Talk:Engine

This  level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

morris da moose says this page sucks cause me spent like an hour searching for a pic of a car engine and not 1 found —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.169.87.243 (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain the difference between a motor and an engine in the article? basilwhite 18:45 EST Feb 11, 2006

this should be a disambiguation page. strictly, an engine is a device that converts heat into work. new uses of the word are obviously quite different

Yes, please add a disambiguation page. Was just looking for a link for "engine" in the "video game engine"/software sense.

I have also been puzzled by the difference between an "engine" and a "motor." I think this is a question that is best answered by someone who has the credentials to do so, but I would like to provide two references and state my opinion on the subject.

Frederick J. Carranti, P.E. of Syracuse University posted a message defining the two terms. He defines a motor as a "device which converts electrical energy into mechanical energy." Then he goes on to define engine as a "device that converts chemical energy or heat energy into mechanical energy."

The Wikipedia Article on Internal combustion engines states that "although the terms sometimes cause confusion, there is no real difference between an 'engine' and a 'motor.'" That statement is not referenced, so personally I do not find that to be a credible source for information.

I have yet to find any source that defines the two terms opposite of the first source that I referenced, therefore I think the controversy is only whether or not there is a difference.

I think the first source defined the difference well and should be taken into account in the related Wikipedia articles on the subject. I would, however, like there to be a more stable reference that can be cited rather than just a forum post. SpikeBoy 06:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An engine basically converts chemical energy (fuel) into kinetic energy. A motor does the opposite i.e. converts electrical energy into kinetic energy.

A generator set converts chemical energy (fuel) into kinetic energy then into electrical energy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.169.105 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is a motor car? Dolphin51 (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etymologically speaking, a "motor" is something that produces movement^[1]—whereas an "engine" is a device.^[2] For all intents and purposes, they are semantically equivalent (although an electric motor is usually implied by modern usage).^[3]--Aaagmnr (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A motor is a device that makes mechanical shaft power by conversion of some other form of energy. An engine does that through a heat cycle. You have an electrical motor, and a gasoline, or steam, or heat engine. An engine is a subset of motors.

The problem is that all of you must be too young and do not care about history. I am not old but I devour history-related stuff. Let me explain. You are all in 2022 but you must check the historic use of both words. Go back in time. Initially, no one used neither "engine" nor "motor". They used other words that might sound very funny now. In rough chronological order, in Greece, no later than the 1st. century BC, they called it aeolipile; in 1551 Ottoman Empire, Taqī al-Dīnin called it "spiritual machine" (do not ask me to write it in its original language, please, but it was used to turn a spit); in England, initially, professor Gerbertus did not even care to give a name to it but it was a part of his organ (not that "organ", you, filthy-minded Wikipedian); but later the English got steam jacks (yeah, spiritual machines!!). Finally, in 1606, the Spaniard Jerónimo de Ayanz y Beaumont got a patent for what he called "ingenios de vapor" (yes, you guessed right, engines!!!, in this case, steam engines). The English kept calling it "steam engine" as Ayanz did but the Spanish, at some point switched to "máquina de vapor"; and, in most European languages they call them "steam machines".

So, let us summarize a bit before we go even deeper: The steam engine WAS NOT a steam engine at those times. And a DC motor WAS not a DC motor. We use these terms as retronyms. Then, a lot of years later, the word "engine" got the spotlight and later, "motor". The former for steam engines and the latter for electric motors (DC only at those times).

Then, at some point, I guess around the end of the 19th century, they started to use the word "motor" for the internal combustion engines (ICEs). Even several companies and government agencies still keep this word as a part of their names, e. g., (Department of Motor Vehicles). And no one complained like you do because, at that time, they were already synonyms. I don't know when they started to use the word "motor" for electric motors. I do know they used funny names initially, too. Faraday called his motor "apparatus for revolution of wire and magnet". And by 1830s, it was strictly distinguished between the magnetic-electro machines, i.e. electric generators; and electro-magnetic machines, i.e. electric motors. But, I guess a good way to find out is to check all patents related to these inventions and check the words and names they used every year. So, that is your final project for the term, kids. Find out and then let me know. The best one gets extra credits!!

So, in short, "engine" and "motor" are indeed synonyms. At least, in the broad sense, they are and current dictionaries support such equivalence. An ICE is a motor and a DC motor is an engine.

