To all engineers out there: What is it with everyone claiming your title?

[Roger Feeley]

I spent 30 years as a computer programmer. I viewed myself as a blue collar worker in a white collar world. But various companies insisted on calling me a software engineer and it bugged me. To me, engineers are degreed and licensed like doctors and lawyers. Civil engineers put their stamp on their work and go to jail if it's wrong. I held none of those qualifications.

My undergraduate degree was in education with an emphasis in Industrial Arts. I taught for 8 years. About 3 years in, I realized it was a bad fit and started taking community college programming classes. I left teaching and started writing software which was a much better fit for me (and the students).

I think my companies liked to call me an engineer because the title carries some prestige. My gut told me that they were sort of appropriating a title and I never liked it.

I find myself back in the workforce as "Director of Engineering". I actually am a little more comfortable with that. I'm not claiming to be an engineer, just overseeing a bunch of engineers. Sort of like a civilian commander in chief doesn't have to be a soldier.

So, to all you real engineers out there, am I being a bit over-sensitive? I really do respect the education you've attained and the work you do. It seems disrespectful for me to claim your hard-earned title.

[Jim Becker]

I always had an issue with this during those periods of time when my long-time employer in the telecom world insisted that I and my peers use the "Systems Engineer" title but strangely enough, I was "more ok" with Sales Engineer which it ultimately ended up officially being for the last few years prior to retirement. Yes, there was some "engineering" to a great extent in designing "systems" (using various product solutions), but the real engineering was done by real engineers. My degree was in business...logistics specifically, but broad across all business areas. I just happened to have an affinity and aptitude for IT and telecom stuff. My job was to assemble their work into something that fit my clients' needs and sell it to them. (the "sales people" had to get the appointments...) The terms engineer and engineering have evolved in our tech-heavy world from what they once were. Toward your specific question, hopefully there is always some kind of modifier involved, such as "sales", "systems", "solution", etc., just as historically things like "electrical", "mechanical", "structural", etc., have been used for folks who truly did the groundwork to be a "real engineer" to insure there is some clarity.

[Roger Feeley]

I always had an issue with this during those periods of time when my long-time employer in the telecom world insisted that I and my peers use the "Systems Engineer" title but strangely enough, I was "more ok" with Sales Engineer which it ultimately ended up officially being for the last few years prior to retirement. Yes, there was some "engineering" to a great extent in designing "systems" (using various product solutions), but the real engineering was done by real engineers. My degree was in business...logistics specifically, but broad across all business areas. I just happened to have an affinity and aptitude for IT and telecom stuff. My job was to assemble their work into something that fit my clients' needs and sell it to them. (the "sales people" had to get the appointments...) The terms engineer and engineering have evolved in our tech-heavy world from what they once were. Toward your specific question, hopefully there is always some kind of modifier involved, such as "sales", "systems", "solution", etc., just as historically things like "electrical", "mechanical", "structural", etc., have been used for folks who truly did the groundwork to be a "real engineer" to insure there is some clarity.

For me, it was always "Software Engineer". Since there is no formal Software Engineering degree or licensing, I suppose I might have fallen into a category with Sales Engineers.

[John K Jordan]

For me, it was always "Software Engineer". Since there is no formal Software Engineering degree or licensing, I suppose I might have fallen into a category with Sales Engineers.

I designed and created software for special projects until my wrists gave out then switched to scientific 3D modeling and animation. I think they called me a Computing Specialist for a while then later it was the generic Senior Staff. Management even asked once what title I would like. I didn't care since I never went job hunting and never needed a dazzling résumé to trick someone into hiring me.

JKJ

[Lee Schierer]

Not all engineers are licensed. Most have an engineering degree. A few get licensed.

Everyone wants to be an engineer. I was one for much of my working career but I never got to blow the whistle.

My Grandfather was an Erie RR engineer, he did get to blow the whistle.

I used to list my wife's occupation when we went to trade shows as Domestic Engineer.

[Wade Lippman]

10 years ago I sued for consequential damages from an improper trailer hitch install. The judge was in a quandary; my complaint made much more sense than the defendant's explanation, but I had no expert. The defendant said something particularly foolish; I replied that I was an engineer and I knew that was an outright lie. The judge perked up; if I was an engineer, then I was an expert. He immediately ruled for me.

I got a BSE 30 years earlier and figured that made me an Engineer, despite never working as one. Did it?
But I did have a job doing computer programming, so maybe I did work as an engineer. Very confusing.

[Roger Feeley]

I designed and created software for special projects until my wrists gave out then switched to scientific 3D modeling and animation. I think they called me a Computing Specialist for a while then later it was the generic Senior Staff. Management even asked once what title I would like. I didn't care since I never went job hunting and never needed a dazzling résumé to trick someone into hiring me.

JKJ

Ha! I worked for one start-up that let us choose titles. One guy chose "Galactic Overlord" and actually got business cards with that.

That was the same company that found out they had to administer drug tests. But no one ever said they had to pay attention to the results. So the joke was that you couldn't be so stoned that you couldn't hit the cup.

Then they found out that they had to have a drug policy. So, "Anyone found with drugs at work has to share."

[Edwin Santos]

To me, engineers are degreed and licensed like doctors and lawyers.

Over-sensitive? Maybe not, but perhaps a little pendantic.

Insert the word "professional" into your definition above, and I think it will resolve everything.

The term engineer can rightly be used for all sorts of applications ranging from machine and building maintenance to operation of a locomotive train to the person who oversees the engine of an aircraft or vessel, to other more artful applications.
However, a Professional Engineer is generally more regulated and specific a title. Next time you meet an engineer who is qualified to seal drawings, ask for his/her business card, and I will bet good money the title will read Professional Engineer, not just Engineer. I hope this helps,

[Keith Mombourquette]

I am a registered professional engineer in the province of Ontario. As with most things, context is everything. If someone is using the title "engineer" because it makes them feel good about themselves, that's one thing. If, however, they are representing themselves as having qualifications which they do not have, especially for financial return, then that is a different matter. The Association of Professional Engineers for Ontario frequently prosecutes people for such misrepresentation as do many other jurisdictions. Would you want a doctor who is not qualified to do your open heart surgery?

[Bill Dufour]

How about sanitation engineer. I used to call them garbage men. I guess that was too sexist.
Bill D.

[Bruce Wrenn]

I thought that engineers ran the train, till I found out that the conductor actually runs the train. The engineer only drives, when and where the conductor tells him to. Almost like a wife.

[Mel Fulks]

That's just a small part of the loss of the meaning of "professional". People are now acquainted with BS advertising .
A guy who owns a business named " The Toilet Doctor" is no different from a U.S. lawyer with "Esquire" on his card.

[Mike Henderson]

I'm an EE (electrical engineer). It never bothered me that some people call themselves "engineers" without much backing for it.

To me, an engineer is someone who attended an accredited college or university and was awarded a degree with the word "Engineering" in the degree. For example, my degree says that I was awarded the degree of Bachelor of Science, Electrical Engineering (if I remember my degree correctly).

Either that, or they drive a train:)

Mike

[Malcolm McLeod]

I don't get upset if someone usurps the title, but just offer somewhat the same as others have said: Caveat emptor. Its up to the 'customer' to determine if the person is properly qualified (and titled).

We used to sit on the steps of the Mechanical Engineering building between classes and lament who else had changed their major to Business school, "Calculus III has created more Business majors than anything."

I'm proud to have earned the degree, proud of the title, and my work product. I hope others, regardless of education or station, find the same pride.

[Dan Friedrichs]

As a licensed (and degreed) engineer, let me tell you: the day I took the PE exam, I proudly walked out of the exam hall, knowing that I had certainly passed, and for the first time in my life, had serious concerns about the bridges I'd be driving over on my way home!

[Mark Hennebury]

Filippo Brunelleschi

[Mark Hennebury]

Engineers have been around since the beginning of time, degrees..... not so long.

[Bill Dufour]

I hear that structural engineers refer to architects as engineers who can not do math.
Bill D

[Curt Harms]

Over-sensitive? Maybe not, but perhaps a little pendantic.

Insert the word "professional" into your definition above, and I think it will resolve everything.

The term engineer can rightly be used for all sorts of applications ranging from machine and building maintenance to operation of a locomotive train to the person who oversees the engine of an aircraft or vessel, to other more artful applications.
However, a Professional Engineer is generally more regulated and specific a title. Next time you meet an engineer who is qualified to seal drawings, ask for his/her business card, and I will bet good money the title will read Professional Engineer, not just Engineer. I hope this helps,

Terminology might be influenced by culture as well. What are called A & P (airframe & powerplant) mechanics in the U.S. are referred to as engineers in the British Islands of the Caribbean, not sure about Canada. There is specialized training and certification involved so perhaps engineer is more accurate in that case.

[Rod Sheridan]

I'm an electrical technologist.

My job function is Maintenance Engineering. In the company I work for, non engineers who perform an engineering function are called Engineering Associates because we aren't engineers and cannot call ourselves such.

That's why my business card say Senior Power Systems Engineering Associate. ( I always joke that it means I hang around in bars with Engineers).

I have friends and family members who are Engineers, they all feel that unless you're a P.Eng, you're not really an Engineer, you simply have a BSc in Engineering.

So yes, people who aren't engineers shouldn't call themselves such. Now there are occupations such as Operating Engineers who are not Engineering people, they're licensed trades people however they have the legal right to use Operating Engineer in their title, a hold over from the early days of steam and "Engineer".............Regards, Rod.

[Stan Calow]

In my state, and I assume others, a business or individual who advertises their services as engineering without a license is subject to fines and cease and desist orders from the state licensing board.

[Todd Mason-Darnell]

I am not an engineer, but I have been in various industries where the "Engineer" title has been used for non-degree'd individuals--e.g. Field Application Engineer. Generally, the tittle is intended to designate a highly technical role where the individual understands the "why" something works and not just the "how" to use it or "how" to fix it when it breaks.

I should point out that I am a Ph.D., but do not require people to address me as "Dr.".

[roger wiegand]

I've never called myself an engineer, but have done a ton of genetic engineering. Though I have a PhD I'd never consider calling myself a doctor.

I aspire to learn to drive a (steam) road locomotive, once I have qualified at that I would consider calling myself an engineer.

Someone calling themselves a licensed professional engineer without the appropriate qualifications would bother me, any other use not so much.

402924

[John K Jordan]

I hear that structural engineers refer to architects as engineers who can not do math.
Bill D

My son and some other architects I know passed the PE exams. Not easy. Math was required.

JKJ

[Al Launier]

Having received a BSME (Magna Cum Laude) degree many, many years ago I've always considered the person representing themselves as engineers, whether in development/application of engineering principles, as in design, or in actual application of established engineering principles to work related activities. By this I mean that regardless of the engineering degree achieved I've wondered more about the person having the degree, i.e. how well does he present himself in terms of acquired knowledge. Is he/she convincing, does he/she display a broad acumen of his field, do I have to wonder if he/she graduated at the bottom of his/her class, do I feel comfortable with the quality of service he/she is providing me or others, does the person stand behind his/her work, etc.?

In short, I feel the person behind the title, i.e. with demonstration of knowledge & application, is as important as the title itself, and I have to admit bias in that there are distinctions amongst colleges & universities in terms of quality of education. Yet, I fully appreciate that a person at the top of his/her class in a less than ivy league school can be far more capable than one graduating from an ivy league school.

A title is great as it portrays discipline and commitment to acquire the engineering degree, yet I place equal importance on the individual.

As an aside, I wish the politicians were engineers rather than lawyers - at least we could get things done right the first time and get those fixed that weren't!

[andrew whicker]

I'm a degreed engineer. I don't care if others get the title. I'm not 'certified' or 'licensed'. The degree engineers get the degree engineer jobs mainly thru the hiring process. Civils are a different story. The only problem I see with calling non-degreed people engineers is selfish: it makes job searching harder. : )

The oddest 'engineer' title I see is the building maintenance jobs at hotels often get called engineer. That's odd to me, but I guess it comes from somewhere.

