road: Engineers: People who live off their "ingenuity", versus "engineers", people who cause engines and machines to run, like that locomotive engineer of the facilities engineer who maintains and operates the sytems of a large building.
Engineer (en je 'nir) n. An individual who is able to produce, with prolific abandon, streams of incomprehensible formulae based upon extremely vague assumptions and theories based on debatable figures acquired from inconclusive tests and incomplete experiments, carried out with instruments of problematic accuracy by persons of doubtful reliability and rather dubious mentality with the particular anticipation of disconcerting and annoying everyone outside of their own profession. [source unknown]
Not a defintion but
You know when you're an engineer when...
... you make 4 sets of drawings (with seven revisions) before making a bird bath.
... you find yourself at the airport on your vacation studying the baggage handling equipment.
... everyone else on the Alaskan cruise is on deck peering at the scenery and you are still on a personal tour of the engine room.
"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater." Albert Einstein Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
Engineer (en je 'nir) n. An individual who is able to produce, with prolific abandon, streams of incomprehensible formulae based upon extremely vague assumptions and theories based on debatable figures acquired from inconclusive tests and incomplete experiments, carried out with instruments of problematic accuracyby persons of doubtful reliability and rather dubious mentality with the particular anticipation of disconcerting and annoying everyone outside of their own profession.
If it exist as a thought - it is philosophy. If it is proven by practice - it is science. If it is built - it is engineering. If it works - it is probably good engineering.
Engineering is science tempered by judgement. Fresh-out engineers tend to be more scientific. Because they have no experience, they have nothing on which to base their judgement.
I know the general public has a hard time explaining what we do, but it sounds like we have a hard time as well!
In my time, I've seen engineers doing work of accountants, managers, mechanics, etc., not to mention accross engineering disciplines (e.g. ME's doing the work of EE's, ChE's doing ME work, etc., etc.) However, I never see this process in reverse, at least not successfully. I think "professional problem solver" is good.
If you have an engineering problem, you get an engineer. An accounting problem, get an accountant. A medical problem, get a doctor. But if you have to pick just one to solve any type of problem, an engineer is your best bet (not that there's any bias here ).
One of our interns may disagree regarding engineers as doctors. He had an infected cut on his hand. I said if it were me I'd probably just soak it in hot salt water and keep it clean. He decided to go to hospital with it. He's now had two procedures on it!
You're right though engineers end up picking up a lot of other business duties, we actually got rid of our sales team at my last place and the engineers & project managers (most of whome were engineers) took most of it on with input from the MD.
True enough about the doctor thing. Maybe not the best analogy. My wife was an ER nurse and that job requires an urgent decisiveness not often associated w/ engineers.
I guess one reason it's so hard to put a simple paragraph down to describe engineering is the breadth of knowledge and experiences that it encompasses. Also, one of the reasons that it is so rewarding.
An Engineer is a person who passes as an exacting expert on the basis of being able to turn out with prolific fortitude infinite strings of incomprehensible formulas calculated with microscopic precision from vague assumptions which are based on debatable figures taken from inconclusive experiments carried out with instruments of problematic accuracy by persons of questionable mentality and doubtful reliability for the avowed purpose of annoying and harassing a hopelessly ignorant group of esoteric fanatics referred to as lawyers.
Back when working on aircraft weapons systems we'd sometimes refer to other peoples products as targets to annoy them. Not just things designed by civvies but mechanical things like tanks and nautical like ships.
Engineers: Those who takes R&D's ideas and turns them into a product that can by manufactured cheap enough for Sales, good enough for Quality and Marketing, and do so quick enough for Management, in a documented manner to cya for when the unknown occurs.
Not perfect but it dipicts those around me at least.
I see this thread has been inactive for a while, but here is the way that I define an engineer:
The single skill that engineers (and scientist) have that is unique to thier proffesion is the ability to quantify physical phenomena. This allows the actions/reactions of systems to be accuratly predicted. Without that ability all systems would have to be designed with a trial-and-error approach; complex, large, expensive, or potentially dangerous systems would not be feasable.
In my mind engineers and scientists have a similar core skill set, they just have different applications.
Well, I'd just like to point out again, that engineering has always been, and always will be, done regardless of the state of the science. Use the science if it exists, if not, the problem has to be solved by other means.
Can people who do not understand the engineering principles but are able to build things that work be considered engineers?
Each living organism can be considered a very complex engineered system and no "engineer" was involved in their creation. Are ants, bees and beavers considered engineers for structures they build?