Now, lets us talk about the state of things for other languages. In Spanish, they now only use "motor" and the word "ingenio" still exists but its use to mean "machinery" is now considered obsolete except for sugar mills which are called "ingenios azucareros". In French they use "engin" to designate a machine intended to supplement workers in their tasks of lifting, transport, excavation, construction, demolition, etc; and, they use "motor" for both engine and motor. In German, they use "motor". So, in most European languages, they DO NOT have this problem. Everything is a motor!!

So, now, you know it and I know it. But, let us stick to current convention for the sake of a healthy communication. So, what is the current convention? In fact there is a "general" convention with several "exceptions". The following 5 statements make up the general convention:

1. A prime-mover is an artifact that accomplishes minimally one of two functions: energy conversion. This function "follows" the other explained below.

2. The other possible function is fuel storage (a form of chemical energy storage); or, energy "generation" or energy storage (in the form of something that is not considered "fuel" in the strict sense). This function can be performed by the prime-mover or, by an additional device. Whether the additional device is considered a part or not of the prime-mover is material for another lengthy discussion. However, only if this function is being carried out, the one mentioned above can kick in. Not the other way around.

3. Prime-movers can be classified as engines or motors. (Remember that this is the CURRENT convention and it has been changing and may continue to do so).

4. The other function of an engine is fuel storage.

5. The other function of a motor is energy generation (e. g., a dynamo); or, non-fuel energy storage (e. g., electric battery).

Now comes the most shocking thing: STEAM ENGINES ARE NOT ENGINES, THEY ARE MOTORS!!! I will explain this below:

Steam engines, FIRSTLY, GENERATE the steam (which is the working fluid of this heat engine). This steam holds the energy needed as input by the steam engine to continually operate. How the engine generates the steam maybe considered irrelevant. What we should now mention now is that there is an "external" combustion to accomplish that generation of energy. You might even think that another engine (where the external combustion is happening) is such engine. Additionally, this "generation" of energy may be misleading for the students of Thermodynamics (energy can only be transformed) but this "generation" is simply a "previous" transformation of energy. The output energy of this previous transformation is used as input energy by the steam engine.

Steam engines, SECONDLY, CONVERT the energy kinetic energy of the steam to produce mechanical work. The extended version of this process starts with heat which is the flow of thermal energy into the steam. This thermal energy is molecularly associated with the kinetic energy of the steam. The kinetic energy of the steam is transferred to one or more pistons when the steam exerts work on them. And from then on, several pieces of machinery allow the "transmission" of this kinetic energy (with losses obviously as this is the real world, guys).

Now, remember, stick to the convention and ALSO to exceptions. Steam engines are an exception. Rocket motors are an exception (fortunately, many call them engines).

I have to say that, of all the languages I speak, English is the only one that currently uses two words the usage of which is currently based, purposely or by chance, on the general convention with its very few exceptions.

(This was the "short" version. The "real deal" is in one of my storage media).

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if this is 2022 then why are you answering a question from 2010?  Stepho  talk  07:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"An engine is something that produces some effect from a given input." Sorry, "some effect"? Mechanical/Kinetic energy may fit better?

This section is extremely skewed. After a huge time jump from the previous section, it briefly hints that other types of engine have existed and then goes on to the history of the internal combustion engine - which ought to be covered by internal combustion engine.

This should be the top-level article linking into the various types of steam engine, various types of ICE, and other engines, which surely include windmills, watermills, HEP turbines, etc, etc EdJogg 00:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree totally. And with removal of most of ICE stuff. Intro is horrible, Usage and Antiquity sections are on the right path. Someone get editing ! Jimbowley (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An internal combustion engine is not a heat engine. They take in fuel and output work. Combustion of the fuel/air increases the temperature of the working fluid, not heat transfer. Heat engines take in heat and output work. For example, Stirling engines, steam engines and steam turbine (Rankine) cycles are heat engines. Heat engines can involve the burning of fuel or not. If fuel is burned it is strictly to create a hot medium which will then transfer heat into the heat engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.147.25 (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Again an aircraft will have many motors installed for operation of its many auxiliary operations and services, but aircraft are propelled by engines, in this case, jet engines." This is not strictly accurate. Not all aircraft have multiple motors, not all even have an engine(s), as in the case of gliders and balloons. Also, not all aircraft that use an engine(s) use jet engines, as in the case of prop planes. If there is no objection in the next month or so I will remove the sentence. 67.160.147.2 (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

