Jump to content

Talk:Mechanical engineering/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Latest Changes

Added several pictures and links to wikibooks -Âme Errante 22:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I just made an expansion to the subdisciplines section, and as this is my first wikipedia edit, I was hoping that somebody would double-check my work and let me know of anything I should be doing differently.

  • I also took the stuff about education out of the intro section and made an Education section, added info about accreditation and did some misc. cleanup and additions there, added the statistics section, added the current areas of research, and added a number of references. If someone could check these sections as well, I would much appreciate it.

Also, I am an engineering student specializing in CAD/FEA, so if anyone has questions regarding those subjects as they pertain to this article, please feel free to send them my way. -Brandon

Included in Mechanical Engineering is often the supervision of fabrication, and construction of engineered systems. This involves coordination with other engineering specialties such as electrical engineering and structural engineering. Instrumentation and control of engineered systems is often part of the mechanical requirements and this involves the coordination with instrumentation specialists. Such systems may: measure and control flow of materials, stress and strain on equipment, and recording of operational parameters. Engineered systems include Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) specialties.

UK government appointed Ann Dowling, a mechanical engineer, to head its study of nanotechnology molecular assembler issues. This seems to imply they're worth mentioning here.

  • There is now a subsection on Nanotechnology. If you feel more information is necessary, feel free to add it here. -Brandon

From the old introduction: Some major divisions of mechanical engineering are: designs and controls, thermo-science and fluids, engineering mechanics, and manufacturing. In addition, specialized fields exist within mechanical engineering or as a joint field of mechanical engineering and another engineering discipline. Some fields include: mechatronics (and more specifically robotics), transport and logistics, cryogenics, and biomechanics.

Modern analysis and design processes in mechanical engineering are aided by various computational tools like finite element analysis (FEA) and computational fluid dynamics (CFD), computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM). In system design and controls, a mechanical engineer may apply CAD/CAM systems to feed “instructions" to computer numerically-controlled (CNC) machines such as robots, milling machines, and lathes.

A mechanical engineer working in thermo-fluids might design a heat sink, an air conditioning system, or an internal combustion engine. Other processes might focus on the fluid itself, such as a fan to cool an electrical system, a turbine to power a submarine, or a spray gun to apply chemical coatings.

What HVAC software is that?

Could anyone please enlighten me as to which HVAC software belongs this screenshot? The one in the caption...

Sorry if it's off topic, I'm just curious. --Clapaucius* 22:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Help

I am a mechanical engineer. I passed last year. Now I am searching for jobs. The main problem is this that I live in a country(Bangladesh) which offers very poor fields for mechanical engineers. So i am searching for foreign jobs. Can any one tell me how can i get a foreign job???

Please ask questions unrelated to the development of this encyclopedia article at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Thanks. — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 21:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Terse page

The ideology of this page seems to be descendant of Laconia? Is there some reason for the resistance to expand the page to include more detailed information about mechanical engineering? Just wondering where everyone's coming from around here? Cypa 18:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

:There is an open request that the article be expanded. Subdisciplines and History look open if you would like to add something there. Tom Harrison (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

:: I'm planning to expand it soon! deeptrivia (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A Broad Area

Mechanical engineering covers a very broad area. Depends on where you are in the world, your experience about this subject may differ. People should add whatever they know about this topic as much as possible. A complete write up is quite impossible at this moment without the help of many professional writers. Perhaps this is why it is in such a sorry state. If you are interested, please take a look at Electrical engineering. hoo0 10:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

History Section

As it was explained to me, the mechanical engineer gets his roots from the steam engine. This is alluded to in the article, but not fully. The idea is that only an ME has the skills necessary to design the entire engine. Thermodynamics, structures, kinematics and dynamics, and some controls (Centrifugal governor) are necessary to design the whole thing successfully. - EndingPop 02:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I would argue the mechanical engineer gets his roots in the beginning of engineering (i.e. Ancient Rome, etc.). I wouldn't agree the roots are from steam engines. It was part of the evolution and addition to the field. Taalo 06:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I would say that it started even sooner, to say that the person who first used a wheel was not an engineer would be an injustice. However, the main point is finding references to expand the history section rather than putting in our own assumptions. I'll look into this a little if I get some time over the weekend and post. Jeb8828 17:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
We are definitelly on the same page, my friend. I just brought up Ancient Rome as an example, but didn't mean to imply any sort of specific start date with it. :-) I like to think of mechanical engineering as the grandfather of all disciplines. Something that started out as engineering, but expanded into civil, electrical, etc. Just my assumption though, yup! Taalo 17:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I both agree and disagree. I would say mechanical engineering was a child of necessity, just as others were. While engineering has been around for a long time, ME as a profession didn't appear until the steam engine. Before that it was a civil engineer. Just my 2 cents. - EndingPop 12:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Structural Failure Analysis

