Talk:Electrical engineering

message: Hey if anyone wants to update this section the IEE has merged now to form the IET, has more members etc 220.233.25.44 12:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Practicing engineers

message: I have toned down the assertion that EEs are "responsible for..." certain technologies, including the GPS. Despite what the BLS reference says, I think it's something of a reach to claim that EE's are responsible for the GPS. Certainly there are EE aspects of GPS (the RF transmission and signal propagation, user segment receiver design, satellite onboard computers, etc.) But there are equally critical aspects which are not EE (e.g. the design and replenishment of the constellation, the orbit determination system, the onboard clocks, etc.) Not surprisingly, of the two people generally credited with doing the most to bring the GPS into being, one (Ivan Getting) is an EE (although educated as a physicist), and the other (Bradford Parkinson) is an aerospace engineer. 
If someone wants to rewrite the section to state that "According to the BLS, EEs are responsible for...", I won't object. But to flatly assert that EEs are responsible for the GPS is incorrect. --Allan McInnes (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the wording change. I just dislike tags in the main article and I think Wikipedia is developing a culture of tagging things but not a culture of fixing things. That said I think my initial reaction to the situation was probably an overreaction. Peace man. Cedars 06:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Responsible for..." 

message: The article is too much fixed on political backgrounds.
That means: near only the american pioneers are illustrated and listed.
Other important pioneer work and important persons like Alessandro Volta or André Marie Ampère are NOT listed.
They should be listed under the main article Electrical engineering, at least in one sentence.
Today's stand of technics are based on them.
Nothing against america or something like that. Just to remind on the other serious and important persons.
Just want to know, how is your opinion about that?
greetz SB
17.08.2007 07:26h GMT+1:00
:Certainly, I think there's potential for a more worldwide view of this topic.  Add what you'd like. Be bold.  --Spacefem (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  political approach 

message: "Perhaps the most important technical skills for electrical engineers are reflected in university programs, which emphasize strong numerical skills, computer literacy and the ability to understand the technical language and concepts that relate to electrical engineering."
Suggest a reword to reflect the reality that universities _seek to_ teach the most important stuff, since whether they succeed or not is another matter. To assume they do would be significantly mistaken IME.
Tabby 23:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teaching 

message: I'd like to open a debate on a possible external link listing for this page.  I previously had added a link for a site I publish on this page (EE HomePage.com).  This was deleted by one of the moderators as SPAM.  I've also since learned of the WP:COI guidelines, and agree it's best to have the community vet such submissions here.
As a practicing EE, one of the problems I encountered in the past was easily finding in-depth reference and tutorial information, and open source tools to help me in my job.  Search engines were not up to the task; I often spent hours searching for basic information.  I wanted a framework like CiteSeer to organize materials related to a EE course of study.  Specifically, the ability to use one resource as a lead to discovering other, related, content.  That's what EE HomePage.com does.  It pulls together information on relevant open source tools and textbooks, as well as related professional organizations and societies - all geared specifically to practicing EEs, educators and students.  That information is indexed by topic, author, resource type, etc, and supplemented with additional, unique, editorial content.  So the information there is much more than a set of links, certainly not an encyclopedia article, but (I think) a lot of use to those in the field.  The IEEE-USA has agreed (see the January 2007 "IEEE-USA President's Column").  
I've read the external links guidelines, and it seems that posting my submission here is the best way to proceed.  At this point, I'll be content to sit back and see how the debate evolves.  
Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my submission of EE HomePage.com for the "External Links" listing of this page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstanley103 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links Debate 

message: In the electronics secion there is the statement "By contrast, integrated circuits packed a large number—often millions—of tiny electrical components, mainly transistors, into a small chip around the size of a coin. " Modern pentium processors contain hundreds of millions of transistors. To modernize this I would reccomend changing "often millions" to often "hundreds of millions"Kanst (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Modernization?

message: Electrical Engineering is very much an interdisciplinary field. I feel that the page would be helped by taking the some of the fields currently in the Related Fields section, and expanding upon them in the subfield section. MEMS and Biomedical Engineering, while interdisciplinary, are very important fields for electrical engineers at the moment. If someone was to read this page for a glimpse of what an EE does, it would be beneficial for them to be able to learn about MEMS and Biomedical fields. 71.232.116.152 (talk) 02:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Related Fields

message: Good evening! I'm leaving this comment to point out that Electrical and computer engineering redirects to Electrical engineering while Electrical and Computer Engineering redirects to Computer engineering, which is not logical. I believe (and I think you're going to agree) that they should redirect to the same article. However, I have not taken any action because I can't decide where they should redirect to. I hope someone else decides correctly and fixes this :) --TEO64X 10:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note Teo64x, I've redirected the Electrical and Computer Engineering redirect to electrical engineering because it is the more general article and mentions computer engineering in the body. Cedars (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection? 