[John K Jordan]

The oddest 'engineer' title I see is the building maintenance jobs at hotels often get called engineer. That's odd to me, but I guess it comes from somewhere.

Probably since they traditionally maintained things like pumps, heating plant, electrical, elevator.

The dictionary defines an engineer
as a person who designs, builds, or maintains engines, machines, or public works.
or a person who uses science, math and creativity to solve technical problems.

Synonyms: designer, planner, builder, architect, producer, fabricator, developer, creator; inventor, originator, deviser, contriver, mastermind
Origin: Middle English (denoting a designer and constructor of fortifications and weapons; formerly also as ingineer ): in early use from Old French engigneor, from medieval Latin ingeniator, from ingeniare ‘contrive, devise’, from Latin ingenium (see engine)

Not a word about a degree in the dictionary I checked.

I grew thinking an engineer drove a train. I wanted to do that when I grew up. Maybe I will if I ever grow up.

JKJ

[Dave Cav]

Probably since they traditionally maintained things like pumps, heating plant, electrical, elevator.

I grew thinking an engineer drove a train. I wanted to do that when I grew up. Maybe I will if I ever grow up.

JKJ

When I was in the Navy (the first time) I was a Machinist's Mate, but I never operated a lathe or mill. MMs operated, maintained and repaired the ship's steam propulsion and auxiliary equipment. When I got out I went through the grades and eventually got a First Grade Stationary Engineer's license, which qualified me to operate any size/pressure (stationary) steam power plant.

[Steve Demuth]

It's pretty clear that nobody has a lock on the word engineer. In most states, if you're a Civil Engineer or Mechanical Engineer, and provide services to the public in that capacity you have have to be licensed or certified, and thus probably need a specific degree. Ditto for Electrical Engineers. But I've worked for years with people who are hired and their careers judged and advanced as Software Engineers, often working alongside Biomedical Engineers. There are degree programs in Software Engineering in many schools, but most people working in that capacity don't come from one of those schools. IEEE offers certification in Software Engineering, but I've never seen it required as part of a job qualification, and interestingly, the base requirement for certification is a degree in Computer Science, not Engineering. To my knowledge, there is no state licensure for Software Engineers. Biomedical Engineers are typically from true engineering degree programs, often in EE. But again, no state licensure requirements that I know of.

There are hundreds of other job title uses of the word engineer, many already mentioned here. Most have as much to do with the actual discipline of engineering as being Lieutenant Governor has to being a Lieutenant Colonel.

For what it's worth, though, I think Software Engineering is a genuine engineering discipline that draws from the general discipline of engineering and which is distinct from Computer Science, or computer programming as a skill. By way of analogy, a Computer Scientist is to Physicist as Software Engineer is to Mechanical Engineer as a Coder or Computer Programmer is to a highly skilled machinist. Anyone who has ever managed a team building a large complex system knows why all that matters.

[Marty Gulseth]

Hoo boy... lotsa discussion,here and elsewhere. I hold a BS (EE) and a M Eng. Am I an engineer? I can design stuff, I have interpreted and applied national and industry standards to internal working practices documents, and a few other things. I am NOT a “Registered Professional Engineer” - never took the test. So, ya’ll tell me please, what do you think? Am I an engineer? I’m recently retired, so it doesn’t matter to me much either way, this is mostly rhetorical and for fun!

[Kev Williams]

Origin of 'Engineer' 1350–1400; engine (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/engine) + -eer (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/-eer); replacing Middle English engin(e)our < Anglo-French engineor Old French engigneor < Medieval Latin ingeniātor, equivalent to ingeniā(re ) to design, devise (verbal derivative of ingenium; see engine (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/engine)) + Latin -tor -tor (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/-tor)

Out of all that gobbledygook, I find the words: "to design, devise". Pretty simple, and pretty much exactly what I've always thought engineers do. And since 'design, devise' can be applied to practically anything, then pretty much anyone who thinks they're an engineer, is an engineer.

Because of that, the word 'engineer' doesn't do much for me. Too generic. Now, the term used PRECEDING the word 'engineer' that's the important one... :)

[Rick Potter]

On fire depts, the guy driving the truck normally is called the Engineer. Another holdover from the days of steamboats, steam trains and steam fire pumps. Has to be well versed with the driving, operating the pumps, and aerial ladders on fire equipment. Been that way since horses.

[Marshall Harrison]

I have a B.S. in Computer Science and spent 30 years developing software applications and Windows services. Sometimes I was Senior Programmer, sometimes I was Software Engineer. I was also an IVR Engineer as well as Senior Microsoft Systems Engineer. I was even called a Software Architect. It all just a matter of words. I was more interested in the amount of pay and the challenges I encountered. My most cherished title was Microsoft MVP.

I can understand a company elevating your title if they are selling your serves or products. But most of my work was internal to the companies I worked for so there was no reason for the titles. In some cases others with my skill levels and similar work had more normal titles.

Now my favorite titles are Dad, Retired, Woodworker and Pit Master.

[Ole Anderson]

Retired degreed civil engineer here (Michigan State 1969). Passing an 8 hour technical test fresh out of school, and another 8 hour practical applications test five years later administered by the state allowed me to add professional to my title. As our company was doing work out of state and needed a stamp, I was able to become registered in at least 8 states by reciprocity (no test needed, just references and proof of licensing in another state). The term engineer is somewhat generic, the term professional engineer is not.

[glenn bradley]

I hear that structural engineers refer to architects as engineers who can not do math.
Bill D

Actually they are often referred to as "cartoonists" when some of their designs meet the real world..

[Edwin Santos]

Actually they are often referred to as "cartoonists" when some of their designs meet the real world..

That's exactly what they said to Frank Lloyd Wright in 1937 when he designed the lily pad columns for the SC Johnson and Son's Wax building in Racine. The Building Department, under the advice of it's engineers required a test column to be built to demonstrate the capacity to carry 12 tons of load, certain that it would not. FLW loaded it with 60 tons (5x requirement) before it cracked.

It's a great story https://www.pbs.org/flw/buildings/scjohnson/scjohnson_interior.html

Someone in this thread mentioned Fillipo Brunelleschi who was an even more extreme example of an architect way beyond the engineering knowledge of the time, even centuries afterwards. There isn't even a word to properly describe Brunelleschi's genius.

[Pat Barry]

I have a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from a major university, therefore I am an Engineer. Some Engineers get Professional certification - that does not make them better, just passed a test for legal purposes. 90+% of Engineers don't have Professional certification or the need for it. That doesn't make them any less qualified to be called an Engineer. There are lots of engineers out there doing maintenance, running trains, what have you. We all know they are not Engineers. Thats it.

[Thomas Clark Johnson]

My definition of an engineer is someone who can use scientific and engineering principles to solve a problem that hasn't been solved before.

Someone who creates something using accepted standards is a designer. So, for example, a designer can design a stud wall, using commonly accepted materials, and it'll work fine. An engineer can do the math to determine exactly how to design that wall to support a specific amount of weight.

I spent a chunk of my career doing what I would call "software development," aka "programming," which is basically just piecing together existing chunks of code to do something new. Only a couple of times did I do "software engineering," which involved using turning math into software, or developing more abstract things like software architectures. I spent another chunk doing "systems development," which was mostly building training devices (like flight simulators) out of commercial products for the armed forces. Once or twice I did "systems engineering," where I had to pull out some textbooks and apply broader scientific and mathematical principles to meet a particular system requirement. (And BTW, I picked up an MS in Systems Engineering along the way).

The company I work for now has a stable full of what they call Software Engineers, very few of whom could engineer their way out of a paper bag. They're great programmers though.

[andrew whicker]

Just to clear things up because people tend to think that no P.E. (US based) tested engineers aren't real engineers... Usually only Civil (sometimes Mech) really requires this. This comes from signing off on large civil projects (roads, bridges, oil platforms, etc). This does NOT mean that engineers with the P.E. are not 'real' engineers. This is my understanding of P.E.

My step brother is P.E. because his company demanded it of him (refinery building business). I am not a P.E. because I work on turbomachinery equipment for refineries. I don't need one. I took the test in college, but never took the follow up test. I didn't have to. Nor do I want to open myself up for lawsuits for no reason. There are rules when it comes to contracting yourself out that may require the P.E. title. On that, I'm not sure. I think it varies state to state.

However, I deal with metallurgy, welding, systems, sometimes controls, aerodynamics, mechanical integrity, testing, etc on a regular basis. I fully consider myself an engineer. I also deal with Chem E's as customers on a regular basis. I suspect most of them are not P.E.'s either. Many many engineers are not P.E.'s and are definitely engineers.

[John Stankus]

In some states, it is a legal requirement to be a PE (or at least an EIT) to use the title engineer. Texas is pretty fierce about defending this
From the Texas Board of Professional Engineers

"Graduates of all public universities recognized by the American Association of Colleges and Universities who have a degree from an ABET engineering program have the right to disclose any college degrees received and use the title "Graduate Engineer" on stationery, business cards, and personal communications of any character. A graduate engineer who is employed by a registered firm and who is supervised by a licensed professional engineer may use the term "engineer". Refer to the Texas Engineering Practice Act, Section 1001.406."

[Kev Williams]

...But most of my work was internal to the companies I worked for so there was no reason for the titles.


Sure there is: Resume :D

[Ole Anderson]

I certainly did not mean to imply that you must be licensed to be a "real" engineer. Nearly all civil engineers in private or public practice I know were licensed. My BIL graduated a few years before me, also from Michigan State with a degree in civil engineering. He worked for American Bridge as a shop and field engineer as well as eventually in charge of nearly 600 employees in their TX fabrication facility. Projects he worked on dwarfed any thing I had ever done. John Hancock center, and a major wind tunnel were two I remember. My dad (a PE and RLS) always encouraged him to get licensed, he never did as it wasn't needed for what he did.

[Osvaldo Cristo]

Interesting! I am at the opposite spectrum: although I am a "real Electrical Engineer" I never had in my 35 years professional life that word included in my job functions!

[Bill Dufour]

That's exactly what they said to Frank Lloyd Wright in 1937 when he designed the lily pad columns for the SC Johnson and Son's Wax building in Racine. The Building Department, under the advice of it's engineers required a test column to be built to demonstrate the capacity to carry 12 tons of load, certain that it would not. FLW loaded it with 60 tons (5x requirement) before it cracked.

It's a great story https://www.pbs.org/flw/buildings/scjohnson/scjohnson_interior.html

Someone in this thread mentioned Fillipo Brunelleschi who was an even more extreme example of an architect way beyond the engineering knowledge of the time, even centuries afterwards. There isn't even a word to properly describe Brunelleschi's genius.

FAIK all the building he designed had roof problems either sag or leaks. I read that at falling water the contractor doubled the steel in one of the main beams. this has allowed it to last with minimal cracking until modern engineers rebuilt the beam in the last decade.
Bill D

[Art Mann]

I was a practicing electrical engineer in a highly technical area for nearly all of my career. I have been in a position to hire several engineers and then work with them during that time. I can tell you that there are lots of degreed engineers from highly respected schools who don't know how to do anything technical and are too conceited to learn from people who do. More than one of them passed the PE test. I have also worked with a lot of people who focused their efforts on a particular discipline and became experts at it without having a degree of any kind. I have learned that the title doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Having said that, I acknowledge that there are certain technical fields that would be nearly impossible to become competent in without considerable formal training. I do not mean to minimize the value of formal education.

[Dave Anderson NH]

While trained and educated as a civil engineer (water supply and sewerage), I functioned in my last few jobs as an ME and sometimes sales guy (the darkside). To me the most important part of an engineering education was learning a methodical way of thinking and analyzing problems. That coupled with a willingness and thirst to always keep learning is a major characteristic of a good engineer in any discipline. There has never ben a day in my career where I didn't learn something new. It's what keeps me working part time at 70. One of the best "engineers" I have ever worked with never got beyond trade high school. He is one of the most inquisitive, creative, and continuous self-educated people I have ever met. To me he I truly a engineer.