......A "turbo prop" IS a turbine powered aircraft engine. Everyone please remember, there IS a difference between a engine and a motor. Motors (with the exception of new brushless motors)have windings, commutator and brushes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.18.140 (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "IS" in all caps isn't an argument, it's just shouting. As has been sufficiently cited at Engine, some reliable sources say engine and motor are not the same, but other reliable sources do say, in spite of the chagrin it may cause, that an engine is a motor and a motor is an engine. No matter how much one group or another wants to prescribe politically correct (or scientifically correct or engineeringly correct) language, the rest of the world is not obligated to fall into line. People misuse words, and those who would punish them for it aren't always able to do so.

A Wikipedia article that fails to inform readers that some sources don't use a technical term in the way that a certain group of engineers approves of is concealing true information simply because a group doesn't like it. As a matter of policy, Wikipedia is not censored. See also Linguistic prescription, Political correctness, etc. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this sentenct from the lead paragraph of the Drive shaft article: "Most engines or motors deliver power as torque through rotary motion: this is extracted from the linear motion of pistons in a reciprocating engine; water driving a water wheel; or forced gas or water in a turbine." Rather than just destroying it, I'm placing it here in case anyone wants to merge it into this Engine article, where it may be more appropriate. -- Another Stickler (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence (or some other explanation to this effect) should definitely appear here.

Together the explanation about different cases, where Linear motors do otherwise.

Thinking about it.... Should the Magnetohydrodynamic drive also be mentioned? 2A02:908:898:9640:0:0:0:F17 (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...because it is of a coffee machine, not an engine!! (Sorry, I hit return before edit summary was finished.) EdJogg (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that section links to itself multiple times, it is redundant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.212.38 (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new section should be added to the article called Engine cooling. I placed a link at the see also section, but this is not enough, it needs its own section in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.57.202 (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And why? Seems to me that is a detail best covered on the page about the Internal combustion engine. This is a general page; I don't see any need to clutter it up with technical details, especially as the cooling system of an engine is really a separate system, not a part of the actual engine itself..45Colt 14:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)

The ranges you can produce from a real engine are so vast why bother including statistics that are destined to be wrong? Emissions vary based on air fuel ratios, load, cyclinder geometry, catalytic converter, etc. etc. etc. I can pick a couple of the figures stated here as wrong straight away based on an emmisions test I got on my own car, the rest are arguable at best. Modern cars are very clean in comparison to a few decades ago, let's hear about all those technologies, not what a 5 litre V8 released in the 70's. And rather than a roundabout way of attributing global warming to engines, let's hear a real statistic about the conribution of private-owned automotive engines to the greenhouse effect, e.g. jackdiddlysquat% 192.198.151.37 (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the definition to An engine is a generator that produces mechanical force and motion from another form of energy (eg a fuel source, compressed gas (eg air) or electricity). [1]It is also referred to as a prime mover.

A engine is a generator as seen at the generator article

This is more clear to understand and more accurate ? I'm guessing that a generator that generates mechanical force from another mechanical force or a fuel from a mechanical force (eg as with flowing water, ... as a power source) isn't called anything at all (weirdly enough). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.90.148 (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light to make the articles even more in line the definition could btw be changed to An engine or mechanical generator —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.90.148 (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be mostly about internal combustion engines, but steam engines, electric motors, gas turbines (that are not necessarily driven by steam or internal combustion), external combustion engines are more where it needs to be. It needs to cover everything; it's not about horizontally opposed versus anything; that's in internal combustion.

It's just all wrong right now.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you've done just that. Is it OK now? (The high level of vandalism means that I don't actively watch this page, and I haven't visited recently -- I've only looked briefly at the diffs since 22nd Sept, of which there are many(!), not the finished article.)

In November 09, you removed this section:

The term is used in computer science in "search engine", "3-D graphics game engine", "rendering engine" and "text-to-speech engine", even though these "engines" are not mechanical and cause no mechanical action (this usage may have been inspired by the "difference engine", an early mechanical computing device^{[citation needed]}). — EdJogg , — (continues after insertion below.)

No, because articles aren't defining terms, they're defining things. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.- Wolfkeeper 16:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a search engine (eg) is a 'thing', albeit one in the strange world of software...? -- EdJogg (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but is it the same kind of thing? The kind of thing we're covering in this article is something that turns some form of energy into motion. That's not what a search 'engine' does.