message: Just wanted to say that you are probably right that this edit is unsuitable for inclusion but there does exist  some verifiability of the claim. SpinningSpark 12:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stress and Electrical Engineering 

message: The History section, even under "Modern developments," only seems to go through 1973. I'm sure there must have been some advancements since then. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I am could add something like the M.E.s' "Frontiers of research" section? Brian the Editor (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern developments 

message: The term "exponentiate" in the article is pseudo-precise, doesn't appear at dictionary.com, and needs to be changed to "increases".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Try looking in a proper dictionary.  It does not mean "increases", but rather "expounds", "explains", or "illustrates". SpinningSpark 01:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change "exponentiate" to "increases" 

message: I have reverted the recent string of edits by User:DMChatterton.  While some of this is probably good material, a lot of it is unacceptable for a featured article.  I took a look at possible copyediting, but it is going to be a lengthy job due to the number of edits made spread over many sections.  Basically, my objection is the material is introducing an anglo-centric bias, but I will explain more fully to the user on their talk page. SpinningSpark 13:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: To my knowledge, the Telegraph could be considered to be the first electrical device, and those who developed it were the first electrical engineers.
Just a thought.Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it deserves a mention in the history section, although a whole paragraph might be too much for such an overarching article.  It is certainly true that telegraphy was the driver behind several important discoveries in circuit theory and network analysis.  I think you will need a good source for "first electrical device", the electrochemical cell and all the clever things that were being done with it substantially predates the telegraph. SpinningSpark 07:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The telegraph was almost certainly the first electrical device that made any money! Walking into a telegraph office in 1860 would have been like walking into a sorcerer's lair - mysterious jars of acids, strange and elaborate apparatus, mystic rites carried out with devotion and precision, and a whole vocabulary outside the normal experience. I've put in a stab at a telegraph history section here, but it obviously needs amplification and expansion. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that can be left unreferenced.  This is a featured article and could potentially lose its featured status with unreferenced material.  I would particularly challenge that Maxwell's equations were directly inspired by problems with submarine cables, although his friend William Thomson (Lord Kelvin did a lot of work in that area.  The claim that it was the first to make money is also potentially disputable, electroplating was in use from an early date and it must soon have been making money because there were IP disputes concerning it as early as 1839.  To say nothing of the huge sums of money made from quack electrical "cures".  I also have a problem with the claim that standardisation of the volt, amp and ohm were driven by telegraphy - a reference is definitely needed for such direct claims. SpinningSpark 20:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Groovy.  Maybe somone with time on his hands can write something with references. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Nominate for review, on the way to removal. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  On hold:  Wikipedia:Featured article review/Electrical engineering/archive1.  Please review the instructions at WP:FAR (focusing on the parts about the goal of FAR not being "on the way to removal" rather article improvement).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Keeping an article on the "featured" list is so important that we can ignore huge flaws in it no matter when discovered, provided it's already made the FA list. Why should FA status be any more credible than anything else on Wikipedia? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can get fuller answers to that question at the talk page of WP:FAR (or you can save everyone time by reading the archives there and the page instructions); that discussion is not for this page.  Meanwhile, adding uncited text is not the way to improve a featured article, or any article for that matter.  Taking an article to FAR after you've participated in moving it further from WP:WIAFA isn't the best way to approach article improvement.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

text:  (ec) Nobody is saying that the article FA status should be kept no matter what the flaws.  I thought Sandy was quite clear in her reply; the first step should be to attempt improvement.  Seeking a demotion right away is unnecessarily extreme and unproductive.  I have no objection to adding something on telegraphy to the history; I agree it would be an improvement.  My issue with your addition was that it was unsourced and possibly inaccurate on a number of points.  Do you need help finding sources? SpinningSpark 19:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