Definition of engineer, in my opinion, should be restricted to humans (or beings more intelligent than humans) who understand fully or partially the principles involved in the stuff they build. Also, in my opinion, stuff they build do not necessarily have to work all the time.
csd72, we're going to have to agree to (partially) disagree.
As I said, if the science exists, use it. It will always, when available, point us in the right direction and REDUCE, but not necessarily eliminate trial and error.
More to the point, isn't scientific theory just that, THEORY? Most of our "science" is just stuff that we have learned through "trial and error" and seems to work 99.9999% of the time. Until we find an exception and through it all out and come up with a new theory...
Quote..."I completely disagree with you. Those that used arches were doing it by trial and error - that is not engineering."
Actually, I think some of you are not giving credit where it is definitely due.
Just because their drawings and calculations may not have survived the centuries (no weekly tape backups for their work?) I don't believe for a moment that it was pure luck that had the ancient engineers creating feats of engineering--some that have yet to be duplicated today.
For example, do a little reading on the Pantheon, built in 100 A.D. It was the largest dome on the planet for more than 1300 years...and it used portland cement in the concrete. You don't think there were engineered drawings for that?
Or the pyramids, where a piece of paper won't fit between the cracks of the stones, most of which are in the 1-ton+ range and we can't build like that today, even given our computer power. The tunnels that run through them, which meet perfectly with each other deep inside - these were planned and engineered, not just haphazardly put together with a lucky outcome.
And the use of ceramic pipe to carry water, the asphalt & lead roof on which the Hanging Gardens of Babylon were built, etc? So much survived to this day, and now it is our "engineering" that is causing its decay...think of the Sphinx, which is crumbling from air pollution?
The technology that existed then isn't substandard to that available now, it's just different. Before calulators, we used slide rules with great accuracy. Before autocad, we used drafting methods such as bisecting an angle. How many engineers graduating this year have the ability to draw a two-point perspective? Probably very few. I'm not that old (really...) but I learned all of that in high school. Now they just turn students loose on a cad machine - is that progress?
How much of our current "engineering" will survive 500 years from now, and what will future engineers think of our efforts? Will they laugh and say we weren't engineers because we weren't using the alien technology that they have in the future? Are we that hypocritical to think that just because we now have computers to do our calculations that our work is superior to that of 2,000 years ago?
Because the crumbling bridges and poor roads in Michigan remind me daily that we have a long way to go...
Here is a thread with a lot of interesting comments:
There was an elective course in my undergraduate days for the letters and science folks, exact course title escapes me but we called it physics without math. We (the engineering students) joked about a non-existent course called math without numbers and concluded that it would be a very difficult course.
Science and math are big components of engineering today and has been for at least few hundred years but I consider engineers, in a more general sense, as people who can define a need then make attempts to satisfy that need. Even the ones who fail are engineers too.
I've been in structural engineering (so far) so my opinions may be a bit biased but engineers not only know how to solve problems but more essentially know how to define the problem. For most structural applications, it takes me three to five times more in defining the parameters than to solve the problem.
Very good points, and thank you for that link. Greg Locock wrote something very interesting in that link:
"Gaudi designed his cathedral by hanging appropriate weights from an overhead framework. The threads that were used to suspend the weights gave the line of action of the forces, so should form the centre of each column. It is not inconceivable that the Romans, or some Gothic cathedral masons, used a similar technique."
I saw Gaudi's system of weights in Barcelona it was very interesting, and I agree with Greg, that it is possible that the ancient Romans (or for that matter the ancient Egyptians, Mayas and Incas) used similar methods.
You say that Engineering is not by “trial and error”, although most of the equations found in the Code/Text books we use everyday came from professors and graduate students in the lab doing experiments by trial and error.
I must disagree with you sir, although you sound like the quality manager at my last place!
I've encountered at least one system that we were unable to successfully analyze given our understanding of it.
We knew there was another force acting but just from examining, the theoretical system couldn’t find it.
We came up with a number of ideas of what it might be and a number of experiments to rule out the ideas.
Eventually we narrowed it down to one option and by doing some more experiments, partial analysis and more closely looking at changes that had been made to the system by someone else we not only found the force but also a fix to the performance.
Despite the fact that this process ended up with fixing our problem our Quality manager decided this was all very amateurish etc.
To me it was entirely scientific and by extension valid engineering. We wrote up pretty much every experiment and their results along with conclusions & recommendations. It was a bit like doing an interval bisection.
If they used a scientific method to determine the design, even if it wasn’t based on mathematical analysis, doesn’t mean they weren’t scientific. Even today for certain analysis physical tests, or scale models etc are used, usually to verify results from some kind of mathematical or computational analysis but sometimes to provide input data for these or even to provide almost complete answers. To completely rule out trial and error is to rule out a powerful engineering tool, so long as it is done methodically to a plan etc I consider it valid under certain circumstances.