[Greg Cuetara]

The basis is protection of the public. I think a few others have touched on it but as an Engineer or Professional Engineer we hold a duty to the public and if people are claiming to be Engineers then the public could be duped into thinking they are getting a certain level of service when they are not. I believe there was a case where a gentleman claimed to be an engineer in a court case and used that to prove his case but he had no formal education, experience or testing to prove that. There have been too many cases through the years of people practicing engineering where structures have fallen down and killed people. Maybe I am sensitive because I am a Structural Engineer and my job is to save lives. There are many areas of engineering that done wrong will only cost more money in the end or create a hastle for the client / owner. If a Mechanical Engineer sizes an HVAC unit too small then the building occupants will not be comfortable and may be too cold or too hot. if an Electrical Engineer sizes wire too small there could be more serious consequences and it could start a fire.
Most states hold the term Engineer or Professional Engineer to show that you have education, experience and testing. I worked for one company that called degreed engineers, technologist so that they wouldn't get into trouble with states. It is about holding a higher standard and holding the public welfare paramount. There has to be a certain degree of trust that the public has if they hire an Engineer to do a job. If that trust is eroded then the term Engineer means nothing.

[Julie Moriarty]

One day the project manager showed up on the job with some changes that had to happen on the job. He was a licensed electrical engineer. I looked at the blueprint and told him, "That's not going to work." He replied, "Then you'll have to engineer something that will work." Later, with tongue in cheek, I told one of my guys what happened - an engineer told me to do the engineering. He went out to his car, came back, and handed me an engineer's hat and said, "Now you are an engineer. Get to work!" (He was an avid model train hobbyist.)

[Mark Hennebury]

Many creatures on this planet do what could be considered engineering, beavers, weaver birds, termites and most all humans, do at some level what could legitimately be called engineering.
So it would follow that they are engineers by virtue of what they do. Not trained, educated, certified or sophisticated maybe, but at some level they are engineers.

Anyone falsely claiming to have training, education, skills or certification that they don't have, is a cheat and a liar. that's quite simple.
Nobody should be able to apply for or get hired for any job for which they are not qualified. That is also quite simple.

The concept of having training and certification to set acceptable standards for professionals is critical to public safety, no argument there.

Not everybody without professional education and training is an idiot.
Not having certification, does not tell you what the person does have.
They may have studied and they may have not.
They may be brilliant engineers and they may be idiots.
Not everyone conforms to the norms of living and learning, some don't fit the normal mode and operate on the fringe, for whatever reason.

I mentioned Filippo Brunelleschi considered a genius engineer, was trained as a goldsmith, and who could possible have trained him to do what had never been done anyway.
Sometimes formal education limits the imagining of what might be, by instilling an acceptance of the limits of what is known.
Having the fringe dwellers working away alone in their basements, trying things that no one else would ever consider, occasionally produces great discoveries.

As to the OP question; who has the right to the title?

For me the whole point is that, some people by nature study, analyze, experiment, design, innovate and build, and i guess my question is; what would you call that?

[Malcolm McLeod]

...

For me the whole point is that, some people by nature study, analyze, experiment, design, innovate and build, and i guess my question is; what would you call that?

Once upon a time I heard this, "Given unlimited time and resources, anyone could build a rocket to go to the moon. An engineer will design a rocket that is just strong enough for the trip." (Insert your preferred challenge. :D)

If the untrained, even tho' a genius, builds a bridge and it falls down, just build a stronger bridge! More beams; bigger bolts; deeper footings. Repeat as necessary.

If you plan to collect tolls on this bridge, consider the marketing effort to get people to use it when you're on the twelveteenth iteration with eleventyseven casualties.

Or, hire a competent engineer?;)

[Mark Hennebury]

Once upon a time I heard this, "Given unlimited time and resources, anyone could build a rocket to go to the moon. An engineer will design a rocket that is just strong enough for the trip." (Insert your preferred challenge. :D)

If the untrained, even tho' a genius, builds a bridge and it falls down, just build a stronger bridge! More beams; bigger bolts; deeper footings. Repeat as necessary.

If you plan to collect tolls on this bridge, consider the marketing effort to get people to use it when you're on the twelveteenth iteration with eleventyseven casualties.

Or, hire a competent engineer?;)



Cherry picking parts of a statement, probably means you really don't have much of an argument.

If you want to discuss what i said, i am more than willing to debate it.

[Pat Barry]

Many creatures on this planet do what could be considered engineering, beavers, weaver birds, termites and most all humans, do at some level what could legitimately be called engineering.
So it would follow that they are engineers by virtue of what they do. Not trained, educated, certified or sophisticated maybe, but at some level they are engineers.

Anyone falsely claiming to have training, education, skills or certification that they don't have, is a cheat and a liar. that's quite simple.
Nobody should be able to apply for or get hired for any job for which they are not qualified. That is also quite simple.

The concept of having training and certification to set acceptable standards for professionals is critical to public safety, no argument there.

Not everybody without professional education and training is an idiot.
Not having certification, does not tell you what the person does have.
They may have studied and they may have not.
They may be brilliant engineers and they may be idiots.
Not everyone conforms to the norms of living and learning, some don't fit the normal mode and operate on the fringe, for whatever reason.

I mentioned Filippo Brunelleschi considered a genius engineer, was trained as a goldsmith, and who could possible have trained him to do what had never been done anyway.
Sometimes formal education limits the imagining of what might be, by instilling an acceptance of the limits of what is known.
Having the fringe dwellers working away alone in their basements, trying things that no one else would ever consider, occasionally produces great discoveries.

As to the OP question; who has the right to the title?

For me the whole point is that, some people by nature study, analyze, experiment, design, innovate and build, and i guess my question is; what would you call that?
I would call them experimenters or technicians, or builders or other things, just NOT engineer.

Oh, and beavers are not engineers!

[Mark Hennebury]

I would call them experimenters or technicians, or builders or other things, just NOT engineer.

Oh, and beavers are not engineers!



Woodworking is simply the act of working with wood.
A Woodworker is anyone that works with wood, from one end of the scale to the other.
The terms have no reference to the level of skill, knowledge, training, sophistication or expertise.


So what then is engineering?
is it only anything that an engineer does?
Or is an engineer anyone that does engineering?


Beavers? Seriously.......403710

[Malcolm McLeod]

Cherry picking parts of a statement, probably means you really don't have much of an argument.

If you want to discuss what i said, i am more than willing to debate it.

Not an argument; just something I thought others might find amusing or at very most thought provoking.

But if we must...
Would you be the test pilot for first flight of an airplane built by an 'experimenter'? How about 1st ride on a completely new design of an elevator? Maybe tour scenic Michigan - with you being the 1st crossing the Mackinac bridge - built by a trained goldsmith?

[Mark Hennebury]

Not an argument; just something I thought others might find amusing or at very most thought provoking.

But if we must...
Would you be the test pilot for first flight of an airplane built by an 'experimenter'? How about 1st ride on a completely new design of an elevator? Maybe tour scenic Michigan - with you being the 1st crossing the Mackinac bridge - built by a trained goldsmith?

No, i would be afraid to be a test pilot of anything; i am sure Chuck Yeager probable had a few reservations from time to time.

I have never questioned the skills, knowledge, training or expertise of professional engineers, i have nothing but the highest regard and admiration for them and the profession.
I have never tried to equate myself or anyone who is not an engineer with someone that is, in anyway.

All of my life i have designed and built things, i always considered some of it as engineering, at some level. That's all. Not claiming any qualifications or equivalency. Just thought that in principle and approach it was engineering.
It wasn't until the past few years, that i realized that the opinion has met with such a backlash from engineers, who seem to feel that you are claiming equivalency with them.
I always assumed that to engineer was a natural thing to do, and that most people did attempt to engineer many things, with vary level of competency on an amateur basis. Some people seem to have a knack for it, an intuitive understanding, some are quite pathetic at it.

So in your opinion, can someone who is not an engineer, do at some level, what could be considered engineering?

I of course am not an engineer, so would you say that nothing that i do or have done could, by any stretch, be called engineered?

[Malcolm McLeod]

...

So in your opinion, can someone who is not an engineer, do at some level, what could be considered engineering?

I of course am not an engineer, so would you say that nothing that i do or have done could, by any stretch, be called engineered?

At the risk of cherry picking again...

In today's world engineering is applied science. (Science, as we are prone to call it, is basic research into the fundamental principles that govern the physical world around us.)

Engineers are supposed to understand and apply those principles to our everyday lives. Hopefully in a competent manner! Education is NOT the only way to become competent, it just makes it easier and more publicly recognized/accepted.

If you can sit down at the abacus/chalk board/PC, define a problem, and 'calculate' a solution, I'd call that engineering. If you have to try 387 iterations, guessing what went wrong with each failure, estimating an improvement, then rinse and repeat (i.e unlimited resources) until the light stays on... that is experimenting. Yes, the engineer may experience failure, but in a minimum number of iterations, they find a solution. And yes, the experimenter may stumble on a first attempt epiphany, but many more hit the wall of limited resources.

Was Da Vinci an artist, a scientist, an engineer, experimenter, ... or other??? I'd argue he was functionally all of those things - - but in terms of today's roles he was none of them. Today's roles get tossed out the window if you go back in time - - and not too terribly far at that. The basic science was unknown, or in the process of discovery, so how could anyone apply it?

(If I told my boss I needed 387 iterations to 'get it right', he'd tell me to use 2 on the project at hand - and the other 385 polishing my resume.):o

[Mark Hennebury]

"Molann an obair an saor." Doesn't mention anything about judging him by how long or what route he took to get there.

[Mark Hennebury]

I, like many, enjoy problem solving:

a big part of that is studying, predicting, experimenting, analyzing failures and redesigning. But surely this is also considered "research into the fundamental principles that govern the physical world around us" ?


Failure teaches many valuable lessons.( I am well schooled in this department.)


Problem solving is two parts; 1. imagination: to conceive of a solution. and 2. Engineering, to figure out how to make it.
My belief is that many of us do this regularly on an amateur level.


I happen to agree with you that people should be judged by what they achieve.

[Mike Henderson]

I fall into the camp of limiting the title of "Engineer" to those who receive a degree in engineering (or who drive trains). If we don't have some definition, everyone can claim the title.

Years ago, I was a long distance runner. A woman friend of my wife showed me a picture of her in running clothes and said, "This is me after my first marathon." Now, people who run marathons have a certain body configuration - the training tends to make the runner fairly lean.

So I said to her, "Was that a 26 mile marathon?'

And she replied, "No, it was a 3 mile marathon."

She wanted to be able to say she was a marathon runner without putting in the time and training to really do a marathon.

So my answer is, "If you want to be called an engineer, get an engineering degree." (or drive a train)

Mike

[Mark Hennebury]

I fall into the camp of limiting the title of "Engineer" to those who receive a degree in engineering (or who drive trains). If we don't have some definition, everyone can claim the title.

Years ago, I was a long distance runner. A woman friend of my wife showed me a picture of her in running clothes and said, "This is me after my first marathon." Now, people who run marathons have a certain body configuration - the training tends to make the runner fairly lean.

So I said to her, "Was that a 26 mile marathon?'

And she replied, "No, it was a 3 mile marathon."

She wanted to be able to say she was a marathon runner without putting in the time and training to really do a marathon.

So my answer is, "If you want to be called an engineer, get an engineering degree." (or drive a train)

Mike

This is not the case in what i am arguing and it should be fairly obvious to all.

To claim to be a marathon runner when you are not is simple lying.

But for both of you to claim to be runners is not, different level runners, but both runners, because both of you run.

So it seems that you are trying to say that everyone that calls themselves a runner is claiming to be a marathon runner and that is simple not true.

[Matt Mattingley]

I have worked with many companies with many engineers of different backgrounds. Some even professionals.