I think this should be just Structural Analysis, minus the failure bit. Failure analysis is really just one subset of structural analysis, not to mention any design/engineering area (controls, etc.) is going to have some sort of "failure" analysis. Taalo 06:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It should really point to Structural Analysis and be rewritten in that context. It's more about prediction of structure behavior, not necessarily whether failure occurs or failure mode. Structural analysis is still pretty intense when trying to design for cost or packaging or durability even when failure isn't likely to occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EndingPop (talk • contribs)

Just a note

Here is an old engineering joke. It's funny because its true. What is the difference between a mechanical engineer and a civil engineer? Mechanical engineers build weapons, while civil engineers build targets. Zengief 15:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This article reads like a textbook

And I'd be willing to wager that it was written by an American teacher judging by the MASSIVE number of references to Mech Eng in US colleges/universities. "Solid understanding of key concepts"? What? Lets cut the vague crap and get right to the point shall we? ANY area of professional expertise requires a solid understanding of key concepts, we needn't tell people what anyone with half a brain stem already knows. Lots of little things like this add up to one big wording problem.

Also, not everyone reading this encyclopedia is an American student, and therefore I DON'T think a section on "coursework" specific to the US is really necessary! Nobody cares that some schools offer a 4 year degree either - this is an encyclopedia not a bulletin board for the American higher education system to advertise it's wonderful opportunities. Mainly this is because it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Mechanical Engineering!

Come on guys, you should all know better than this. Clean it up, or at least reword some of it. If you don't, then I'll be forced to clean it up for you (and you don't want that, because I'll just delete the entire section on education). ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 00:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Chill OUT ^^^

Hey shill out, this is a place where if you want to add something, then add it, only if you know what you're talking about. The person who wrote this, or the people who wrote this were Americans, so they can't write about engineering in Europe because they know squat about it. If you'd like call up some buddies that graduated form some prestigious German engineering school, and ask them to add a European flavor to the article, Otherwise cut the crap.

Excessive lead reverted

A user reworded the lead to this:

Mechanical engineering is concerned with the design and analysis of mechanical systems, large and small, from screws, bolts and gears to aircraft engines, space stations, satellites. Its scope is easy to describe and awesome to contemplate. Any artificial device that involves physical movement calls for the discipline of mechanical engineering. A mechanical engineer is trained in physics and mathematics, classical mechanics of points and rigid bodies, strength of materials, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, kinematics of machines, heat engines, and the modeling techniques needed to understand descriptions such as experimental, computational, mathematical and textual descriptions of such systems. The curriculum is shared in large part with other branches of engineering, and to a lesser extent with other academic disciplines across the physical and social sciences, the humanities and other professions. As with many or most academic disciplines, very little is studied in the mechanical engineering department and nowhere else. It is unique in its focus and experience, indispensable to civilization. But it is a modern discipline, not an ancient one. Some aspects of the craft are ancient, but it is a modern academic discipline.

I think it is non-neutral and too detailed. So I'm reverting to the previous one. The later sections cover a lot of that better, imo -Fnlayson 22:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

M.E. Experience Levels

How are job positions of Mechanical Engineer I, II, III, IV, etc defined? A lot of engineering job position listings have these numerals in their titles. Please add this to the article if you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posilute (talk • contribs) 03:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

  • That'll vary from company to company as to what exactly the levels mean. I've seen junior, senior, principal and other terms used as well. I don;t think wikipedia articles should get into that kind of thing. -Fnlayson 05:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I second Fnlayson's comment, above. Mechanical Engineer I, II... is something that is specifically defined by a company, so the approprate place to discuss it, if anywhere, is the article for that company. However, as these titles may change even within a company, and are generally not widely used outside the hiring process, I question whether they meet notability and encyclopaedic content criteria. -Âme Errante (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

ME user box

If you are a mechanical engineer, please add this to your user page. Thanks: ----CheMechanical 00:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This user is a  
Mechanical Engineer.