"Engineering is the art of modeling materials we do not wholly understand, into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to withstand forces we cannot properly assess, in such a way that the public has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance." - Dr AR Dykes, British Institution of Structural Engineers, 1976.
ENGINEER, Someone with knowledge,experience and qualification of a discipline who is not too enamoured of themselves that they do not listen to an experienced tradesperson when problems arise.Everyone else is just a graduate waiting to learn in the real world.
"Somewhere,there is a village that he is depriving of an idiot"
Some think engineers use trial and error or intuition. Some think engineers use math and physics. It's really the same thing. The crux of the matter is that all of mankinds ideas are theories. Rules for predicting the outcomes of experiments. Even dropping a rock on ones foot. History has taught you this will hurt and it probably will. A good engineer strives to form accurate models in his mind which are mathematical in nature whether he realizes it or not. By studying math an engineer is able to construct new models or make use of existing ones of more complexity than he could without math. The example above by KENAT is certainly a valid approach to problem solving when existing models give no predictive power. The poke it with a stick and see what happens is the step that has to be taken. The difference is the engineer will try to use the results to formulate new models of the process, perhaps using physical laws and math learned in school. He will in essence try to determine the Gradient at various points so as to give understanding of the direction to move when future occurances happen. The non engineer will record data as points of success and the only thing avalilable in the future is past points that did one thing or another. If asked what will happen when variable C is increased he can only look at his notebook of recorded points and shrug his shoulders if this data point wasn't recorded.
No trial and error? Orville and Wilbur had to figure out how to make an airplane using primarily that technique, since most prior data had serious errors.
Of course, not long ago, a certain large airplane manufacturer's marketing department boasted that their new jetliner was to be a completely "virtual" design. But from this source: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/programfacts.html comes the quote: "Hours of wind tunnel tests: 15,000 hours of wind tunnel tests".
Nobody does a CFD model without asking the one true supercomputer for a hint at the right answer.
Science is just trial and error with a feedback loop.
Engineers; In our vast array of fields are the very backbone of any successful/evolving society, one way I would define an engineer is someone who can take one "thought" and mold a thousand dreams.
It's not very meaningful to compare two fields that require completely different skill sets. Many engineers don't have the language skills, both in terms of words on the page and being articulate while thinking on their feet, that are required to be a good lawyer. Many lawyers don't have the math skills that are required for some of the mathier fields of engineering. On the other hand, most disciplines of civil engineering don't require really difficult math.
I would not do well in an English Literature curriculum. Does that mean that engineering is easier than English lit? For me, sure. That's why I do it--it's easy for me to do. Does it mean, as an absolute, that Engineering Is Easier Than English Literature?
It always concerned me that all the medics I knew had 'coloring books' as some of their course texts, especially in anatomy as I recal.
I don't know of any 'coloring books' for Engineering.
Maybe I should write one, "colour your aeroplane", color the subsystems as your memorize their names.
It's not just Engineers Vs non Engineer courses. Different courses claim elite status. For instance those of us on aero at university were lead to believe we were superior to most other engineering courses.
Given how long this thread is:
"Engineer - one who doesn't know how to describe what they do"
I had a similar comment from a law student at my university.
HgTx,
You make a very good point, there are different forms of intelligence. Even something as seemingly basic as writing childrens books requires skills that most engineers would not possess.
I have come to the conclusion that I am in some void where no one really knows what an engineer is or what we are capable of ;) I have a BSME and about 13 years of experience in design. I have worked as an ME. Lots of number crunching and I did my own CAD work. Now, at my current employer I am called a design engineer. I do the same exact work as the coop, the people in our group with no degrees, and someone fresh out of school with no experience and maybe not even a BS degree. If i get promoted to a senior engineer I will still be doing the same work. Kind of a waste of seven years getting my degree at night ;)
I will get a call from a head hunter saying they have this great design engineer position. They describe it and it sounds as though they are reading my current job description. I tell them thats what I am doing now and I want something a bit more challenging. An engineering job where I don't have to spend 95% of my time creating 3d and drawings. How about the occasional fatigue calculation to get my brain working again ;) Its as though as soon as they see 'engineer' in the job requirements they call everyone that has engineer in their job title and assumes its all the same.
What am I? An overpaid drafter but I won't tell them that! Maybe its because I am in Automotive
DESCRIPTION: Where is Engineering Going In The Next 5 Years technical support forum and mutual help system for engineering professionals. Selling and recruiting forbidden.
Definition of an Engineer
).