At one point in time about 100 years ago, my trade, I was considered an engineer. During wartime my trade was kept so hush-hush and even buildings we worked in had some of the highest security and secrecy . They wouldn’t even let us volunteer to be on the front line. I was trained in metallurgy, shear forces, tensile forces, physics and mathematics , Drawings, blueprints, interpretation of drawings using North American standard and European standards. I’m forced to work in metric and in imperial and be able to convert at the drop of a hat. I’m required to know electrical, hydraulics, pneumatics machining techniques and reaction. I’m also required to weld Tig, mig and Oxy-acetylene. I can identify most Metal material. I am required to heat treat and aneal. I’m required to know coining and coining radiuses. I’m also required to know Rockwell hardness and how it applies to material and it’s effects.

Most mechanical engineers never dip in this deep and are able to produce the product required. Most mechanical engineers show a little bit of respect and call people like me a UL engineer. I personally think it’s a joke. UL stands for unlicensed. But time after time I was always pulled into the engineering meetings. The P engineers didn’t like when I said it can’t be built like you want it!

I am no engineer.

Galileo was not an engineer, but I would consider him one.

The architects of the pyramids, I would consider them engineers as well.

Gustave Eiffel, what makes him an engineer?

I do find it a little bit funny that professional engineers study, some of the worlds greatest engineering feats in early ages but would never consider architects of the time professional engineers.

My personal favourite is Newton (Sir Isaac Newton). I would consider him an engineer of his time. If engineers don’t agree, why would you ever be trained anything sir Isaac newton had stated? I figure once it leaves a statement, and becomes a law, with this particular person, would he not be, be considered an engineer?

How many modern-day engineers have created laws of physics?

[Malcolm McLeod]

... Caveat emptor. Its up to the 'customer' to determine if the person is properly qualified (and titled).
...


I, like many, enjoy problem solving:

a big part of that is studying, predicting, experimenting, analyzing failures and redesigning. But surely this is also considered "research into the fundamental principles that govern the physical world around us" ?


Failure teaches many valuable lessons.( I am well schooled in this department.)


Problem solving is two parts; 1. imagination: to conceive of a solution. and 2. Engineering, to figure out how to make it.
My belief is that many of us do this regularly on an amateur level.


I happen to agree with you that people should be judged by what they achieve.

By today's commonly defined roles, "research into the fundamental principles" is done by a scientist (pardon my previous lack of clarity).

And if I may assume your engineering is done in a home shop, say in regard to a dining table for the wife?? (this IS SMC.)
Did you calculate the column load and deflection in the legs?
How about the bending moment in the apron when GREAT Uncle Rasmussen - both of him - falls asleep at dinner? (don't want any spilled wine.)
Surely you calculated the shear in the tenons? (Everybody knows the shear modulus of oak, right?)
And the required cantilever beam strength in the top's over hang?
After all this engineering (no real degree requirement, just some basic math and materials knowledge), you started construction?

Me? I'd just use info from my previous shop experimenting. I remember what broke, and make that stronger. I size stuff to look good, or (:eek:) just grab a board (massive strength overkill) off the rack at the BORG. Cuz' I am in the shop to be a craftsman:cool:, not an engineer.

Call yourself whatever you wish. Caveat emptor.

[John K Jordan]

...
Problem solving is two parts; 1. imagination: to conceive of a solution. and 2. Engineering, to figure out how to make it.
...

Both of these are so important but there may be a 3rd part - making and testing and actually solving the problem! Over the years I've seen some carefully engineered "solutions" that were impractical to build or simply didn't work as designed, perhaps without extensive modifications. Is that part of engineering?

JKJ

[Mike Henderson]

So it seems that you are trying to say that everyone that calls themselves a runner is claiming to be a marathon runner and that is simple not true.

That is absolutely not what I'm saying and I cannot see how you can possibly think I am.

Mike

[Mark Hennebury]

By today's commonly defined roles, "research into the fundamental principles" is done by a scientist (pardon my previous lack of clarity).

And if I may assume your engineering is done in a home shop, say in regard to a dining table for the wife?? (this IS SMC.)
Did you calculate the column load and deflection in the legs?
How about the bending moment in the apron when GREAT Uncle Rasmussen - both of him - falls asleep at dinner? (don't want any spilled wine.)
Surely you calculated the shear in the tenons? (Everybody knows the shear modulus of oak, right?)
And the required cantilever beam strength in the top's over hang?
After all this engineering (no real degree requirement, just some basic math and materials knowledge), you started construction?

Me? I'd just use info from my previous shop experimenting. I remember what broke, and make that stronger. I size stuff to look good, or (:eek:) just grab a board (massive strength overkill) off the rack at the BORG. Cuz' I am in the shop to be a craftsman:cool:, not an engineer.

Call yourself whatever you wish. Caveat emptor.

I would like a civil discussion if possible.

Mike mentioned running, if you want to use running as an analogy it would be the equivalent of elite registered marathon runners banning every other runner from being allowed to call themselves runners. So you can only refer to yourself as a runner if you are a certified marathon runner.


Or how about banning woodworkers from calling themselves woodworkers, unless they are elite certified from some collage.

The fact is, if you do woodworking, at any level, you can legitimately call yourself a woodworker.

If you run, you can call yourself a runner.

If you do engineering, not so much.

I think that lots of people do what should rightfully be called engineering, once again, not necessarily in any remote relationship to what a trained professional would do. I just think that engineers shouldn't have exclusive right to the terms.
Professional engineer for you, and hobbyist/ amateur/ whatever, engineer for those who enjoy the process of designing and building. Hobbyist engineers would have no expected level of competency, but be judged by what they accomplished.

And yes i do work from home.
I call myself a woodworker, because i do woodwork, i have no training in that either. I would stack my woodworking skills up against anyone, anywhere, with any amount of training, from any institution.
I have a had no training in any field since leaving school in 1970.
I also do metalwork, and own a lath, milling machine, surface grinder, tool and cutter grinder, surface plates, measuring equipment, welding and heat treating, do mechanical design and 3D modeling, i have a flatbed plotter and a laser,I rebuild machinery, remanufacture parts, spray welding shafts, and precision grinding. I conceive of, design and build automatic machinery, i design and build sequential motor controls systems for automated machines, Electric, pneumatic and hydraulic. I have designed parts for engineering companies. For one i reprogrammed their large gantry router, and reground their tooling to make the machining operation go from 20 hours to 4 hours and produce a better quality finish. For another i redesigned a cable safety switch for use by a high tech company in a room where they stored cobalt, (which i happen to think was pretty cool.) I also designed tooling and countless jigs, and also some nice joinery work for the wife's table.


These are a couple of joints that i designed; vertical pedestal and an angled pedestal.
Let me know if you can find anyone that has developed and built stronger joinery, engineers included. Get back to me on this one.

403808403809


In my opinion there is a lot of engineering in regular day to day woodworking.

I produced these business card boxes and creditcard boxes.

Many people make slim business card holders. Most are made of multiple pieces glued together. I made them out of one piece. Saving time and setup.
I conceived of , designed and built an automatic machine with three routers, for part of the processing. fully automatic with a hopper feed. Atuomatically feeding a box into the carriage, clamping and traveling past two side mounted routers to do the roundovers, then a gantry router traced a template and cutout the thumb slot, then the carriage returned and the next blank was pushed pushed into the carriage and off again.
I also conceived of an internal spring to keep the cards from falling out, it had to take up virtually no space, had to hold from one to ten cards with out making it difficult to remove them, it had to be cheap to produce and easy to install. I got a quote from a manufacturer (for my design)to produce them, they of course wanted thousands of dollars for the initial setup and $2 each spring. So I designed the spring, designed and built the automatic machine to produce them, I can produce about 1 every second, so in relative terms they are free. I also developed special router bits for a better finish on end grain, using my knowledge of cell structure and tooling. I couldn't find anyone to make them so i got blanks made and shaped the cutters myself.


403810

These boxes took some complicated jigs and precision set to keep the tight tolerance required for a consistent snug fit.

403811

And to answer your questions no i can't calculate column load or bending moment etc. I might be able to google it if i needed it though.

What i can do is look at something like this Nakashima table; and see a weakness in structural design.

I can see that the table top weight and uncle Rasmussen can place a lot of cantilever stress on vertical members which will place a lot of torsional leverage on the horizontal member on the base to which it is attached. I know from my experimentation that wood is not very strong torsion-ally, so i can see that by moving the vertical members in and interlocking them with the cross members you would increase rigidity to the maximum for these components. now i cant calculate anything. but i can make a strong table. This is why i designed the angled pedestal joint.

I put a seat and back on the test joint just for fun about thirty years ago. the joint is still tight as the day it was made.

403816 403822403823403824

[Mark Hennebury]

That is absolutely not what I'm saying and I cannot see how you can possibly think I am.

Mike

why did you mention the women then; did you just want us to know that you know a delusion women? or were you trying to infer something in relation to this discussion?

[Mike Henderson]

why did you mention the women then; did you just want us to know that you know a delusion women? or were you trying to infer something in relation to this discussion?

I think you're too hung up on this topic and need to let it go.

If you go back and read my post (#59), my position is that titles have meaning and people who have not done the work to honestly claim the title often attempt to claim those titles. My story of the runner is just an example. A more egregious example is "stolen valor" where a person claims to be a war hero and did not do the deeds s/he claims. Sometimes did not even serve.

My position is that if you want to be called an engineer, you need to get an engineering degree (or drive a train).

Mike

[Frederick Skelly]

why did you mention the women then; did you just want us to know that you know a delusion women? or were you trying to infer something in relation to this discussion?

I thought you wanted to keep this civil, Mark? Mr. Henderson is a pretty nice man. I'd be surprised if he intended anything mean or disrespectful in his responses. I certainly don't read them that way.

It was interesting to read about the work you've done. You sound like one of the intuitive folks that just see into a problem and find solutions, no matter what their title is. Henry Ford was one of those too.

Fred

[Mark Hennebury]

I thought you wanted to keep this civil, Mark? Mr. Henderson is a pretty nice man. I'd be surprised if he intended anything mean or disrespectful in his responses. I certainly don't read them that way.

It was interesting to read about the work you've done. You sound like one of the intuitive folks that just see into a problem and find solutions, no matter what they're called. Henry Ford was one of those too.

Fred

I apologize if i have offended you Mike or anyone else; it is hard not to get emotionally involved in these discussions.

I don't lay claim to any titles, i just do stuff, never really gave it much thought.Some times i do woodworking, sometimes metalworking. some times computer design, and i used to run when i was younger.

I someone asked i would probably tell them what i did. I have never claimed anyone's title, never claimed anyone's job, or certifications.

I have considered some of what i have done as "engineering"....on my level adequate for my world and my needs. I have been quite proud of being able to sort out a problem or design. In no way is that an encroachment on a professional engineer.
I am not saying that i am able to work on any other level than my way and what works for me. As people have done since the beginning of time, I like the challenge of sorting our problems and making improvements.
What i am surprised by is the attacks by engineers, saying that engineering is their sole territory, and that you cannot do engineering. In any way shape or form, and if you say that you do ,then you are a liar and a cheat and are claiming their title.
I hoped to get involved in a discussion about that point, as i see engineering belongs to everyone, an engineer is someone that does engineering. Amateur engineering is just what someone does, who is interested enough to try and design and build stuff, that's all. Its just about the approach to ones work. They have no credentials, and lay claim to no title, and are not seeking to steal anyone's job, building spaceships or bridges. i am one of many that just like to tinker and test how far i can push something, and i believe that is in some sense what engineering is about. I think that they should ease up a bit and accept that we can at some level do some engineering. I think that the term should have a broader scope than just what engineers do.



Professional engineer is someone that has chosen it as a profession and has studied and passed. They are the ones that have built all of the things that make up our world. I have the utmost respect for the profession.

[Mark Hennebury]

I won't be getting any degrees or driving a train.

[Tony Leonard]

Ha! I have a degree in mechanical engineering (passed the EIT exam, but never pursued the PE). I work for a large corporation. About ten years ago, some bright person decided that too many folks were carrying the 'engineer' title and they needed to address that. So, they declared that everyone that did not have a PE was not an engineer. This was news to those of us that considered ourselves engineers. That didn't last long. We were just short of a walkout! On the other end, I worked in hotels during college and the maintenance folks liked to call themselves engineers! There were a lot of folks in our company that held engineering titles who did not have an engineering degree. I'll not argue that! On the one hand, if they are doing the job....on the other hand...