That's what I'm saying, just because they're referred to (in English, and not necessarily any other language) as 'engine', doesn't mean that they are engines in the sense of the article. That's the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia; a dictionary is specifically about the word itself and all that things that it refers to, an encyclopedia is about a thing or a single type of thing that a phrase refers to.- Wolfkeeper 14:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that use of the word 'engine' in these instances warranted a mention here. (Also, how does the word 'engineer' relate?) -- EdJogg (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's normally OK to mention it, but you shouldn't cover it, not even in subarticle summary format.- Wolfkeeper 14:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia already has numerous articles about engines that are not heat engines, such as search engines and other computer software. They are all listed at Engine (disambiguation). There is no need to turn the primary article on Engine into another disambiguation page. Dolphin (t) 23:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Please help by viewing the entry for this article shown at the cleanup page, and check the edits to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed. Tobby72 (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All well and good, but a liquid rocket is powered by engines and a solid rocket is powered by motors. As both are doing exactly the same thing (providing motive force to a vehicle) in pretty much the same way (converting chemical energy into kinetic energy), this begs the question as to whether you guys have difinitively resolved the engine vs. motor thingie. In 30 years as a combustion engineer (including solid rockets, gas turbines, and diesels), I never bothered to resolve this question, heard anyone explain it, or even ask someone (like a professor), but I suspect it may have something to do with thermodynamic cycles. Engines generally are following one (diesel engines, gas turbines, liquid rockets, etc.), while motors don't (solid rockets, electic motors, etc.) - just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.139 (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the word "motor" link to here? An engine is different from a motor. Whether it's a stub or not, there needs to be a separate article for a motor. The two can not be interchangeable here, and it is incorrect usage of terminology. ForestAngel (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 11:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the redirect and created a page distinctly for motor. It's pretty empty, but hopefully, for the time being, it can exist to create the distinction and quell confusion between an "engine" and a "motor."--JC Berger (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get agreement here before splitting the article.Embrittled (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's too pedantic a distinction for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia should not say it's wrong to call an engine a motor. Because it's not wrong; it's perfectly correct English. Redirect Motor here and stick one line in Engine somewhere saying in some highly formal circumstances the distinction between motor and engine is considered important. Like maybe on an exam or something you'd get a point taken off. Who else cares? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is important to find out is how we started to use the word "motor" instead of engine to refer to an internal combustion engine (ICE). The steam-powered machines dominated the power market and I guess someone decided to use the word "motor" to get some distance from the past. I also guess something similar happened with the DC motor. But, I am pretty sure the inventors and early innovators of the DC motor never used the word "motor" as I am quite sure the inventors of the ICE never used the word "motor" either. I know Benz used the word "motor" in his patented car. There are several companies and government agencies bearing the word "motor" as a reminder of that (marketing?) decision. However, the word "engine" came back to claim its rightful place, so no one checks the motor of his car but the engine nowadays. George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just found an interesting (recent) article at the Oxford English Dictionary site about the evolution of the word 'engine':

Link: Aspects of English --> Word Stories --> "engine"

It may help further shape this article. (Not by me, though, this time I'm just passing through...) -- EdJogg (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that's some interesting stuff. I'd like to see something about that on here as well; I think it's relevant to the topic. Only I'm not much of an editor, and I don't know if that is considered reference material or not. Seems legit to me..45Colt 14:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)