PE user box

If you are a professional engineer, please add this to your user page. Thanks: ----CheMechanical 00:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

PEThis user is a licensed
Professional Engineer.

How do you become a mechanical engineer?

How do you do it? What is the difference between other engineering things? Someone should put this into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.63.60.32 (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The article discusses engineering education around the world, and the various degrees denoting a mechanical engineer. It also discusses the act of licensure, i.e. becoming a licensed mechanical engineer. I'm curious as to what supplementary information you're looking for.
I'm curious as to what you mean by 'other engineering things'. Are you asking what the difference is between a mechanical engineer and, say, an electrical engineer? If so, this article links in the first paragraph to the article on 'engineering', which describes the field of engineering in general and how it is split up into disciplines.
Overall, I'm not sure what you're looking for. Could you please provide a more in-depth explanation of what you believe to be missing in this article?
-Âme Errante (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Update to Tools section

I updated the Tools section to more better represent the state of the CAE industry (which I assume was the point of the section). Feel free to fix anything I missed! - EndingPop (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit... that section looks a lot better now. The section was originally added several years ago by someone (I don't remember exactly who it was) who didn't like how I split the article into subdisciplines. He felt the article needed a section on exactly how mechanical engineers do their engineering, rather than just discussing all the areas we work on, hence this section. From my experience at several companies, a large part of the design process is computer-aided. However, you'd be surprised at how much of it is still low-tech and rule of thumb in practice. Perhaps this would be something to discuss eventually, but I'm not sure this is the article for it. All that being said, I'm going to remove the 'please improve this section' tag... it could certainly be expanded, but it's not exactly in 'dire need' compared to any other section.
Also, in relation to the note about this article being written by a teacher, I was actually a student when I wrote most of this article, hence the focus on education... you write what you know, certainly. I never expected my edits to last this long, so please feel free to (intelligently) edit the article as you wish. -Brandon (Âme Errante (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

Education: Extraneous Information

I removed the following sentence from the article:

In Germany, Austria, and many other central and eastern European countries the (BSc) and (BTech) are available as an intermediate (or final) 4 year degree; however, the longer "Diplomas";(Dipl), (Dipl-Ing), (Dipl-Tech); are still the most relevant degrees.[citation needed]

Not only is it uncited, it does not seem to add to the article. However, I am not from any country in eastern Europe, so I do not know if this is an important distinction. Can someone knowledgeable look over this and let me know if we should include it in the article?

Thanks, -Âme Errante (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Things to add?

These used to be in the to do list, but they sat there for a long time.

  • Add a 'Related Disciplines' section. Because mechanical engineering is so broad, there is overlap between mechanical engineering and other branches of engineering. For example, in aerospace the design of aircraft bodies is performed by both mechanical engineers (who look at structure) and aerospace engineers (who look at drag and lift).
  • Mechanical enginnering is not just " ...the application of principles of physics..." it's much more, e.g., combustion is more chemistry than physics.

I'm wondering if perhaps the first of these is outside the scope of the article and shouldn't be added. As for the second, this should probably be debated, rather than put on the to-do list. My experience in engineering, for one, is that combustion is explored in terms of energy states (thermodynamics) and end products rather than electron transfer and intermediate chemical reactions. Thoughts? -Âme Errante (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it's taking me a while

I want to be really careful on the Cold fusion review...and as luck would have it, a significant event happened this week that we have to cover. I should get to this article within a day or two. In the meantime, read the first part of WP:LEAD, please; the lead section is meant to tell readers what to expect in the article, and the lead of this article should be a bit longer than it is. WP:WIAGA mentions WP:LEAD and a few other specific guidelines to follow. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I liked the images and captions in this article, and I have used some of them as examples of good, succinct caption style at WP:Captions. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Apologies again; I'm almost ready to start the review at Mechanical engineering. It looks like the review of Cold fusion is going to have to go on hold unless/until people can come up with better sources. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
As I feared, Cold fusion took a long time, but we're done now. Is anyone else working on this article, or am I dealing only with the nominator here? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Article review

I have to apologize again; illness in the family and various wikidramas have made me take much, much longer on this review than anyone should. Also, it's important to me to do a good job and be able to justify my decisions, and this is of course harder with a technical article on a subject that I'm not entirely familiar with. I'll get it done just as soon as I can. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mechanical engineering/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm happy to do thorough reviews, because we need more participation from science and tech editors, and because the WP:GAU review indicated that almost everyone bringing articles to WP:GAN wants more input on their writing. I'm happy to do less if you want less.