Personally, I don't really care. My n-1 title was 'Senior Engineer.' I got a promotion to "Engineering Advisor." I liked the old one better but I'll take the new one along with the raise.

I can see where titles are important for the resume. I worked for a small company where my manager gave me the title of "project engineer.' Didn't mean anything to a youngster, but when I moved to a large company, it just so happened that the title meant something.

Tony (who does NOT drive a train, but would be happy to design one!)

[Tom Bender]

Excellent thread!

Shovelman PE

[Tom Bender]

Roger
That is a wonderful machine. What is it?


I've never called myself an engineer, but have done a ton of genetic engineering. Though I have a PhD I'd never consider calling myself a doctor.

I aspire to learn to drive a (steam) road locomotive, once I have qualified at that I would consider calling myself an engineer.

Someone calling themselves a licensed professional engineer without the appropriate qualifications would bother me, any other use not so much.

402924

[Stan Calow]

"So, to all you real engineers out there, am I being a bit over-sensitive? I really do respect the education you've attained and the work you do. It seems disrespectful for me to claim your hard-earned title."

Yes it bothers me because it de-values the term that took me a lot of time and money to earn. As one job interview when a potential co-worker said "oh great, another train driver". Or when one non-engineer boss told me to take the new staffer (a communications major) and "show her how to do what you do." But its not going to change. Thats the way people are.

[Ole Anderson]

Just because you can engineer something doesn't make you an Engineer with a capital E. In our trade, we called non-degreed folks that engineer infrastructure (water, sewer, roads and so forth) designers. Many of them very talented and efficient. And often were called engineers (with a small e) But with no ability to oversee other's work and stamp plans as may be required for government approval or projects. Probably more clearly cut in the Civil field than Electrical, Mechanical or Chemical. Specialties the Civil field include environmental, construction management, geotechnical, transportation, water resources and structural. Civil engineering is often called the worlds second oldest profession!

[Edwin Santos]

Here is an interesting Wikipedia article that might lend another perspective on this discussion of semantics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_engineering

When in doubt, you can always refer to legal definitions and how different jurisdictions treat this issue in their legal systems. So far I have not heard anyone in this thread dispute the legitimacy of anyone who is officially licensed or registered in their jurisdiction, especially seeing how clearly defined the licensing/registration process is in those places that observe one. Of course, this is not to devalue the capabilities or education of someone who is not registered or licensed but it's clear that these people fall into more of a grey area, not regulated, which becomes subjective and I suppose this is the question underlying this whole discussion.

As to whether using the title is wrong per se - I would say anyone holding themselves out as a Professional, licensed or registered engineer when they are not, is out of bounds and probably even breaking the law. For everyone else, we're in the grey area.

Toward the bottom of there is an paragraph under "United States" that discusses legal protection of the term "professional engineer" and an industrial exemption for people to be called engineers under certain circumstances where their work is internal to a business entity that qualifies as an "exempt organization" and some tests for direct supervision are met. I think this might be where you see creative "engineer" titles arising.

Interesting that Wyoming would be the first state in the US to adopt licensing requirements because I would have thought of Wyoming to be less receptive to regulation than say New York or Massachusetts.

So am I an engineer? If licensed or registered - unequivocally yes.
If not - maybe. Depends on circumstances.

[Tom Bender]

There is so much more to it than an education and certification, like talent, experience, integrity, communication skills, confidence etc.

Sadly this is also true in medicine but we grant to ordinary people halos with their medical PHDs. Don't get me started on lawyers.

[Mark Hennebury]

Bravo Edwin, a logical and unbiased point of view on the heart of this discussion.

[Guy Donham]

When I was working I was called a Field Engineer. Later I was called a System Support Engineer and finally they called me a Field Support Engineer. I worked for Oracle last and that was what they called us. I worked and live in the state of Texas. If you use the word "Engineer" you were supposed to be licensed by the state and as others have stated you could go to jail for approving something that later turned out to not work. Big companies do not care if they break the law calling people engineers even when they do not fit the legal description of the title.

I just took the pay check every two weeks, retired and enjoy life a lot more engineering my woodworking projects.

[Pat Barry]

Here is an interesting Wikipedia article that might lend another perspective on this discussion of semantics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_engineering

When in doubt, you can always refer to legal definitions and how different jurisdictions treat this issue in their legal systems. So far I have not heard anyone in this thread dispute the legitimacy of anyone who is officially licensed or registered in their jurisdiction, especially seeing how clearly defined the licensing/registration process is in those places that observe one. Of course, this is not to devalue the capabilities or education of someone who is not registered or licensed but it's clear that these people fall into more of a grey area, not regulated, which becomes subjective and I suppose this is the question underlying this whole discussion.

As to whether using the title is wrong per se - I would say anyone holding themselves out as a Professional, licensed or registered engineer when they are not, is out of bounds and probably even breaking the law. For everyone else, we're in the grey area.

Toward the bottom of there is an paragraph under "United States" that discusses legal protection of the term "professional engineer" and an industrial exemption for people to be called engineers under certain circumstances where their work is internal to a business entity that qualifies as an "exempt organization" and some tests for direct supervision are met. I think this might be where you see creative "engineer" titles arising.

Interesting that Wyoming would be the first state in the US to adopt licensing requirements because I would have thought of Wyoming to be less receptive to regulation than say New York or Massachusetts.

So am I an engineer? If licensed or registered - unequivocally yes.
If not - maybe. Depends on circumstances.

The testing and licencing is required for certain (a very narrow crossection) of Engineering. It is required for insurability for public works projects, civil engineering, government work, etc. The vast majority of engineers, be they electrical, mechanical, or other, don't need to be licensed because the work they do is for private or commercial business. All of these are Engineers.

[Malcolm McLeod]

Here ...

So am I an engineer? If licensed or registered - unequivocally yes.
If not - maybe. Depends on circumstances.

Well said (all of it, even tho' I shortened the citation).

For several days I have stayed away from this, thinking I had said all I have to offer. After reading the newer posts, and re-reading some of the older, I have caved. ...Sorry.

Whether you are called an Engineer or an engineer, licensed or non-licensed, degreed or self-taught, I believe that in the semantics of today's world, anyone who wishes to be called an engineer should be able to arrive at a process improvement via calculations, not serendipity, or epiphany, or trial-and-error. Plain and simple, and yes - I'm sure some will be offended.

IMO engineers are applied scientists. You should be able to USE science to document an improvement on paper, before you 'turn the first screw' (or electron, or molecular bond, or footing). Engineers are generally charged with improvements to efficiency and economy - - i.e. what is the minimum allowable material for the required load with acceptable deflection and cost, for a ME.

I'd love to say I apply this documentation methodology to my job 100% of the time, but it would of course be a bit less than 100% true. And I am a poorer engineer for it.

[Mark Hennebury]

Well said (all of it, even tho' I shortened the citation).

For several days I have stayed away from this, thinking I had said all I have to offer. After reading the newer posts, and re-reading some of the older, I have caved. ...Sorry.

Whether you are called an Engineer or an engineer, licensed or non-licensed, degreed or self-taught, I believe that in the semantics of today's world, anyone who wishes to be called an engineer should be able to arrive at a process improvement via calculations, not serendipity, or epiphany, or trial-and-error. Plain and simple, and yes - I'm sure some will be offended.

IMO engineers are applied scientists. You should be able to USE science to document an improvement on paper, before you 'turn the first screw' (or electron, or molecular bond, or footing). Engineers are generally charged with improvements to efficiency and economy - - i.e. what is the minimum allowable material for the required load with acceptable deflection and cost, for a ME.

I'd love to say I apply this documentation methodology to my job 100% of the time, but it would of course be a bit less than 100% true. And I am a poorer engineer for it.

Nearly 50 years ago when I started woodworking I practiced and studied, observed, questioned, tested and analyzed, 30 odd years ago I worked at improving some joints with the goal of finding absolute. to look at the pieces of wood and realize that within was the perfect joint design. the perfect proportions for each piece, where you cannot change any dimension without weakening the joint. To look, to see and to understand the structure of the materials and stresses that would be applied and to predict where the joint would need to be changed to counter any weakness. I didn't finish my study on those joints as life got in the way. I got pretty close in design concept but would like to get back and tweak some proportions at some point.

For the past 17 years, I have done tens of thousands of mechanical parts, assemblies and simulations on computer programs like Solid works.

So now you have me a little confused; The woodworking was not engineering, but If I run a finite element analysis on a part in solidworks, then i am engineering.

[Malcolm McLeod]

Mark, clearly you have an ax to grind on this topic. I have no idea why, but good luck with it.

And call yourself and what you do by any name that makes you happy. Please do not ask me to validate your decisions.

[Mark Hennebury]

Malcolm, You may not understand my position as you have credibility and respect based on your credentials, i and others like me that have no credentials, and have to fight to be recognized for what we do.
We are too often dismissed as lazy, ignorant, liars or pretenders. You Engineers own the Profession, you have earned your degrees and titles, and have the respect and responsibility that goes with them, no one can take that from you. No one can claim your titles or take your jobs, that is all yours.

But engineering is more than a profession, it is what people do.

The general population, without training, can pursue an interest in the act of engineering, and can pursue knowledge and training in many aspects of engineering, to whatever level they want or are capable of; they just can't practice it as a profession. All that i have asked is that you keep an open mind.

[Edwin Santos]

When I was working I was called a Field Engineer. Later I was called a System Support Engineer and finally they called me a Field Support Engineer. I worked for Oracle last and that was what they called us. I worked and live in the state of Texas. If you use the word "Engineer" you were supposed to be licensed by the state and as others have stated you could go to jail for approving something that later turned out to not work. Big companies do not care if they break the law calling people engineers even when they do not fit the legal description of the title.

I just took the pay check every two weeks, retired and enjoy life a lot more engineering my woodworking projects.

They're not breaking the law. There is an industrial exemption that allows for people in situations as you describe to be called engineers. Among other tests, their work is internal to a business entity that is taking responsibility for supervision and end product. Such people should not be contracting directly with the public on the basis of being a professional engineer. Referring again to the section of the Wikipedia article that talks about title usage and examples of industrial exemption:

"......Examples are sanitation engineer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitation_engineer), production engineer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_engineer), test engineer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_engineer), network engineer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_engineer), project engineer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_engineer), systems engineer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_engineer) and sales engineer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_engineer). These are often seen in engineering job advertisements online and in news papers. Most of the advertisements and employers don't require licensing because these positions do not pose a direct threat to public health or pose a liability danger......The US model has generally been only to require the practicing engineers offering engineering services that impact the public welfare, safety or safeguarding of life, health or property to be licensed, while engineers working in private industry without a direct offering of engineering services to the public or other businesses, education and government need not be licensed.In the United States, use of the title professional engineer is restricted to those holding a professional engineer's license. These people have the right to add the letters PE after their names on resumes, business cards and other communication. However, each state has its own licensing procedure and the license is valid only in the state that granted it. Therefore, many professional engineers maintain licenses in more than one state. Comity, also known as reciprocity, between states allows engineers who are licensed or registered in one state to obtain a license in another state without meeting the ordinary rigorous proof of qualification by testing. This is accomplished by the second state recognizing the validity of the first state's licensing or registration process.
Other uses of the term engineer are legally controlled and protected to varying degrees, dependent on the state and the enforcement of its engineering certification board. The term is frequently applied to fields where practitioners may have no engineering background or the work has no basis in the physical engineering disciplines; for example sanitation engineer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitation_engineer).[49] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_engineering#cite_note-49)

With regard to the term "software engineer", many states, such as Texas and Florida, have introduced license requirements for such a title that are in line with the requirements for more traditional engineering fields....... "

This is certainly not to imply that a licensed professional engineer is any better or less than any other type of engineer. Nor am I trying to say a degree makes a difference in all of this. I'm just trying to say the controversy about title usage being discussed in this thread has already been addressed by law in most jurisdictions.