overunity motors via youtube

magnetic motors

magnetic engines

magnetic generators

Don548 (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even think about adding such crackpot pseudo science anywhere that isn't clearly labelled as a wiki pseudoscience zone. They do not belong anywhere near this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they are engines/motors in the sense that they use the potential energy of the magnets to move a bit, move a bit to the point where they come to a complete and total halt ;-). It would probably be a learning point for the readers to actually include them; they might learn something (like why they don't do anything useful).Rememberway (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are nothing of the sort. Don548's links are describing "free energy" or "overunity" motors. These are not some mere "stored energy" device (we should probably have an article on rubberband motor after all), they are fraudulent attempts to claim a fantastical device exists, when it clearly does not. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are stored energy devices, not overunity. The guy running the video usually charges them up with their hand... and then they do something as the magnets get on average closer together.Rememberway (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And they're not usually fraudulent, just totally clueless ;-) These kinds of videos are so funny. I often watch them just for a laugh. "all I have to do is put an electromagnet..." ... um no?Rememberway (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But seriously, I think that the Wikipedia has a duty to point them to where they can best get a clue. We are supposed to be a educational and reference tool after all.Rememberway (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that debunking fakery is within the encyclopedic scope. However this has to be done clearly as such, so it should take place in articles that are clearly about that, nothing else. We shouldn't mix it in with articles on real engines or motors. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We just need to stick to reliable sources and NPOV. I must admit I don't know of any reliable source treatment of it, but there may well be.Rememberway (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the combustion efficiency section is referring to the early 20th century, when four cylinders had about 40 hp and V-8s had what? The 1930s Ford flathead V8 engine had about 65 hp. It doesn't make sense to compare 1920-1930 40 hp I4s with 1960s and later 250-450 hp V-8s. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, typical European small cars did have that sort of power in the 1960's. A VW Beetle had a 36hp engine. A Mini had about the same. Perhaps some were making more, but even sports cars rarely broke 100hp back then. I suppose 60hp is a more realistic number on average. Only expensive and/or large cars had more power. But, during this period there were lots of American 2-barrel V8's making only about 150hp, and there were also lots of straight-six powered cars sold in the US that often fell under or around 100hp. I agree that this sentence is generalizing and misleading. MOST cars sold in the US were not hi-po versions. .45Colt 13:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)

I know this has been hashed over ten thousand times, but the sentence saying " An engine is a device that burns or otherwise consumes fuel, changing its chemical composition, whereas a motor is a device driven by electricity, which does not change the chemical composition of its energy source" is wrong. A motor does NOT have to be driven by electricity, hence "pneumatic motor", etc. Perhaps a motor is a device that converts energy into motion, but it does not have to be powered by electricity. And just as my two cents, I subscribe to the school of thought that says a motor is something that powers or imparts motion, while an engine is something that converts heat into work. Therefore, a an engine is a type of motor, but a motor is not an engine. .45Colt 13:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)

I have been editing this article for some time now and am currently attempting to clean it up: indeed, among the most teething problems are that it covers combustion engines too deeply and often repeats content in certain areas. I am open to suggestions and would not mind some help with areas concerning engines other than petrol engines. Hayazin (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know security is not Wikipedia's issue, but has anyone noticed the amount of anonymous vandalism constantly occurring on this page and how many edits are constantly reverted either by registered users or by ClueBot? Maybe it's the wrong page on which to talk about this subject, but it's been disturbing me. I started some months ago a personal effort to give this page some new life, and it's been only preserved. And if it occurs on this page, it can certainly spread to more vital articles.

Just felt like I had to say it. Hayazin (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broad scope articles like "engine" or "steam locomotive" don't work under WP's "everyone can edit" model. Stop worrying about it, you'll go mad otherwise. Also no-one needs an article on "engines", everyone knows what they are already (and Randy keeps telling us this). Work on the questions that need answering instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it is easy for anyone to edit articles, there will be people who vandalise articles. Disenfranchised people use vandalism as a way to say "Take notice of me, I exist!" This is human nature. We can't solve all the world's issues, so we just keep cleaning up our corner of the world and get on with life.  Stepho  talk  10:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Engine/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The definition of engine presently in wikipedia represents a cultural bias toward perception of an engine as a mechanical device that imparts motion. In essence an engine is a product of our genious, a devising of our ingenuity. It can perform any function, a microscope, a mathematical process for detecting significant data among raw data, a software graphics engine. Examples can be found in the Oxford dictionary. A motor is an engine that imparts motion. Noel Fuller 123.100.105.241 (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 00:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.bartleby.com/65/in/intern-co.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821175006/http://reference.howstuffworks.com:80/hydraulic-engine-encyclopedia.htm to http://reference.howstuffworks.com/hydraulic-engine-encyclopedia.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218171021/http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%2071.htm to http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%2071.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204034636/http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/thurston/1878/Chapter1.html to http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/thurston/1878/Chapter1.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://reference.howstuffworks.com/hydraulic-engine-encyclopedia.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

engine (disambiguation) states An engine is a device that converts potential energy into mechanical work.

however, this article says

Motor and engine later came to be used largely interchangeably in casual discourse. However, technically, the two words have different meanings. An engine is a device that burns or otherwise consumes fuel, changing its chemical composition, whereas a motor is a device driven by electricity, air, or hydraulic pressure, which does not change the chemical composition of its energy source.[4] However, rocketry uses the term rocket motor, even though they consume fuel.

as I read this I think of the context of a gravity battery driving an electric motor

should the description in engine (disambiguation) be made more specific?