text: No, I doubt I can contribute at the featured article level. Let's tag it for a couple of years and hope someone notices the conspicuous gap.  What's the point of a "featured article" with conspicuous holes in it? Take it off the list for now, after it's fixed it can be "featured" again. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice thought, but there's no such thing as "take it off the list for now" (I've believed I've suggested you read the FAR instructions?).  The FAR process has one goal of helping articles improve, and another to defeature them if they don't.  If it doesn't, there are no "gatekeepers" trying to keep articles on the list when they aren't worthy.  So, you can help in the effort to improve it, or not, but making it worse isn't the answer-- either way, the process takes at least a month in the hopes that articles will improve, so "on the way to removal" isn't the way it's done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a prediction. I have a new understanding of "featured article" status. Prizes for everyone! --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree, and a quote of the telegraphists equations to back up the fact that the first of our kind were very clever chaps. PedantEngineer (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Who am I to argue with those who thought this article represented "Some of Wikipedia's best work" ?  Sacred consensus has ruled. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the lack of apparent interest in furthering this review, I have deleted the FAR page as unused. If editors in the future wish to begin a FAR, they can restart the process and recreate the page. Thank you, Dana boomer (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right. After all, once an article reaches "feature status", it is perfect and must never be altered again. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we include a paragraph about telegraphy? 

message: I have removed most of this paragraph from the article;
:Analog signal processing only provides a mathematical description of a system to be implemented by the analog hardware engineers. Digital signal processing both provides a mathematical description of the systems to be designed and also implements it in the software of a processor. 
The idea that analog signal processing is divorced from its implementation, but digital signal processing is not, is highly dubious.  A system described in terms of differential equations can be directly implemented in analog hardware with a one-to-one correspondence between analog hardware blocks and the terms in the mathematical description.  A digital system could not have such a direct correspondence.  Further, a digital system cannot implement an IIR signal exactly, not even in theory, without making some form of approximation.  An analog system, on the other hand, has no problem with this.  I think what the author was probably trying to say is something along the lines of this: a digital signal process can be translated into software without reference to the hardware it is to be implemented on.  Hardware, and its design, is still required of course, but it can be something standard and ubiquitous regardless of the complexity of the signal process. SpinningSpark 22:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analog and digital signal processing. 

message: FYI, a proposal has been made to cover the topic of this article in a dedicated wikiproject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Electrical_Engineering -- 70.49.124.225 (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject EE proposal

message: Neither digital computers, antennas, radar, nor electrooptics was mentioned as important subfields of electrical engineering, especially in the introductory sections of this article. I have a B.E.E. and an M.S.E.E., and I have also taught at several schools in the United States. On the undergraduate level, these divided the subfields of electrical engineering, usually quite specifically, into these subfields -- given here in a random order, so do not read anything into the order:
1. Digital electronic circuits & digital computers, including computer architecture.
2. Communication systems (analog & digital) - senior level.
3. Control systems (analog & digital).
4. Basic through intermediate analog circuits - all required courses, of course.
5. Basic and analog electronic circuits - e.g. starting with diodes and transistors and progressing though analog op-amp circuits.
6. Electic power usage, conversion, and transmission - e.g. generators, motors, transformers, and big electric power systems with long-range transmission.
7. Basic through senior-level electromagnetic theory & applications, starting from the level of sophomore physics and continuing through Maxwell's Equations, with applications in transmission lines, microwaves, waveguides, and antennas. The transmission lines aren't the ones used to send electric power from here to there, but rather the ones used in radio communication systems ("cable TV"), sensor systems, and radars.
At many of these schools, there was also a "catch-all" category for courses in instrumentation, optics, and whatever else was left over.
We had some elective courses, and I personally liked subfields #2 and #7 so much that I took one elective course in communications (the only one that was offered) and two elective courses in electromagnetism (the only two that were offered), "Microwaves" and "Antennas".
The courses in communications grabbed my attention, and I was good at them, so when I went to graduate school at Georgia Tech, I had already made up my mind that I was going to take as many courses in communications as I could. Then my graduate advisor told me that I ought to take a three-course sequence in digital signal processing from big experts in that field, so I did, and I loved those. Then the rules said that all M.S. candidates there must complete graduate courses in three different subfields, so I took two in electrooptics - mostly laser theory - one undergraduate and one graduate, since I didn't know anything about that subfield. That was a good idea. Anyway, everything worked on my three subfields, and I completed my minor subject in mathematics, and I earned my M.S.E.E. right on time.
Really, someone really needs to write and edit on this article who really knows about electrical engineering, and not just someone who quotes things from articles and magazines about the subject. Also, really digging though some college catalogs, and understanding what you are reading is necessary.
D.A.W. - BEE - Auburn University
MSEE - Georgia Institute of Technology
more graduate courses from the University of Southern California98.67.175.254 (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember this is an overview article and we don't want it to get bogged down in too much detail.  I have replaced your addition of radar with RF engineering as this is a much broader category than radar and also includes your other additions of antennas and microwaves.  Arguably much of RF engineering is covered by telecommunications but there is much else besides: GPS, electronic counter measures, radio control etc.  I'm pretty convinced that there should be a subdiscipline section on it. SpinningSpark 00:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wires that go in loops cause electrical problems because the wire is not straight.  Wires which are not straight slow down electrical signals to and from the source.  It has nothing to do with the mind.  Its the fact that the wire gets an electrical signal is why electro-magnetism works so well.  As well, basic solders snap off easily if you solder copper together.  Its best to use something like a thin cable or single wire, the strength is much greater when attached to computer components because you are soldering one joint, not many thousands of joints.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.25.193 (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, proper solder is almost the perfect material for soldering electronic circuits together.  It has sufficient 'give' that it is able to expand and contract as the circuit warms up an cools down.  It has sufficient 'whetting' ability that it readily flows over the parent metal without forming an oxide coat.   Proper solder is composed of 60% tin and 40% lead.  It is the presence of the lead that gives it the necessary characteristics.  Unfortunately, the environmentalists wanted to eliminate the lead from solder, and the resultant near pure tin that we are now forced to use does not have any of the desireable characteristics for the job.  It has no give, is relatively brittle so it cracks as it is heated and cooled and its rapidly forming oxide coating prevents it from flowing well over the parent metal resulting in a greater number of 'dry joints'.  Nearly every fault that modern electronic equipment suffers from is due to the failure of one or more lead free soldered joints.  In those areas where reliability is of paramount importance such as military and aerospace electronics (and possibly medical), the use of lead free solder is strictly prohibited for these reasons alone.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subfields of electrical engineering 