If we're talking about the act of engineering (as in a verb not a noun), then I'd say we've all been engineers at some point or another, in this sense. Some of us quite frequently and with a great deal of talent and ingenuity as Mark's novel joinery examples showcase.

[Ron Citerone]

I have a B.S. in Computer Science and spent 30 years developing software applications and Windows services. Sometimes I was Senior Programmer, sometimes I was Software Engineer. I was also an IVR Engineer as well as Senior Microsoft Systems Engineer. I was even called a Software Architect. It all just a matter of words. I was more interested in the amount of pay and the challenges I encountered. My most cherished title was Microsoft MVP.

I can understand a company elevating your title if they are selling your serves or products. But most of my work was internal to the companies I worked for so there was no reason for the titles. In some cases others with my skill levels and similar work had more normal titles.

Now my favorite titles are Dad, Retired, Woodworker and Pit Master.

I love this post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We share the same favorite titles..........except I am only a propane Weber Master! ;):cool:

[Peter Rawlings]

To the credentialed engineers reading this, now's the time to put on your thick skin. I've met and worked with some engineers who just didn't have a what I call a "lineal" way of thinking. Book smart, but lacking in common sense and applied logic.

I've talked a few times, usually after viewing a business card that has mysterious letters after name, that I should proceed my name on business card with "SOPE, LMN". Seat-of-pants-engineer, letters mean nothing.

I respect that someone takes the time, money and energy to become degreed, but I've learned a lot by doing, reading and, of course, Googling!

[Dan Friedrichs]

Toward the bottom of there is an paragraph under "United States" that discusses legal protection of the term "professional engineer" and an industrial exemption for people to be called engineers under certain circumstances where their work is internal to a business entity that qualifies as an "exempt organization" and some tests for direct supervision are met. I think this might be where you see creative "engineer" titles arising.

Yes. In many states, to present yourself to the public as an engineer, you must be a licensed PE. Most engineers don't work with the public (they work for private enterprises), so they are generally not licensed (aside from certain civils, etc).

Physicians have the opposite situation, which is interesting to consider: most physicians have medical degrees and obtain licenses (and they present themselves to the public as physicians). However, some people with medical degrees do not obtain licenses, but perhaps work for a health insurance company - are they misappropriating a title by calling themselves a "physician"?

Personally, I don't think so.

However, "curing of diseases" has been something humans have engaged in since the beginning of time. If someone has had incredible success using their trial-and-error methods (or just fantastic intuition) at curing diseases, may he call himself a "physician", despite lacking a medical degree and a medical license?

I think you know my answer to that...

[Dan Friedrichs]

Nearly 50 years ago when I started woodworking I practiced and studied, observed, questioned, tested and analyzed, 30 odd years ago I worked at improving some joints with the goal of finding absolute. to look at the pieces of wood and realize that within was the perfect joint design. the perfect proportions for each piece, where you cannot change any dimension without weakening the joint. To look, to see and to understand the structure of the materials and stresses that would be applied and to predict where the joint would need to be changed to counter any weakness. I didn't finish my study on those joints as life got in the way. I got pretty close in design concept but would like to get back and tweak some proportions at some point.

For the past 17 years, I have done tens of thousands of mechanical parts, assemblies and simulations on computer programs like Solid works.

So now you have me a little confused; The woodworking was not engineering, but If I run a finite element analysis on a part in solidworks, then i am engineering.

Respectfully, what you describe is not what the overwhelming majority of people think of when they use the word "engineering". Words are merely noises we make and all agree have a given meaning - in this case, your interpretation of the meaning of the word "engineering" is out of line with everyone else. Beavers do not engage in "engineering", as the word is generally understood. Looking at a joint and intuiting how to make it stronger is not "engineering". Even running FEA in solidworks is not "engineering" - it's just looking at the plots spit out by a tool.

Doing calculations based on a first-principles understanding of physics to arrive at a design to meet a given need - that's "engineering".

[Edwin Santos]

Physicians have the opposite situation, which is interesting to consider: most physicians have medical degrees and obtain licenses (and they present themselves to the public as physicians). However, some people with medical degrees do not obtain licenses, but perhaps work for a health insurance company - are they misappropriating a title by calling themselves a "physician"?



Dan,
It is an interesting question, but another one that is very clearly legally defined in most jurisdictions, certainly in the United States. A person with a medical degree (M.D. or D.O.) but who is not licensed, can indeed call themselves a physician, but they are not legally permitted to practice medicine (meaning treat patients either directly or indirectly).
Most private companies would not hire such a person in a capacity requiring medical expertise because the liability risk is generally not worth it. Unfortunately (or fortunately) there is a stigma associated with such a person because of a natural question that would occur to most as to why someone would complete a rigorous medical degree but not take the remaining step of getting licensed. It is a very rare physician that would be in this situation, and often due to a disciplinary problem with a medical board that caused them to lose their licensed status. With engineers it is quite different because a great number of degreed engineers are not licensed for various logical reasons and it does not automatically cause people to question their legitimacy (nor should it).

The only non-licensed physician I can remember meeting was basically working as a legal nurse consultant assisting a lawyer reviewing medical charts in malpractice cases. He lost his license due to misconduct. Every physician I've met who was in an administrative capacity at an insurance company was still licensed even though not actively providing direct patient care. In my experience, even medical researchers usually maintain a Board license in at least one state.

Either way I'm sure of this - it is totally illegal, and outside the scope of practice anywhere in the United States, Europe or Canada for a degreed but not licensed physician to represent him/herself as a physician qualified to provide medical care or write a prescription without having a license to do so, even if the person were Hippocrates himself.

P.S. there are people as you describe, that have fantastic intuition and experience at curing diseases but are not physicians. They fall into the mostly unregulated world of alternative medicine, and you will see them use titles like healers, naturopaths, homeopathic physicians, and many other creative names. Most of these types are very careful not to pass themselves off as a physician in the traditional sense because it is a clear crime to do so. It is common for each to obtain and keep a patient acknowledgment on file to document this disclosure.

[Malcolm McLeod]

Respectfully, what you describe is not what the overwhelming majority of people think of when they use the word "engineering". Words are merely noises we make and all agree have a given meaning - in this case, your interpretation of the meaning of the word "engineering" is out of line with everyone else. Beavers do not engage in "engineering", as the word is generally understood. Looking at a joint and intuiting how to make it stronger is not "engineering". Even running FEA in solidworks is not "engineering" - it's just looking at the plots spit out by a tool.

Doing calculations based on a first-principles understanding of physics to arrive at a design to meet a given need - that's "engineering".

+1^^
Given sufficient resources, anyone can build ... oh, wait. I think I said that already?

There is a profound disconnect here about what ‘engineering’ entails. Failing that understanding, any discussion of titles is pointless.

Uncle.

[Mark Hennebury]

Thanks foryour explanation Dan.

If it is the definitive explanation of what engineering is then I must concede defeat.

I have enjoyed the debate and education, and appreciate your tolerance.


I am disappointed, but it is what it is.
I think i now have a better understanding of the difference between us.

Although we both design products we have very different approaches.
I think that you operate in the world of what is, and i in the world of what could be.

I design things how i think they could or should be. I have no guidelines or roadmap to follow, i use my knowledge and imagination to design something how i think it should work.

I don't always take forever and do trial and error as you have suggested Malcolm, in fact i can think of a few instances where i have come up with solutions quite quickly, maybe quicker than you could calculate.

Being able to calculate is valuable, but you also need to be able to see the potential that everyone else can't.

About 18 years ago i did a few jobs for an engineering firm; they hired me because they liked the way i designed stuff. ( initially)
they asked me to design a cable safety switch; They gave me a bunch of criteria; two cables , one each side, a lockout when a cable is pulled; pull one, cable it trips the lockout, pull two cables it trips the lockout, pinch one cable and pull the other it trips the lockout etc. they told me that i was to pickup the old switch in the office and take it home, examine it to see if i could simplify it.
So of course I didn't pick it up,
but instead went home and designed a switch from the criteria I was given.

When I took it to the company, i got a good smackdown; I was howled at for not taking the old switch, i was told to sit down, shutup and take notes and follow orders, if i wanted to work for them. Then i was given a prototype mockup of a switch that one of their engineers had started, but not completed, and i was told to take it home and complete it. I took it home fussed with it for an hour or two then threw it in the garbage and went back to my own design. The thing is my design worked, it met all of the criteria, was a simple design, minimum of parts and easy to produce. The original design was a standard dual cable, dual plunger type design, and quite a good model. The engineer that tried to modify it and "didn't" finish it, probably couldn't. He took a good design and tried to take parts away and make it work with a single plunger and two cables, and simply could not do it.


My switch had a box with a disk inside that rotated on its axis, a torsion spring, a spring loaded lockout pin, and a single cable that went through the box up over a pin in the disk down over the other pin up and out the other side of the box, when you pulled the cable to attach it, it rotated the disk, and at certain point you could push the lockout pin into the disk, you release the tension on the cable and the lockout pin is held in place, when you pulled the cable the lockout pin drops out. Simple design.

I did not look at the original switch because i did not want to be influenced by the design.
but i worked from what it needed to do and the base parts i needed to do it.

Another job with another engineering firm, i increased the productivity or their large gantry router 400%, without doing any "calculations" or getting permission. I had complained about it several times and was told to back off , that they had tweak everything possible. When the operator went on vacation, I cut 5" off of the 12" long cutter, changed the computer program from one program to two, doubled the spindle RPM, decreased the feed, increased the stepover from 10% to 80%, and set the stepdown from 1/2" to 4" and set the program to only cut parts, no machining waste material, which it had been doing. I did it in one day, they had been operating the router for 6 1/2 years and there were a dozen engineers there. I did it because i knew it could be done, i didn't ask the boss, because i knew he would say no, (i have no training remember.) is was only cutting polystyrene, and it was only a job after all.

That's how I work. I upset some people because I question them, and do what i think needs to be done, the way that I think it should be done. I get results.

So i guess that I don't do engineering.
Keep an open mind, there are different ways of working.

Thanks, i enjoyed the debate.



I

[Roger Feeley]

Mark, Maybe this should be another thread about 'bucking' the real engineers. Here's my story:

I identify as a former industrial arts teacher. I taught (badly) for about 8 years and then got into programming which was a much better fit. My specialty is data communications. I was originally hired to write DEC assembly but quickly migrated the software to PCs. I did that for a while and then moved to Tandems which is where this story takes place. The time frame is pre-internet, so think serial communications.

We wanted to link a database in NY with one in Kansas City. A request made to our Tandems in KC would be submitted to the NY HP computers and the response returned. To make the connections robust, it was decided to transmit on two lines over disparate networks. The receiving software at each end would have to 'arbitrate' the feeds to insure that every packet arrived. I was tasked with the arbitration on the Tandems and a counterpart did the same thing on the HPs in NY. A senior vice president with a very impressive academic pedigree wrote the code, handed it off to us and told us to implement. Here's where it gets complicated. I'm a pretty simple guy and I like my software to be simple as well. The code I was given work like a series of 'gates' where we would choose one feed or the other. There were over 40 interlocking rules to determine which feed we wanted. I couldn't understand it. Assuming it was my problem, I went home to my little Apple II+ and started from scratch. I cleared my mind and tried to solve the problem fresh.

Basically the feeds consisted of numbered packets. We need to produce from two feeds, a single feed that contains every packet.

I came to the conclusion that choosing a feed was just too complicated and prone to error. My solution was vanishingly simple. I simply combined the feeds and threw away the spares. We get packet 1 and the last packet we had was 0, we take it. If we get another packet 1, we toss it. That's it. I did have to have one special rule for the case where a packet is missing on both feeds. One virtue of my solution is that I could accept N feeds. Just more trash to throw away.