My intuition is that wikipedia would be better off with *all* 'overloaded' words being a disambiguation page, to force users to think twice about what context they really mean (engine (motor), whatever..)

MfortyoneA (talk) 07:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an urban legend. The overwhelming majority of sources say that motor and engine are interchangeable. These claims "technically, the two words have different meanings" are copiously lacking in sources. The weasel word "technically" is a red flag. "Technically" in what field? Physics? Law? The reason scolds get so angry when you "misuse" engine and motor is that they don't have a case. They lack sources and they know it. I would challenge anyone to show widespread sourcing for the definitions "A motor is a mechanical or electrical device that creates motion" and "An engine is a device that converts potential energy into mechanical work." Any reliable dictionary will tell you that both engine and motor mean any kind of device that converts any form of energy into work or motion. All these pages, engine, engine (disambiguation) and motor (disambiguation) should be changed to respect the sources, and remove the unsourced opinions and original research. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I can say is that 'motor' makes me initially think of vehicles, whereas the word 'engine' seems equally applicable in static installations. but again I don't have any precise definition. of course a 3d printer (and plenty of industrial equipment) would have 'electric motors' aswell. hmmm. MfortyoneA (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does it make what anyone "thinks of"? Look at the sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What somebody thinks is not useful as a definition in the article. However, common perceptions and misconceptions are very useful in discussions about the article so that we know how to present the definition.  Stepho  talk  04:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some dictionary definitions:

• http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/engine - a machine that uses the energy from liquid fuel or steam to produce movement
• http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/motor - a device that changes electricity or fuel into movement and makes a machine work
• https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/motor - any of various power units that develop energy or impart motion
• https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/engine - a machine for converting any of various forms of energy into mechanical force and motion

Major dictionaries seem to agree that 'motor' and 'engine' are the same thing. Counter examples are, of course, welcome. I suspect the split came about when hybrids became popular. The internal combustion engine was sometimes called a motor and sometimes an engine depending on where you live. Electric motors were always called motors. So it makes sense to keep calling the electric motor as the motor and then force the oily part to take the other choice - engine. My 3¢ worth of armchair etymology.  Stepho  talk  04:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I amended the offending explanation on the disambiguation page. It now better matches what is stated at Engine. See my diff. Dolphin (t) 13:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The words motor and engine are interchangeable." There is the assignment of terms electric motor and combustion engine that comes about not just from convention, but because of the common intuition about the meaning of words having an understanding of differences. So while there may be a combustion motor, there is yet to be an electrical engine (even though the links say the opposite). It seems "engine" is loaned onto objects which are complex and whose workings come from some some combustion like principle. A lot of this may be just because the word "engine" is bound to old-type motors and there is a need (a need of the natural language) to reserve the word "motor" for new-type engines. -Inowen (nlfte) 07:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, such reasoning is based on anecdotes and folk law. Eg, in England they often talk about a 'motor' in their car and often call the entire car a 'motor' (short for 'motorcar' and similar to how some people shorten 'automobile' to 'auto') - but this is just popular slang. In more technical circles, steam engines are often split into the gas generator (eg, the boiler) and the motor (eg the piston assembly which converts steam pressure into motion) - but that is just convention in a certain field. For diesel electric locomotives, they talk about 'traction motors' for the electric motors connected to the wheels. The gist of 'engine' is something that produces work. Or even more general, something that produces an effect (eg the engine of the Earth produces a magnetic field). The gist of 'motor' is something that produces motion (ie a particular form of work). But its all vague and fuzzy and I would be reluctant to make it more specific than that.  Stepho  talk  10:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any "need" to reserve motor for one thing and engine for another, this need hasn't been demonstrated. Who is it who needs this distinction to be made? Why? There is copious evidence that engine and motor are almost always synonyms. A slight connotation can exist, but it's usually not there. These are facts. There's absolutely zero evidence that it's "wrong" to use the as synonyms in standard English, and if you try "correcting" anyone this way, you make a fool of yourself.