Quick-fail criteria

  1. Plenty of reliable sources.
  2. Neutrality issues are completely absent; quite a relief after Cold fusion!
  3. No cleanup tags.
  4. The article has been very stable recently.
  5. The article doesn't concern a current event.

I don't see any issues; editors are welcome to correct me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well written

2010 update: I've gone through the points below, and fixed the couple that remained unaddressed. The 'sea of blue' seems a bit better, though probably still more than some would like. A couple people suggested spinning off the education section into a different article, however my opinion is that the size is manageably small relative to the length of the article. If there's disagreement when we re-submit a GA nomination there's precedent in Electrical Engineering to work from. Âme Errante (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:LEAD. The lead section for this article should be two to four paragraphs, summarizing the main points.
  • There's an issue with the "sea of blue" in the lead section, although this is sometimes a point of disagreement between WP:FAC reviewers and more scientifically-inclined editors. Scientists prefer denser articles with more links than the average Wikipedia reader, so it's a judgment call. I have followed all the links from the lead, and I thought they all added very useful information, except for motor vehicles.
  • I replaced the ampersands with "and", per WP:MOS.
  • Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I replaced "Mechanical engineering could be found in many ancient and medieval societies throughout the globe" with "Applications of mechanical engineering...". You're defining mechanical engineering as an academic discipline, but your examples don't point to academicians, they're pointing to devices that were designed using principles that nowadays would come from mechanical engineering.
  • I added a bit of information on engineering societies in the 19th century.
  • When discussing history in general, use "can be found" rather than "could be found", if the implication is that modern people are the ones doing the finding.
  • I wouldn't mind inclusion of a study breaking down which courses are taken on average by mechanical engineering students in various countries, but just saying that they tend to study humanities doesn't really help, IMO.
  • I'm doing a lot of the copyediting myself. There are a lot of pages devoted to capitalization rules in style guides such as NYTM and AP Stylebook, but a rule of thumb is: if the sentence can possibly be read with a word or phrase being used in the sense of a common noun, then don't capitalize.
  • "to continue even after the analyst goes home for the day": I don't know what this means.
  • The list in Mechanical engineering#Mechatronics and robotics would be better as prose with a little more description; see the first paragraph of WP:EMBED#Lists_within_articles.
  • "draftsman" (or "draughtsman") vs "drafter" is one of those rare gender-neutral issues that I can't make up my mind on; I don't think it's clear how this one is going to play out. Whatever you guys want to do about this is fine.
  • What was the relevance of the PIV disambiguation page in See also?

- Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Detailed review. Not bad. I wouldn't mind going into detail what my mechanical engineering coursework involves in order to get my bachelors degree, but I would imagine WP:ONESOURCE (since the course catalog's online - not original research) would be a problem. Also, there are many different universities that focuses mechanical engineering into automotive engineering, thermodynamics, mechatronics, spatial systems, dynamics-focused, which will ultimately alter the types of coursework required to accomplish the degree, but I do agree that humanities electives and communications requirements should not be necessarily listed in detail, but should be noted that a certain level of competence in humanities, communications, and in some cases, economy and biology (for nano-robotics focused mechanical engineering degrees). Please let me know when you're ready to take that step. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 15:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. It seems to me that this is exactly the kind of information that many readers of this article would want to see. At some level of detail, it should either be spun off into a separate article, or moved to Wikibooks, but if it's at Wikibooks, I would like to see links both to and from that specific page, so that it becomes a kind of extension of this article. "What would I have to study?" and "What could I expect mechanical engineers to know?" are central questions, and even if the answers would make some people's eyes glaze over, it would still improve Wikipedia to have the answers for the people who want to know. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I think there's going to be a good chance that it would belong in a separate article, since citing only a couple of tracks for mechanical engineering specialties would cause possible neutrality issues. However, I don't believe What to study to become a mechanical engineer would be a suitable article for Wikipedia. WikiUniversity might work though... - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 16:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Aha, I just noticed that someone has made a start already...it's in Mechanical engineering technology, further down on the page. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Although the topics are very similar, mechanical engineering is not the same as mechanical engineering technology. It's a step lower than a mechanical engineer. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 20:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

