Talk:Power engineering

Engineering High‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy High‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electrical engineering Top‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Comments

added stuff from defunct page on subfields of elec eng

I think power engineers use a great deal of [[control theory].--Light current 23:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct Light Current they do use quite a bit of control theory. --192.136.16.3 19:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motor Drive directs to a wrong subject

"Areas of Study"

This section needs some serious work; we can have a See Also section, but it needs to be much smaller that that list; less important things need to be referred to in passing in the text, or removed completely, as a list this big is just a mess. We also need external references for the article – Gurch 13:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just removed it. So external references are the main priority now – Gurch 13:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some correction

I made some correction for the component section for generation, transmission and distribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001beibei (talk • contribs) 13:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title of the Article

I think the title "Power engineering" is too wide. How about changing the title to "Power system network".2001beibei (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is fine the way it is. Power engineering is a specific discipline. 199.125.109.33 (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about anyone else here, but I myself am a Power Engineer in Canada. The scope of my job is the safe and efficient design, operation and maintenance of power generation and power transmission. Power being defined as mechanical, electrical, thermal, chemical, hydraulic, pneumatic power. There are four classes competance certifications 4th being entry level, 1st Class being top of the heap. Perhaps a subsection or a "see also" section titled the same? I've used Wikipedia lots, just haven't contributed much. I'm not much for writing encyclopedia quality entries, but if someone needed info, I can ramble on for a while if you can make sense and put it to print? Contact me if you wish smorgie77 at hotmail dot com - title it WIKIPEDIA INFO REQUIRED! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandman76 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"History" Section

This is my first participation in editing Wikipedia, so not too sure on protocol. I believe I have discovered a discrepancy between the History segment of this page and that of the Power station article regarding the World's first power station. The Power engineering article states, "In 1881 two electricians built the world's first power station at Godalming in England.", whilst the Power station article claims, "The world's first power station was built by Sigmund Schuckert in the Bavaria town of Ettal and went into operation in 1878." Furthermore, the latter also goes on to say, "The first public power station was the Edison Electric Light Station, built in London at 57, Holborn Viaduct, which started operation in January 1882."

I've only just discovered this and have not looked into which page is correct and I am unsure on the proper procedure for editing articles, though i would be happy to do so. Leroy is brown (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it doesn't matter really except to nationalists and the local chamber of commerce. Secondly, what do we mean by "power station"? Do we mean a private plant serving just one customer, or a public power plant that anyone can buy power from? Do we mean a demonstration that from the start was known to be only temporary, or do we mean a plant that was intended to be commercial but failied to find customers, or do we mean a plant that was in regular commercial service for years? The first technolgical <foo> is about as hard to define as the first chicken. At one end of the time line we have the resident of innumerable KFC buckets, at the other end we have some strange toothy tree-dwelling scaly thing that lays eggs but tastes vile when prepared with the Colonel's mixture of herbs and spices...when was it the fist chicken? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is lacking in specifics; too generalized

I suspect that most people who click on this article title (people like me), are looking for information about being a Power Engineer (or a related discipline). Instead I got an article describing what a power plant is, and how electricity is moved around. Nothing about the discipline, just a bunch of {{citation needed}} factoids about power generation and distribution. What do power engineers do? No idea, because that isn't what the article is about right now.

This article is too broad. It's like having an article titled "horned toad", and making the whole article variations on "this is what an animal is". No specific information, just super broad generalizations. This article needs to be heavily reworked. Right now it's almost unusable for the end reader.

A few useless - though not necessarily incorrect - factoids from the article:

"There are currently 56,000 power engineers currently employed in the province of Ontario."
"The ability to easily transform the voltage of AC power is important for two reasons: Firstly, power can be transmitted over long distances with less loss at higher voltages."
"Transformers play an important role in power transmission because they allow power to be converted to and from higher voltages."
"Generation of electrical power is a process whereby energy is transformed into an electrical form." <------------------------ *headdesk*
"Transmission circuits may be built either underground or overhead."

Ok, that's enough. Almost every sentence in the article is pointless and could be removed. Those are just a few randomly chosen examples. As I said: needs a rework, badly. (Also, the introduction is ridiculously long!) — Gopher65_talk 02:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT--Wtshymanski (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really dislike that passive aggressive template. Paraphrased: "ah problems with an article I have on my watchlist! Meh. Can't be bothered. You do it." It annoys me every time I see it used.

But ok, I'll try. The crappy thing is though, if I knew enough about this subject to do so, I would have done it rather than posting to the talk page. The whole reason I came to this article was because I wanted to learn about the subject. If I were to fix this article, my first step would be to blank the page, because there is nothing worth saving. As someone who doesn't know much about power engineering, this article taught me nothing. Not good. My second step would be to leave a 3 sentence stub article. That would be everything I know about the subject that I can easily source (sourcing is much easier when you have considerable knowledge about a subject, and can sift good sources from the bad). On the plus side the article would then actually be about power engineering, and not about how "electrical power is a process whereby energy is transformed into an electrical form". (heh, that one still cracks me up:))

If you think that's an acceptable fix, I'll do it. I'm bold, and I'll argue my point if disputed. However, I'd *much* rather that people with significant knowledge of the subject be the ones to fix it properly. I can't, they can. — Gopher65_talk 01:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. By the time you finish fixing the article, you will be sufficiently an expert for the purposes of Wikipedia. Most Wikipedia articles are written by bots, so an actual human editor is already an improvement. The people who really know the subject matter get paid to write about it and aren't going to be contributing here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(looks like the only reason this article is on my watchlist is for vandalism reverts.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Power engineering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]