The error we see repeatedly with engine and motor is someone pedantically lecturing "Well, ACTUALLY..." and claiming there is a "technical" difference, without defining for us what "technically" is supposed to mean. In rare and obscure cases where you are in some narrow field in which there needs to be a distinction between these two terms, you can agree to observe this distinction about motion and energy. But any such distinction doesn't carry over into general use. The OED definitions emphasize that they are usually the same thing: motor A machine that supplies motive power for a vehicle or other device with moving parts; (in later use) esp. one powered by electricity, internal combustion, or compressed air. Cf. engine n. 9. engine 9. The part of a car, boat, aircraft, or other vehicle which provides propulsive force; (in later use) esp. one powered by internal combustion. Cf. motor n. 5a, power plant n. dictionary.com says motor a comparatively small and powerful engine, especially an internal-combustion engine in an automobile, motorboat, or the like. engine: a machine for converting thermal energy into mechanical energy or power to produce force and motion. The first synonym for motor? engine. And vice versa. American Heritage is one of the few dictionaries that takes anything like a strong position: engine a. A machine that converts energy into mechanical force or motion. b. Such a machine distinguished from an electric, spring-driven, or hydraulic motor by its use of a fuel. And yet... A-H says motor A device that converts any form of energy into mechanical energy, especially an internal-combustion engine or an arrangement of coils and magnets that converts electric current into mechanical power.

Again and again and again dictionaries tell us a motor can be internal combustion OR electric.

You can't call this usage slang. That's incorrect. Not a single dictionary does that. The closest we can come to that is Encarta Dictionary that says it is "informal" to all an automotive engine a motor. Besides taht outlier, they all treat it as standard English.

Terms like hopefully or literally, could still be called problematic in a few circles, but engine and motor don't even come close to those. This article can say it's true that a few have guys tried to push everyone into making a strong distinction between motor and engine, but clearly they lost. It never caught on because they never showed us their evidence, because they have none. Wikipedia shouldn't be giving any support to this myth, other than mentioning it in passing, and reassuring readers that it's not wrong to say a car has a motor, which is the engine, a rocket has a motor, which is the engine. Does anyone every say "electric engine"? Yes: [1][2], etc. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are language tendencies which are found in England which even English people would say are of strictly 'English English' form and wouldn't likely be found in other places as these things don't develop naturally and instead are rather quirky in origin. There is also what is in the Common Language spoken by Americans and others which has differences which seem to add up. The "need" I spoke of above was qualified to natural language, where what people speak comes about by the people honoring what it is people need to be able to say, and not by what some old queen or other wants. -Inowen (nlfte) 23:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't a time when the root of engine meant "produces power by consuming fuel", excluding turbines or electric motors. The word engine existed before electricity, and before internal combustion. The Latin root means genius, cleverness, and sometimes trickery. There's definitely no argument that the current equivalence of motor and engine is a degenerate usage. The desire to drive a wedge between the words seems to begin in the mid 20th century, and never caught on. Anyway, a really good discussion of this by an MIT professor is What’s the difference between a motor and an engine?

We're going to need to rewrite engine (disambiguation) and motor (disambiguation) to stop pushing this false distinction. The statements we have now, "An engine is a device that converts energy in one form into mechanical energy" and "A motor is a mechanical or electrical device that creates motion", are contradicted by too many sources, which say those are only particular definitions, but they are in no way the primary definitions. They should say some thing like "An engine is a machine that powers a vehicle or device, especially one that converts energy or fuel into mechanical energy. In standard English engine and motor are synonyms, while in some specialized jargon they are distinct." and "A motor is a machine that provides power to a vehicle or device, especially one powered by electricity, or fluid flow. In standard English engine and motor are synonyms, while in some specialized jargon they are distinct." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience "engine" and "motor" are absolutely not interchangeable. (I'm on the West Coast of the US, if that matters.) "Engines" are big, powerful, dirty, rumbling things that put off fumes and need regular servicing, while "motors" are little electrical things. If you said, "The motor in my car is really loud," people would probably wonder if you were talking about the motor for your fans or your windshield wipers or something. Likewise, if you started talking about the "engine" in your vacuum cleaner (or in your garbage disposal, or your wall clock, or your ceiling fan, or your wristwatch), people would look at you like you'd grown a second head. And I honestly can't remember a time or place it's ever been otherwise. We would also say that a diesel locomotive has big "engines", while a streetcar has an electric "motor".