2010 update: I wasn't sure the reference suggested in the first point below specifically supported Heron 'deeply influencing mechanics', so I change the wording to reference his steam engine and added the ref to britannica. Archimedes is well known enough and his contributions varied enough (in my opinion) that specific examples aren't needed. More work remains to be done on citation issues.
  • There's no reference, inline or otherwise, for the statement about the importance of Heron of Alexandria. You can't use a WP article as a reference, and that WP article unfortunately doesn't use web references. I suggest using this one: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9040189/Heron-of-Alexandria. If you don't subscribe to EB, it begins: "Greek geometer and inventor whose writings preserved for posterity a knowledge of the mathematics and engineering of Babylonia, ancient Egypt, and the Greco-Roman world." You don't need a reference for every statement in an article, just a reference for every statement "challenged or likely to be challenged" (WP:V). A lot of people haven't heard of Heron (aka Hero) of Alexandria, so that needs a source.
  • "deeply influenced" is not good. Per WP:WEASEL, give a short sentence, at least, saying what we got from Heron and Archimedes that makes them important. I added a short list of accomplishments for Zhang Heng and Ma Jun (which would be improved by citations from those articles).
  • In Mechanical engineering#Salaries and workforce statistics, the present tense is used with 2004. Either the figures need to be updated, or the tone needs to be something different from "current events".
  • "I'm skeptical about master's degrees not requiring any coursework; let's just say that it may or may not include research" in the edit summary was me, not logged in.
  • "Most mechanical engineering programs also require varying amounts of research or community projects to gain practical problem-solving experience. Mechanical engineering students usually hold one or more internships while studying, though this is not typically mandated by the university." At that level of detail, I think you need a source, and not just a source that says what happens at one university. If you just said "Some mechanical engineering programs include community projects and internships", that probably wouldn't need a cite. (Research was mentioned earlier.)
  • "Canadian engineers make an average of $29.83 per hour...". Again, that's from 2004, but the "accessed" date implies it's for 2007. Please go through the whole article making sure that old data is represented as being old data, or even better, update the data.
  • "second only to civil engineers in size". Hm, I think you meant something else.
  • "Canadian engineers make an average of $29.83" Canadian dollars?
  • I'm waiting on an answer from WP:RSN about www.jobfutures.ca. Done, see below.
  • I don't think www.worldwidelearn.com can be a reliable source by itself; what else can you find?
  • http://onlineethics.org/codes/ and http://www.deas.harvard.edu/undergradstudy/engineeringsciences/mechanical/index.html are broken links.
  • Accessing one university's course listing doesn't support a statement about mechanical engineering programs in general; at least, I'd like to see listings from a few more universities, and there are probably more comprehensive sources for this information, if you can find them.
  • It's not clear which reference the first few paragraphs of Mechanical engineering#License depend on. Citations are needed throughout Mechanical engineering#Subdisciplines, Mechanical engineering#Modern tools and Mechanical engineering#Frontiers of research. I don't think the editors are trying to "get away" with anything; the See also's are clearly listed, and those articles have references. But wikilinks can't be used as sources for an article. I've not a fan of lots of inline citations for material that appears in basic textbooks; for this kind of material, a few citations to textbooks will do. And of course, you can simply verify and copy over relevant sources from the See also articles for much of the currently unreferenced material.

- Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

It's not going to fail WP:GAN for not being broad enough. There are many directions to go in, of course, but that's what the many See also links and Wikibooks are for. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

No neutrality issues, exactly. You could argue that asking Professional Engineers how important it is to be a Professional Engineer might give a biased answer, but it's not that important. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Stable

The article is stable, or was until I got my hands on it :) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Images

The images are helpful, and the captions are good. In fact, I'm using the captions as an example of good caption-writing at WP:CAPTIONS. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

References comment

Doesn't seem to have enough inline references to me. But then I don't see any fact tags either and I'm more used to Feature Article reviews. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good news from WP:RSN

Copied from WP:RSN#http://www.jobfutures.ca/en/listing_organizations.shtml:

I don't know if it's just me, but I'm having a hard time getting up to speed on WP:RSN issues; I often run down this page and realize that I have no idea what the answer is going to be until I see the experts weigh in. I'm wondering if that's going to hamper my ability to be a good reviewer at WP:GAN.