So now I had a dilemma. The guy that gave me the code was one of those people that's a little hard to explain. He's not arrogant exactly, It just that it's never occurred to him that he could be wrong. He also didn't understand the unique way that Tandems work. I knew that if I told him, I would be disciplined and forced to go back and make his stuff work. What to do? I implemented my solution and told a few other line programmers who agreed with me. The HP guy was sort of a snake so I never told him. I felt bad. He slaved over the thing and never did get it to work right and wound up demoted from a manager position. Finally, they just accepted a .05% data loss rate. Mine lost nothing.

So there I was. A 'blue collar' programmer with no degree doing what I thought was right in implementing a solution that worked perfectly for years. I never did tell management. It's kind of an interesting story to me. It would make a good case study in employee manager relations and business ethics. I know I did the wrong thing but I felt at the time and still feel that I was in a bad situation.


Thanks foryour explanation Dan.

If it is the definitive explanation of what engineering is then I must concede defeat.

I have enjoyed the debate and education, and appreciate your tolerance.


I am disappointed, but it is what it is.
I think i now have a better understanding of the difference between us.

Although we both design products we have very different approaches.
I think that you operate in the world of what is, and i in the world of what could be.

I design things how i think they could or should be. I have no guidelines or roadmap to follow, i use my knowledge and imagination to design something how i think it should work.

I don't always take forever and do trial and error as you have suggested Malcolm, in fact i can think of a few instances where i have come up with solutions quite quickly, maybe quicker than you could calculate.

Being able to calculate is valuable, but you also need to be able to see the potential that everyone else can't.

About 18 years ago i did a few jobs for an engineering firm; they hired me because they liked the way i designed stuff. ( initially)
they asked me to design a cable safety switch; They gave me a bunch of criteria; two cables , one each side, a lockout when a cable is pulled; pull one, cable it trips the lockout, pull two cables it trips the lockout, pinch one cable and pull the other it trips the lockout etc. they told me that i was to pickup the old switch in the office and take it home, examine it to see if i could simplify it.
So of course I didn't pick it up,
but instead went home and designed a switch from the criteria I was given.

When I took it to the company, i got a good smackdown; I was howled at for not taking the old switch, i was told to sit down, shutup and take notes and follow orders, if i wanted to work for them. Then i was given a prototype mockup of a switch that one of their engineers had started, but not completed, and i was told to take it home and complete it. I took it home fussed with it for an hour or two then threw it in the garbage and went back to my own design. The thing is my design worked, it met all of the criteria, was a simple design, minimum of parts and easy to produce. The original design was a standard dual cable, dual plunger type design, and quite a good model. The engineer that tried to modify it and "didn't" finish it, probably couldn't. He took a good design and tried to take parts away and make it work with a single plunger and two cables, and simply could not do it.


My switch had a box with a disk inside that rotated on its axis, a torsion spring, a spring loaded lockout pin, and a single cable that went through the box up over a pin in the disk down over the other pin up and out the other side of the box, when you pulled the cable to attach it, it rotated the disk, and at certain point you could push the lockout pin into the disk, you release the tension on the cable and the lockout pin is held in place, when you pulled the cable the lockout pin drops out. Simple design.

I did not look at the original switch because i did not want to be influenced by the design.
but i worked from what it needed to do and the base parts i needed to do it.

Another job with another engineering firm, i increased the productivity or their large gantry router 400%, without doing any "calculations" or getting permission. I had complained about it several times and was told to back off , that they had tweak everything possible. When the operator went on vacation, I cut 5" off of the 12" long cutter, changed the computer program from one program to two, doubled the spindle RPM, decreased the feed, increased the stepover from 10% to 80%, and set the stepdown from 1/2" to 4" and set the program to only cut parts, no machining waste material, which it had been doing. I did it in one day, they had been operating the router for 6 1/2 years and there were a dozen engineers there. I did it because i knew it could be done, i didn't ask the boss, because i knew he would say no, (i have no training remember.) is was only cutting polystyrene, and it was only a job after all.

That's how I work. I upset some people because I question them, and do what i think needs to be done, the way that I think it should be done. I get results.

So i guess that I don't do engineering.
Keep an open mind, there are different ways of working.

Thanks, i enjoyed the debate.



I

[Mark Hennebury]

Roger, Great story.

Sometimes you just have to do what you feel is right.

These situations of course are not specific to an any profession but are a human nature problem.
It is about, power, fear, position and ego. It pretty sad when you think about how much more we could achieve, if we could manage to harness all of the best work and best ideas, and distribute the credit to those who have earned it.
I have worked in many woodworking and cabinet shops and seen people doing dumb stuff, and you ask the why and they just say " that's what i was told to do" You know that's stupid..right.... "yup".
Lot of the time, people are rightfully afraid to challenge superiors, and are afraid of retaliation, loosing their jobs etc, so they stay quiet.

I guess that in reality in any organization, you have two problems to solve, one is the actual problem, and the other is the people that are in your way.

So we bumble on.

[Roger Feeley]

I've had several of these moral dilemmas over the years. Over 20 years ago, I lied in Federal Court. I was called for jury duty and the way the feds did it was that I was in a pool for 3 months. I had to call in every day and enter my individual id to see if I had to report. The jury coordinator assured us that, if we had some sort of conflict, all we had to do was call her and we would be relieved for the day. I had a meeting with a co-worker who was flying in to Kansas City from Tokyo to see me. I called the jury coordinator and she said no problem but that I should call in anyway. While she was in the air, I called in, entered my id number and was instructed to report. At this point, two things happened. First, I lost all trust in this particular court and the coordinator. Second, I was in a panic to insure that I would not have to serve. What to do?

Keep in mind that I sincerely wanted to serve. My company would have had no problem with it and I really do take it seriously.

The case was a civil suit. At one point the plaintiffs attorney asked a question that gave me my opportunity. "Would any of you have problem awarding punitive damages?" My hand shot up and I was excused for cause.

I resented the court for putting me in that position. I resented that they had such arbitrary control. I particularly resented that I had so little trust in the court that I found it necessary to lie to correct the situation.

[Pat Barry]

I've had several of these moral dilemmas over the years. Over 20 years ago, I lied in Federal Court. I was called for jury duty and the way the feds did it was that I was in a pool for 3 months. I had to call in every day and enter my individual id to see if I had to report. The jury coordinator assured us that, if we had some sort of conflict, all we had to do was call her and we would be relieved for the day. I had a meeting with a co-worker who was flying in to Kansas City from Tokyo to see me. I called the jury coordinator and she said no problem but that I should call in anyway. While she was in the air, I called in, entered my id number and was instructed to report. At this point, two things happened. First, I lost all trust in this particular court and the coordinator. Second, I was in a panic to insure that I would not have to serve. What to do?

Keep in mind that I sincerely wanted to serve. My company would have had no problem with it and I really do take it seriously.

The case was a civil suit. At one point the plaintiffs attorney asked a question that gave me my opportunity. "Would any of you have problem awarding punitive damages?" My hand shot up and I was excused for cause.

I resented the court for putting me in that position. I resented that they had such arbitrary control. I particularly resented that I had so little trust in the court that I found it necessary to lie to correct the situation.

Statute of limitations?

[Doug Garson]

Why didn't you call the coordinator again to find out what went wrong? Seems like you lost all trust for what may have just been a missed communication issue.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

If I want to know what the overwhelming majority of people think about “noises we make and all agree have a given meaning”, I look in a dictionary. Mr. Hennebury’s use of the word looks more like what I see in my dictionary than what you seem to think.

“The design, building, and use of engines, machines and structures.”

“The action of working artfully to bring something about.”

“Engineering Science” might be more what you have in mind: “the parts of science concerned with the physical and mathematical basis of engineering and machine technology.”

Respectfully.


Respectfully, what you describe is not what the overwhelming majority of people think of when they use the word "engineering". Words are merely noises we make and all agree have a given meaning - in this case, your interpretation of the meaning of the word "engineering" is out of line with everyone else. Beavers do not engage in "engineering", as the word is generally understood. Looking at a joint and intuiting how to make it stronger is not "engineering". Even running FEA in solidworks is not "engineering" - it's just looking at the plots spit out by a tool.

Doing calculations based on a first-principles understanding of physics to arrive at a design to meet a given need - that's "engineering".

[Carl Beckett]

I am an engineer. I intentionally did not become licensed (but did pass the EIT).

I am also a scientist. I do not have a PhD, but do have a MS from an elite institution and have worked for years in the space of molecular diagnostics.

I have managed large groups of engineers, and at one time had a business card that read 'zoo keeper'.

I dont get too butt hurt on what you call me, and do not get too hung up on words other than a mechanism to communicate by. I do believe there are 'legal' definitions that matter (like if you put your structural stamp on a design and it kills someone... part of why I intentionally did not get the PE).

Otherwise:

“The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?”
― Zhuangzi

[Mark Hennebury]

I've had several of these moral dilemmas over the years. Over 20 years ago, I lied in Federal Court. I was called for jury duty and the way the feds did it was that I was in a pool for 3 months. I had to call in every day and enter my individual id to see if I had to report. The jury coordinator assured us that, if we had some sort of conflict, all we had to do was call her and we would be relieved for the day. I had a meeting with a co-worker who was flying in to Kansas City from Tokyo to see me. I called the jury coordinator and she said no problem but that I should call in anyway. While she was in the air, I called in, entered my id number and was instructed to report. At this point, two things happened. First, I lost all trust in this particular court and the coordinator. Second, I was in a panic to insure that I would not have to serve. What to do?

Keep in mind that I sincerely wanted to serve. My company would have had no problem with it and I really do take it seriously.

The case was a civil suit. At one point the plaintiffs attorney asked a question that gave me my opportunity. "Would any of you have problem awarding punitive damages?" My hand shot up and I was excused for cause.

I resented the court for putting me in that position. I resented that they had such arbitrary control. I particularly resented that I had so little trust in the court that I found it necessary to lie to correct the situation.

Other than your revelation being public, i wouldn't be too concerned about your choice.

Truth and lie have no weight of their own only that which is given them by motive and consequence.

Of course justification can cancel out any of that weight. Humans are complicated, mechanical problems are so much easier to deal with.

Follow your conscience, if it does no one any harm, then what harm is it.

[Mark Hennebury]

I am an engineer. I intentionally did not become licensed (but did pass the EIT).

I am also a scientist. I do not have a PhD, but do have a MS from an elite institution and have worked for years in the space of molecular diagnostics.

I have managed large groups of engineers, and at one time had a business card that read 'zoo keeper'.

I dont get too butt hurt on what you call me, and do not get too hung up on words other than a mechanism to communicate by. I do believe there are 'legal' definitions that matter (like if you put your structural stamp on a design and it kills someone... part of why I intentionally did not get the PE).

Otherwise:

“The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?”


― Zhuangzi

Hi Carl,

You can talk to me anytime.

I think that a few of the engineers around here have lost their way, become slaves to the process, and forgotten that the sole reason for its existence is to to find solutions.
The process is but a tool, one of the many available to us.

The solution is the goal.

[Pat Barry]

Hi Carl,

You can talk to me anytime.

I think that a few of the engineers around here have lost their way, become slaves to the process, and forgotten that the sole reason for its existence is to to find solutions.
The process is but a tool, one of the many available to us.

The solution is the goal.

Keep in mind that there are a multitude of solutions to a problem and the optimum solution entails cost, time, performance, regulatory, safety and other constraints and or requirements. An elegant solution is not always the best solution. Engineering involves dealing with all of these requirements and constraints. It seems that someine has some sort of bone to pick against engineers and this clouds their viewpoint. As a result they keep trying to present themself as capable as an engineer but lacking the prerequisite training.

[Mike Henderson]

When an engineer meets a person who says that they are an engineer, the following two questions are probably going to be asked:

1. What was your specialty? Electrical, Mechanical, Petroleum, etc.?

2. Where did you get your degree?

Mike

[andrew whicker]

Mark H,

I think your woodworking is engineering! and I'm an engineer!

Haha, I sub out the FEA's (Finite Element Analyses). I think of it as: I get paid the big bucks because I can problem solve, not because I can run a software program. A lot of jobs on the market for engineering specifically ask for FEA experience though. So maybe I'm not an engineer after all.