Are you seriously saying that people where you're from would ask you to take a look at the engine in their garbage disposal, or say the engine in their wristwatch needs to be serviced? --Infinitum11 (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously saying that your anecdotal experience in your localised area must absolutely apply to the rest of the world? The British often refer to the motor in their car. If you don't know that then I find it hard to take you seriously as a knowledgeable expert in worldwide usage. For 2 uses of 'electric engine, see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-31/there-s-a-5-600-electric-moonshot-for-your-combustion-clunker and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwbkxVpoYEM .  Stepho  talk  21:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Infinitum11:You are writing about the common usage of these two words in the region where you live. What is written in Wikipedia must be based on reliable published sources to allow independent verification - see WP:VERIFY. Dolphin (t) 21:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dolphin51:I looked at the cited entries in Merriam Webster and Dictionary.com. One dictionary makes engines sound like a kind of motor, and the other dictionary makes a motor sound like a kind of engine. I don't see these sources using the same definitions for both terms. Why would the article include a sentence saying the two terms are synonymous, when the cited sources don't say that? It seems like that sentence should be deleted. It seems to assert something beyond what the dictionaries are saying; and there seem to be many people here, presumably all native English speakers and presumably not anywhere close to me, who disagree with that assertion as well. --Infinitum11 (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If an engine is a type of motor and a motor is a type of engine, then that is practically the definition of synonymous.  Stepho  talk  11:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can clarify. You are all in 2022 but you must check the historic use of both words. Go back in time. Initially, no one used neither "engine" nor "motor". They used other words that might sound very funny now. The steam engine WAS NOT a steam engine at those times. And a DC motor WAS not a DC motor. We use these terms as retronyms. Then, a lot of years later, the word "engine" got the spotlight and later, "motor". The former for steam engines and the latter for electric motors (DC only at those times). Then, at some point, I guess around the end of the 19th century, they started to use the word "motor" for the ICEs (several companies and government agencies still keep this word as a part of their names). And no one complained like you do because at that time, they were already synonyms. (https://books.google.com.ec/books?id=hygxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA3). I don't know when they started to use the word "motor" for electric motors. But, I guess a good way to find out is to check all patents related to these inventions and check the words they used every year. So, in short, they are synonyms. But, I think it is wise to stick to the current usage of both words to avoid confusion. An ICE is a motor and a DC motor is an engine. You know it and I know it. But, let us stick to current convention for the sake of a healthy communication. George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing that we merge some of the contents from there after carving out all the original research and unverifiable statements. There's no reason to have a separate page each for yacht engine, train engine, motorcycle engine, tank engine, lawn mower engine and so on. Graywalls (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose First of all, we should have articles on motorcycle engine, marine diesel engine etc. Engine is a huge topic, and sub-articles is entirely appropriate.

Secondly, this article is not here to decribe an engine type, but to describe a particular and somewhat arcane term related to them. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

alternate target could be locomotive terms list. Graywalls (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose For most laymen, an engine is a part of a vehicle, such as the engine in a car, truck, motorcycle, plane. The use of engine to mean an entire vehicle such as a railway locomotive is a specialist term. I would not merge them.  Stepho  talk  20:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Very confused I cannot work out what the current underlying naming concept is! Prime mover (engine) redirects to Engine. And there is Locomotive. And there is Prime mover (tractor unit). In line with Andy Dingley above, as far as I can tell Prime mover (locomotive) should be renamed to Locomotive (engine)? Aoziwe (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify for the confused, a prime mover is not a locomotive as a whole, it's the main engine in a diesel-electric locomotive. The term is used to distinguish the diesel engine from the electric traction motors; the prime mover turns a generator that supplies power to the traction motors that actually turn the wheels.

I agree with Andy that engines are a broad enough topic to have daughter articles on specific classes, and so oppose a merger. I do think there does need to be some clarification of the titles and redirects, but no merger. oknazevad (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.236.236 (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What? Can you explain in sentences of more than one word ?  Stepho  talk  00:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I found the article earlier today, the lead was stuck in a pedagogic rut and not doing a great job of painting a broad picture or summarizing the article content. I took a stab at this, and added a fair amount of new material. The resulting prose strikes me as adequate, but not great. Perhaps I went slightly deeper into the weeds on emissions than I should have, but that's a hot topic these days (pardon my small pun).

In any case, I'm a fly-by-night editor, who visits many articles, often makes a small change, sometimes makes a more substantive, and then moves along to the next thing. In order to travel light, I take little ownership in my past contributions; feel free to edit at will. — MaxEnt 04:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]