Anyway, my specific question is about http://www.jobfutures.ca/en, which includes the disclaimer: "Materials on this Web site were produced and/or compiled by the Department for the purpose of providing Canadians with direct access to information about the programs and services offered by the Government of Canada. ... Disclaimer: The material herein was prepared under the direction of the department. Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of its contents, the Government of Canada assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or reliability of the contents of this product." You'll see a list of organizations that they relied on for their information at the given link above. Reliable source? If not, where do I find this kind of employment information? (The article I'm reviewing is Mechanical engineering). - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dank55. I've seen your reviewing at Cold fusion and honestly, you have no cause for concern. This source is as reliable as anything you will find. One question that we first ask ourselves about a source is: is it fact-checked? In this case, certainly. If a government says that it has made every effort to ensure accuracy, then it has. A further question is: could it be factual but biased? In this case, unlikely. The Canadian government has no interest in presenting biased information about careers. So the source meets RS for fact and interpretation. It is up to you now to ensure that you are using it for an appropriate purpose. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, thank you! - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Fail?

Okay guys, where are we? This is about the time I'm supposed to be failing the article if no further improvements are made. It's an important topic, and I'd like to see this make it to GA. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your improvements. If it is still lacking and it is not making enough progress, then it should be failed at this time. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll take a look again later on today. I'm in class @ the moment. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 18:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, it looks like a lot of what I wanted to update was updated/changed/reworded already. The remaining items will take more than a couple days for me to gather sources since I'm working on finishing up my summer coursework at the moment. If anyone else wants to improve the article, feel free, but until some of the rest of the material's added, I'd say temp fail GA for now. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let's fail this one for now, but feel free to bring it back any time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I gave a pretty detailed list above of suggested changes; no need to repeat it here, I think. Anyone is welcome to suggest or provide improvements. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Finite Element Section

The section at the end of the article for finite element seems like it could use some help. Is "MSC MARC MENTAT" really notable software? I'm familiar with both ABAQUS (which was spelled incorrectly before the edit) and ANSYS, but have not heard of this software mentioned. Perhaps we should keep that statement to mainstream software? Should we also mention open source or free alternatives? Finally, the last sentence seems to suggest that heat and fluid flow problems cannot be solved using FEM, but instead require FDM and FVM. I'm not convinced this is the case - but rather FDM is a separate method of solving similar problems. Tevonic (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed Marc to Nastran, which is far more common. The section is only listing common codes. FDM and FVM are mentioned with thermofluids uses, not structural. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance

I don't see much mention on Wikipedia about the role of maintenance. I thought I would find more here. Am I just not finding the info that is out there? 70.250.176.80 (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

you are right. more inoformation needs to be put about the huge role of mechanical engineers in maintenance of various systems.Mecha19 (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits Made

I just made 3 fairly minor edits. First, I thought the description of Mechanical Engineering in intro para was a little vague ("Mechanical engineering involves the analysis, design, manufacturing, and maintenance of various systems"). So I added an alternate definition that I think is more complete (in my opinion at least). Second, there was a statement that Mechanical Engineers are "happy workers according to national statistics" with no citation provided. This does not sound like something that belongs in a serious article so I deleted it. If the original author strongly feels it should go back I believe it really needs some kind of reverence or citation to substantiate it at least. Third, "Mechanical engineering students usually hold one or more internships while studying, though this is not typically mandated by the university." is not exactly accurate, so I reworded to say this is common in the USA (as opposed to "usual" which implies it is more universal, which may not be true in all countries or even necessarily in the USA). Hope none of this ticks anyone off. Trying to improve. Turbine1 (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The "According to the American Heritage Dictionary" sentence needs a proper inline reference. I thought the sentence was fine or better before though. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to revert or re-edit if you think you have better wording. My opinion, "various systems" was a little too vague and all-encompassing and could mean a lot of things outside of the realm of Mech Engrg (electrical systems, computer systems, etc.). Mechanical Engineering, I would say, is specifically about Machinery, in other words systems involved in the generation and transmission of energy in the form of heat or mechanical work. Anyway, don't want to tie up anyone with a lot of wordsmithing. No offence taken if you revert or change this. If nobody wants to change it I will come back and insert the inline reference. Turbine1 (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The current version is fine. I was just accustomed to what was there before. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I rewrote the intro section to try to fit more with WP:LEAD, where the intro should both introduce the topic and cover the major points. I reverted the first sentence to talk about 'mechanical systems' - since this is mechanical engineering, it seemed to make good sense to tie it in with machines. Also added a reference for the inline citation. Âme Errante (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
That's good. But rewriting and removing text are not minor edits and should not be marked so. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Muje mechanical eng ke admission ke bare main information chahye...........! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.53.226 (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Mechanical Engineering grouped with many engineering disciplines such as aerospace engineering, astronautical engineering, power engineering, chemical engineering, and manufacturing engineering. There are only slightly few credits difference. Even applied mathematics sometimes grouped with Mech. Eng. Does someone know what is the main focus of Mechanical engineering? For example nuclear engineering deals with nuclear power, chemical engineering deals with chemical sciences, electrical engineering deals with electronics and defence systems? What is the main focus of mechanical engineering??

