Final authority for definition of engineering terms? 7

[tomwalz]

Is there a final authority for the definition of engineering terms?

Maybe something like The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics or the AWS (American Welding Society) but for engineering.

I tried NIST and ASME. Search on Google and similar was surprisingly unhelpful.

Basic engineering texts have been suggested but they can differ.

Thanks,

Tom Walz

Thomas J. Walz
Carbide Processors, Inc.

http://www.carbideprocessors.com

Good engineering starts with a Grainger Catalog.

 

[MiketheEngineer]

A court of law will define it for you - if you ever get in trouble......

 

[IRstuff]

Do you have specific terms in question? I think you're chasing a wild goose in general; there's nothing like a BIPM for just terms. The French had attempted to "standardize" their language and prevent bad words, like "hamburger" from entering their lexicon and failed miserably.

TTFN
faq731-376

 

[MintJulep]

No.

 

[rb1957]

"final authority" = god ?, or in his/her absense, the customer

 

[tomwalz]

Originally it was a discussion about running band saws. The terms 'stress' and 'strain' were being used. Everything got sidetracked discussing what each term meant.

I was hoping for a set of definitions from a highly authorative source.

Tom

Thomas J. Walz
Carbide Processors, Inc.

http://www.carbideprocessors.com

Good engineering starts with a Grainger Catalog.

 

[rb1957]

there are different definitions for stress and strain, based on the reference area ...
true stress is based on the true area (eg, in a tension specimen the material necks, reducing the area)
engineering stress is based on the original area.

similarly for strain.

these should be well defined in pretty much any text.

 

[drawoh]

tomwalz,

The terms "stress" and "strain" are defined in your mechanics of materials textbook. Perhaps there is some question as to what kind of stress and strain it is.

The phrase "stress and strain" is used with gay abandon all over the place by non-technical people, and it means whatever they choose it to mean, neither more or less.

--
JHG

 

[jgailla]

I'm probably also guilty of misusing stress and strain in non-engineering conversations.
It seems absurd that a group of engineers could deliberately misuse the words after correction and not realize the difference.

 

[CoryPad]

ASTM E6 Standard Terminology Relating to Methods of Mechanical Testing defines stress and strain and similar terms.

http://www.astm.org/Standards/E6.htm

ASTM has multiple terminology standards, as do other organizations like ISO.

 

[IRstuff]

The problem is that we tend to use English words that have other meanings in other contexts. If strain was called, "Wapbamboop," one could safely define the word and concept and expect some level of consistency; it's just that no one would remember the word itself.

So, it's a double-edge sword; you can use words that have connotations that relate to your particular definition and risk a continually morphing definition, or you can use word that has no other definition, and risk people not remembering the word, and therefore, not using that word anyway.

However, it's the nature of language to evolve, even for very specific engineering terms. People use the term CDROM all the time, but really don't have any idea what the acronym means. That's evident when you see an R/W CDROM being advertised...

TTFN
faq731-376

 

[zdas04]

IRStuff,
As I read this thread I was composing my answer, then saw that you had given my answer so the best I can do is a star for you.

This discussion is the reason that every contract has a "definitions" section. If a term is material to understanding then you define it and both parties sign and that is the definition for the duration of that contract. Next contract the same terms can have different definitions. Fundamentally if you can't express a concept mathematically (which you can with "stress" and "strain") then it is subject to interpretation, confusion, and manipulation.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.

 

[DRWeig]

Wapbamboop? Thank you IRStuff, I needed that just now.

Good on ya,

Goober Dave

Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies

 

[IRstuff]

We can't even keep acronyms straight, even the ones we created within the company. Generally, within a couple of years, the original meaning of an acronym has faded into the dim mists of history. Not all documents create acronym tables, and not all documents are readily searchable for acronyms.

Most well-organized defense contracts have a "System Requirements Review" for the purpose of ensuring that the customer and contractor are on the same page with respect to the meaning and intent of each specification paragraph. The end result of that is often a specification interpretation document, to ensure that "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant" doesn't occur. Of course, that's often wishful thinking, at best.

I've come to the conclusion that engineers ought to have minored in English if they ever expect to run into a specification, just so that they have at least an inkling of what a requirement really says or means.

TTFN
faq731-376

 

[Jboggs]

That's all fine but "stress" and "strain" are not acronyms. And yes, they have different meanings in different fields, medical for example. In the engineering field, their definitions come from the equations and formulas used to calculate them. They are two different but related things. Think of it this way: stress is a measurement force and area; strain is a measurement of length, or change in length. When you stretch a rubber band the stress is the "force" or "pressure" it feels. The strain is the amount it stretches.

 

[TheTick]

We can't even settle on what "engineering" means around here.

 

[drawoh]

The problem is that we tend to use English words that have other meanings in other contexts. If strain was called, "Wapbamboop," one could safely define the word and concept and expect some level of consistency; it's just that no one would remember the word itself.

...

You should read up on the Underground Grammarian, the late Richard Mitchell. His book Less Than Words Can Say, is linked on the site. In it, he argues among other things, that people copy terminology from people they admire. Michell did not use the example of "stress and strain", but his reasoning still works. Someone will talk about the stresses and stains of a relationship, because they admire the precision and repeatability of what architects and engineers do. Any other cool terminology you invent will be copied accordingly.

--
JHG

 

[IRstuff]

Possibly, but I think if Mitchell implied the latter, it's a bunch of crock. "Stress" predates any modern usage related its engineeing usage:

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster's&word=stress&use1913=on

If anything, it's the other way around. Engineers, being efficient people make use of existing words that fit the concept, rather than inventing new words. Even then, new words are often morphed from existing words or combinations thereof. Case in point: "computer" meant a human being given a task of performing mathematical calculations, until it got morphed into describing an electrical circuit that did the same, "transistor" is a combination of "transfer" and "resistor." "Resistor" has its roots in "resist" which predates any electrical engineering usage:

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster's&word=resist&use1913=on&use1828=on.

I do agree with Mitchell that people do tend to use new phrases as a kind of wave propagation phenomenon, e.g., "at the end of the day," which became quite popular, got overused, and is now roundly shunned. But, I'm not convinced that it's an overt process as described; I think it's more of a peer pressure thing, or overexposure in the media, as opposed to deciding on Monday to copy the speaking style of the Prime Minister of GB, since he was hardly "admired," even on a good day.

TTFN
faq731-376

 

[FACS]

I use "McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms."





Charlie

http://www.facsco.com

 

[KENAT]

Y14.38 is a start for acronyms but doesn't go as far as you're talking.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​