In the end, I think what makes me an engineer is the ability (hopefully) to take knowledge from a bunch of different sources (experience, journals, text books, experts, etc) and produce a solution. That's the engineering part, in my opinion. That solution process requires you to ask the right questions that others would not ask. Proving it out via math is a tool you use to get to the end result (and many times you have a software package). Understanding the theory is the hard part. A person who has had decades of experience building ships can probably tell you why you are having an XYZ problem without software. That decision is coming from lots of thoughts, not just experience. That same person may pass off the calculations to a more junior engineer because the senior already understands the processes, calculations, theories and doesn't really care about the tiny tweaks the 3D software may provide.

Maybe that makes me old school, but I'm with you Mark.

Cheers,

PS: Long into the future, I would like contract. If I'm charging $200 / hr, my answer can't be: "well, let me run the FEA to see what's going on" during an emergency shutdown and the customer is losing a ba-zillion dollars a day. So I think of it as, if you are a good engineer you can make dang good recommendations on what appears to be 'not enough' data. The cheaper engineers are the ones that can't perform during a shutdown due to the need to create a science project. In my industry anyway, I wouldn't pay anyone big contract money during a crisis to just tell me they need to run 5 days of calculations.

IMHO of course.

[Mark Hennebury]

When an engineer meets a person who says that they are an engineer, the following two questions are probably going to be asked:

1. What was your specialty? Electrical, Mechanical, Petroleum, etc.?

2. Where did you get your degree?

Mike

Mike, you have been staring at my degree all week.

My Pedestal base joint was the highpoint of my first twenty years of woodworking.

It, is my degree.

It was proof that I had made the grade, I had learned to learn.
I had surpassed what was written and taught, and passed into a world of possibilities, an unchartered world to explore and find new truths. I had learned to see.

I no longer needed someone to hold my hand, someone to answer my questions, i have the tools to find the answers myself.

The pedestal base joint was designed with one purpose; the pursuit of absolute; to find the perfect proportions within the structure.
It took a lot of understanding of the nature of the material, and predictions of its behavior under the expected stresses.


As it is, it is probably the strongest structural pedestal base joint there is, and it still has room to be tweaked to find perfection.

It is a fundamental structure.

This is not a joint born of the benefits of the industrial revolution. It is not a novelty joint done with routers and jigs or on a CNC.
The joint is done, as it could have been done for a thousand years with traditional tools.


If designing this joint is such a trivial /obvious thing; (and assuming that it wasn't because the rest of the world simply couldn't be bothered...)

What is the probability that I am the only one to have designed it?


I don't need your friendship, i am not looking for entry into the brotherhood, don't want or need any titles.

All i have asked of you;
Is to look, to see without bias, and evaluate honestly. Broaden your horizons.

Forget what you feel about me, and look at what i am pointing out to you, it might be of some value.

[Mark Hennebury]

Hi Andrew,
Either you are the smartest of the bunch, or the only one that actually looked at the joint, either way you're the man.:)



Mark H,

I think your woodworking is engineering! and I'm an engineer!

Haha, I sub out the FEA's (Finite Element Analyses). I think of it as: I get paid the big bucks because I can problem solve, not because I can run a software program. A lot of jobs on the market for engineering specifically ask for FEA experience though. So maybe I'm not an engineer after all.

In the end, I think what makes me an engineer is the ability (hopefully) to take knowledge from a bunch of different sources (experience, journals, text books, experts, etc) and produce a solution. That's the engineering part, in my opinion. That solution process requires you to ask the right questions that others would not ask. Proving it out via math is a tool you use to get to the end result (and many times you have a software package). Understanding the theory is the hard part. A person who has had decades of experience building ships can probably tell you why you are having an XYZ problem without software. That decision is coming from lots of thoughts, not just experience. That same person may pass off the calculations to a more junior engineer because the senior already understands the processes, calculations, theories and doesn't really care about the tiny tweaks the 3D software may provide.

Maybe that makes me old school, but I'm with you Mark.

Cheers,

PS: Long into the future, I would like contract. If I'm charging $200 / hr, my answer can't be: "well, let me run the FEA to see what's going on" during an emergency shutdown and the customer is losing a ba-zillion dollars a day. So I think of it as, if you are a good engineer you can make dang good recommendations on what appears to be 'not enough' data. The cheaper engineers are the ones that can't perform during a shutdown due to the need to create a science project. In my industry anyway, I wouldn't pay anyone big contract money during a crisis to just tell me they need to run 5 days of calculations.

IMHO of course.

[Mark Hennebury]

Keep in mind that there are a multitude of solutions to a problem and the optimum solution entails cost, time, performance, regulatory, safety and other constraints and or requirements. An elegant solution is not always the best solution. Engineering involves dealing with all of these requirements and constraints. It seems that someine has some sort of bone to pick against engineers and this clouds their viewpoint. As a result they keep trying to present themself as capable as an engineer but lacking the prerequisite training.

Pat, i think you have a problem with me. forget me a think about what i have said, its not about me.

[Mike Henderson]

Mike, you have been staring at my degree all week.

My Pedestal base joint was the highpoint of my first twenty years of woodworking.

It, is my degree.

You may consider it a degree but to the rest of the world, a degree is something conferred by a university upon a person who has fulfilled the requirements specified by the university for that degree.

You sound like the woman I mentioned earlier who wanted the recognition of having completed a marathon but had only completed a three mile run.

If you want to be accepted as an "engineer" you need to get an engineering degree from an accredited college or university or drive a train.

Mike

[Malcolm McLeod]

"Molann an obair an saor." Doesn't mention anything about judging him by how long or what route he took to get there.





... a few of the engineers around here have lost their way, become slaves to the process, and forgotten that the sole reason for its existence is to to find solutions.
...

So happy to see you have not become judgmental.


Mike, you have been staring at my degree all week.

My Pedestal base joint was the highpoint of my first twenty years of woodworking.

It, is my degree.

It was proof that I had made the grade, I had learned to learn.
I had surpassed what was written and taught, and passed into a world of possibilities, an unchartered world to explore and find new truths. I had learned to see.

I no longer needed someone to hold my hand, someone to answer my questions, i have the tools to find the answers myself.

The pedestal base joint was designed with one purpose; the pursuit of absolute; to find the perfect proportions within the structure.
It took a lot of understanding of the nature of the material, and predictions of its behavior under the expected stresses.


As it is, it is probably the strongest structural pedestal base joint there is, and it still has room to be tweaked to find perfection.

It is a fundamental structure.

This is not a joint born of the benefits of the industrial revolution. It is not a novelty joint done with routers and jigs or on a CNC.
The joint is done, as it could have been done for a thousand years with traditional tools.


If designing this joint is such a trivial /obvious thing; (and assuming that it wasn't because the rest of the world simply couldn't be bothered...)

What is the probability that I am the only one to have designed it?


I don't need your friendship, i am not looking for entry into the brotherhood, don't want or need any titles.

All i have asked of you;
Is to look, to see without bias, and evaluate honestly. Broaden your horizons.

Forget what you feel about me, and look at what i am pointing out to you, it might be of some value.

Being very careful not to cherry-pick this last one ...!!!
I did a quick beam analysis on your structure. I did have to make some dimensional assumptions based on visual references, but result is probably +/-10%. You have approximately 3 to 4 times as much material in the structure as needed for the expected live load. I'm sure you can web-search and find the same.

How's that axe coming? Got a good edge on it yet? Or, is it just ground down to a nub?

[Mark Hennebury]

So happy to see you have not become judgmental.



Being very careful not to cherry-pick this last one ...!!!
I did a quick beam analysis on your structure. I did have to make some dimensional assumptions based on visual references, but result is probably +/-10%. You have approximately 3 to 4 times as much material in the structure as needed for the expected live load. I'm sure you can web-search and find the same.

How's that axe coming? Got a good edge on it yet? Or, is it just ground down to a nub?

Down to the nub.

Malcolm, i am so happy that you are upset with me enough to look at my joint. It's not perfect, by a long shot, i know. But you have learned a little about pedestal joints because of me; you're welcome.

Did you find a stronger one?

I wasn't looking for "expected live load" which i am sure you understand that anyway. And you will need to explain in detail what you're test involved, and what criteria you used to arrive at that conclusion.
I am seriously interested in your testing method, so please elaborate.

Show me a stronger version of that structure.

You have the entire internet, and the history of woodworking to prove me wrong.
If you cant find anything, Check out Japanese carpentry, they turned joinery into an art-form.


I am not your enemy. Just trying to get you to look at things with an open mind. Sorry that it upsets you, but if it gets you to look i am okay with being the asshole.

Run you're test on this joint below its kind of the standard that you will find in books; those crossmembers are halflaps.

And be sure and do a comparison with the Nakashima joint and my angled pedestal; I can take all that you can throw, so give it you're best shot.

If i am wrong the show me, I have put out everything in the open and you can humiliate if i am wrong. Show me.

Now we are having fun.

404630

[Dan Friedrichs]

If I want to know what the overwhelming majority of people think about “noises we make and all agree have a given meaning”, I look in a dictionary. Mr. Hennebury’s use of the word looks more like what I see in my dictionary than what you seem to think.

“The design, building, and use of engines, machines and structures.”

“The action of working artfully to bring something about.”


I can't disagree with that logic. However, if I were to hire an engineer (an activity I do with some regularity), I wouldn't be looking for someone who meets that definition...

Some folks, here, seem to be implying that engineering suffers from "Gatekeeping", where "we" only allow the educated, degreed, (and potentially licensed) into the "club". But that gatekeeping is nothing compared to what exists in law, medicine, or even trades. That was the premise of this thread, after all - that the title is used by many who have not gone through the "traditional" path into the profession.

I don't begrudge that, at all - but I profoundly disagree that artfulness, intuition, or trial-and-error are engineering. I also think it is an exceedingly rare person who possesses good engineering skills without formal training.

[Dan Friedrichs]

I think that a few of the engineers around here have lost their way, become slaves to the process, and forgotten that the sole reason for its existence is to to find solutions.
The process is but a tool, one of the many available to us.

The solution is the goal.

Mark, I respectfully submit that you're criticizing a process that you've admitted you're untrained in and don't understand.

[Mark Hennebury]

Hi Dan,
I am untrained and don't understand you're profession.
I have tried to understand.
I have offered a challenge as to whether your profession has the sole right to the term, not the profession, titles, privileges or responsibilities.
I have offered examples for evaluation, and all have been dismissed, mostly from what i can tell based on who did them, not on what was done.
The first one that i offered as an example was Filipo the Goldsmith, all was quiet.

Then i offered some of my solutions and process. It seems that the dismissal was all about me and the lack of membership rather than a discussion on the solutions or the process.

You could have schooled me on how engineers would have calculated a solution to the CNC router, and why they didn't.
You could have schooled me on how an engineer would have designed the cable switch, and why he didn't.
You could have told me how an engineer would have designed better joints than me, and why they didn't.
You could have explained why, what i do has no value, and why the solutions that i find are not as valuable as those of an engineer.
So far i haven't heard any of that.

If i showed you two items, could you tell which was designed by an engineer and which was designed by a non engineer, you know like blind taste testing or wine tasting, where you have to judge on what you see not your preconceived ideas, derived from labels?


Many of the comments that i have heard have nothing to do with the issue but are people who are angry at me and wish to take a shot at me.



Mark, I respectfully submit that you're criticizing a process that you've admitted you're untrained in and don't understand.

[Mark Hennebury]

You may consider it a degree but to the rest of the world, a degree is something conferred by a university upon a person who has fulfilled the requirements specified by the university for that degree.

You sound like the woman I mentioned earlier who wanted the recognition of having completed a marathon but had only completed a three mile run.

If you want to be accepted as an "engineer" you need to get an engineering degree from an accredited college or university or drive a train.

Mike

Mike, i am sure that you are a nice guy, and i am sorry that we got off on the wrong foot.
It seems that you cannot bring yourself to discuss the issues.