Coursework

I don't know much about Mechanical Engineering, but I was almost positive that the theoretical foundations are found in physics. Why isn't physics listed under coursework? Don't all Mechanical Engineering students take basic physics in addition to the more specialized studies of statics et. al? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.50.39.118 (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Physics, Chemistry and other prerequisite classes are generally taken in the first 2-3 years of college. Physics, and Chemistry are mentioned in the text, but there's too many classes to list pre-engineering classes with the engineering ones. The list is long enough already. -fnlayson (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

levelling during machine erection

what are the basic things to be noticed before the start of erection of a machine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.190.175 (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This question is related to what? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 12:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Kinematics and dynamics

Kinematics and dynamics are both branches of mechanics. So why have a separate sub-heading for kinematics only. I think instead of having a separate sub-heading, it should only be mentioned in mechanics as a part of the list, only. Priybrat (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Kinematics is an advanced form of dynamics. It is covered in class(s) after dynamics. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
They are both considered branch's of mechanics and not each other. I studied dynamics first. Dynamics, is motion of bodies under the action of forces and Kinematics is motion of objects without reference to the forces. I do agree that kinematics is more complex and a celebrated research field but still it remains a branch of mechanics. Otherwise Fluid mechanics should also be given a separate heading. Priybrat (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe that fluid mechanics should be given a separate heading in. It is a specific field of mechanical engineering combining principles of both mechanics, thermodynamics/thermo sciences, applied to non-solid bodies. Although I understand why it is grouped in with mechanics, every other subtopic applies to solid-bodies, except for fluid mechanics. I think a distinction should be made. Cole2R (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • There's already a section named "Thermodynamics and thermo-science" for thermo/heat/fluids area. That would be more appropriate that a separate section. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, and that's why I thought fluids should have it's own section, since thermodynamics has its own section as well. Perhaps the relevance that fluids has on thermo should be noted in the thermo section as well. But, classifying fluid dynamics around solid-body topics seems a little misplaced.Cole2R (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Isn't this basically due to the fact that these subjects have their own article, and it's an attempt to list them. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 16:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
That's what I am saying, Kinematics should a part of the list under heading mechanics. Kinematics also has a separate article. So, there's no need to have a large explation for it in this article. Priybrat (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I was just trying to figure out why things were listed like they are. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 22:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
So, whats your say on this ? Do you think the list need to be changed? In the course work section it's written that "Mechanism design (including kinematics and dynamics)" Priybrat (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Queries - EE class?

When studying Mechanical Engineering in University, are candidates taught about Electrical circuits and how to apply circuits. Or is this not in the field of Mechanical Engineering?90.197.51.201 (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

An Electrical Circuits class seems to be a commonly required class for Mechanical Engineering undergrad degrees from what I've seen. This is stated in the ME article in the Coursework section (basic concepts from ... electrical engineering). This may not apply to every University. So check the program requirements at the school to be sure. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Well do you mean that there is only one lecture on Electrical circuits or that there is a whole series of lectures( a module)?90.197.51.201 (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It generally depends. The required courses at USC involve taking Physics on E&M, with basic circuit analysis included in the class. Additionally, two mechatronics labs are required to graduate which are very involving with actually setting up the circuits physically and understanding how to manipulate the circuits, but very little circuit analysis is done.Cole2R (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

FIELDS IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Can you add descriptions of In-field sub disciplines under mechanical engineering topic i.e., the duties done by mechanical engineers inside the job field?

these include: production, design, project engineering, quality assurance and quality control — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.232.131.18 (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

That could probably be done to some degree, but too much detail would be like a how to manual and not allowed on Wikipedia. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Types of mechanical design Tusharyamgar (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mechanical_engineering/Archive_1&oldid=1144204673"