message: Cleaned up this because it was unverified (and mostly wrong) material on a "rivalry between Edison and Tesla". The War of Currents was George Westinghouse and Thomas Edison, Tesla only had a small roll in it. "Nikola Tesla" did not make "long-distance electrical transmission networks possible" - that would be the guys who invented transformers, not Tesla.  The second paragraph on a Tesla/Edison legacy was all unverified opinion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite correct that the guy who invented the transformer would have made long distance electrical transmission networks possible.  The patent for the invention of the transformer was filed by and granted to Nikola Tesla.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: hmmm.. Transformer/History list allot of people in the invention of the transformer, and Tesla is not one of them, other than a mention of his Tesla Coil. And we have sources like this noting that claims Tesla invented the transformer are false. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Enthusiast's websites are seldom reliable sources of information and the clue is in both the URL and at the head of the article.  There is a sizeable movement, particularly in the USA, that wants to give Edison far more credit for inventiveness than he is really entitled to (i.e. none at all - he did not invent a single thing himself.  In fact it was the principal reason that Tesla left Edison's employ, because Edison would not allow Tesla's (or any real inventor's) name to appear on any patent, only his own).  There are numerous devices that are based on induction principles that induce a current in a 'secondary' winding from one in a 'primary'.  Regardless of that, Tesla was the first to file a patent for a two winding 'transformer' specifically to transform an AC voltage to a different voltage.  In general, the invention is usually credited to whomsoever filed the first patent.  Although previous devices pretty well did just that, they were not energised from an AC supply, but rather a DC supply that was converted to AC by the device itself.  George Westinghouse was more than happy to allow patents to be in Tesla's name, but he did have an agreement with Tesla that he had first refusal on licencing rights from any of Tesla's inventions.  The rest, as they say, is history.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Tesla/Edison

message: I stumbled across this article and could hardly believe it is still listed as an FA. It is seriously under-referenced; the second half of the article lacks even a single citation. I would have taken it straight to WP:FAR but their rules state that a notice must be posted on the article talk page first. If this hasn't been improved in a week or so I will be nominating it there. Cheers --Loeba (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I give up.  Give me a clue, what article are you talking about. SpinningSpark 21:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: SpinningShark, I'm sorry to be negative about the article but you cannot possibly deny that it is seriously lacking in citations? It may well be absolutely perfect in every other way, I don't know, but the referencing problem is serious enough to warrant a FAR. If this was taken to FAC today, in its present state, I bet my life savings that it would be archived within 2 or 3 days... --Loeba (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't deny it because I haven't read it.  Try reading my post again, or even for teh first time as you have obviously not read it properly.  WHAT ARTICLE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!!! SpinningSpark 22:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you "shouting" and being rude? I'm talking about the article that we're on the talk page for. --Loeba (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh ok, sorry, I thought you were reporting some other article.  Silly of me to misunderstand. SpinningSpark 22:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you think we were on the Wikiproject talk page? It's okay, we all make mistakes, but maybe in the future check that the other person is definitely in the wrong before resorting to a rude tone... --Loeba (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a Featured Article Review 

message: Tesla seems to have been inserted into this article with the text "rivalry between Edison and Tesla, called the War of Currents"....nope.... that was Edison and Westinghouse. I did some cleanup but many people were involved in the development of AC, so a picture of just Tesla with the caption "developed transformers and induction motors for use in AC" seems a bit WP:UNDUE. I think we are better off with no image for that aspect, since the other option is to try to jam in 4 or 5 pictures of the other people instrumental to AC development. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an article about "People who had a University education" and Tesla should not be added to an article as a knee-jerk reaction just because Edison is there. Edison, with the first incandescent light, first large-scale electrical supply network, and all out war to establish an electrical engineer standard, had a large impact on electrical engineering, for better or worse, University or no. Tesla is one of four people listed in AC development (and there were many more). There is no reason to single out one guy per the current wording of the article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Still does not address basic pertinence per WP:IMAGE. Edison figures in most of the events listed in the paragraph his image is next to. BTW, AC "worked on by Nicol Tesla" does not mean he was the inventor of those standards or even the primary person behind those standards, if we need to add another image it should probably be Mikhail Dolivo-Dobrovolsky, the person who actually did develop the 3 phase standard we use today. Despite Tesla's claim, he had very little to do with transatlantic radio or radio develepment, he did not even think radio existed. If you think there should be some kind of push-back against "American neo-conservatives" please read WP:SOAP. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image cleanup 

message: Tesla was more of an Electrical Engineer then Edison and because this is an article on electrical engineering (not the war of the currents) his photo deserves to be in the article more then Edison. Edison did not even go to a University, if anything Edison photo need to be on the article titled invention or business not electrical engineering.2602:306:CC1F:9EA0:304C:2BE8:EBB9:4484 (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an article about "People who had a University education" and Tesla should not be added to an article as a knee-jerk reaction just because Edison is there. Edison, with the first incandescent light, first large-scale electrical supply network, and all out war to establish an electrical engineer standard, had a large impact on electrical engineering, for better or worse, University or no. Tesla is one of four people listed in AC development (and there were many more). There is no reason to single out one guy per the current wording of the article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Still does not address basic pertinence per WP:IMAGE. Edison figures in most of the events listed in the paragraph his image is next to. BTW, AC "worked on by Nicol Tesla" does not mean he was the inventor of those standards or even the primary person behind those standards, if we need to add another image it should probably be Mikhail Dolivo-Dobrovolsky, the person who actually did develop the 3 phase standard we use today. Despite Tesla's claim, he had very little to do with transatlantic radio or radio develepment, he did not even think radio existed. If you think there should be some kind of push-back against "American neo-conservatives" please read WP:SOAP. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Electrical Engineering article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Electrical 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060116055044/http://www.eecs.mit.edu/grad/degrees.html to http://www.eecs.mit.edu/grad/degrees.html
*Replaced archive link x with https://web.archive.org/web/20050713014728/http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos031.htm on http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos031.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think there is a big oversight in not mentioning Nikola Tesla as the original developer of the radio technology. Marconi just copied and modified Tesla's designs, and was illegitimately awarded the patents for it. This was admitted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1943 then they restored Tesla's patents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omni (talk • contribs) 01:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but Tesla didn't believe in Hertzian waves - and the patent wasn't "restored", Marconi's 7777 UK patent was never at issue.  There's not much reason to dwell on Tesla's...unique...contributions to engineering after about 1890 or so. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

text: WTF did Tesla have to do with radio? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio technology: no mention of Tesla 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Electrical 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090306165318/http://www.jobfutures.ca/noc/2133p1.shtml to http://www.jobfutures.ca/noc/2133p1.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The telecommunications engineering, at least as we understand it in Europe, is not an electrical engineering fields. Mostly because not all telecommunications systems use electrical systems for they means, but also mechanical, pneumatic, acoustic o even chemical systems. Telecommunications engineering uses some knowledge of electrical fields but in a same way than this one uses physics, and nobody says than electrical engineering is a field of physics. --84.78.243.156 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telecommunications 

message: This is where I find myself working for a few years now and it feels like a specialisation much the same as power electronics, telecomms etc did. I cannot speak for all bio areas. What I have been working on is cardiac focused and I deal with electrical properties of biological materials as much as the electronics I am using to make changes to the biological materials.
If I were to be limited to the existing categories, then, like a great many engineers in the 2010's and 2020's, I would need lots of categories to encompass the areas I deal with in sufficient detail to make the claim on the category.
I am only proposing adding biomedical engineering and I am interested to know what others think of the proposal. Honestly, I can see arguments both ways. PedantEngineer (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is biomedical engineering a thing worth a mention amongst telecomms, power, etc etc?