[HN Gopher] What's the difference between a motor and an engine?...
___________________________________________________________________
What's the difference between a motor and an engine? (2013)
Author : wizardforhire
Score : 117 points
Date : 2024-05-22 12:21 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (engineering.mit.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (engineering.mit.edu)
| mikece wrote:
| One thing that jumped out at me is that the word engine, in its
| historic understanding, would apply quite well to the Rube
| Goldberg drawings of overly complex contraptions to do various
| tasks... which means it would also apply to most enterprise
| architectures which are similarly overly complex.
| rkagerer wrote:
| Yeah, it doesn't look like the alternative definition
| "instrument of torture, an apparatus for catching game, a net,
| trap, or decoy" has lost utility just yet.
| JohnFen wrote:
| This was fascinating to me.
|
| Also, I was apparently using my own personal definition of
| "engine" that was somewhat different than the other modern usage.
|
| To me, a "motor" is something that translates energy into motion.
| An "engine" is something that translates energy into work. So a
| motor is a kind of engine, and uses of "engine" in knowledge work
| is an analogy.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Your engine definition is interesting as we have phrases like
| database engine and other software based uses of the word.
| Tagbert wrote:
| I think, once you get past mechanics, the definitions are
| going to diverge pretty quickly.
| nemo44x wrote:
| You used the word "translates" instead of "transforms" or
| "transfers". Is there a particular reason for that?
| JohnFen wrote:
| No, not really. Just my particular linguistic oddity.
| "Transform" is probably a better term.
| nemo44x wrote:
| Cool, thanks. Figured it was just a preference as I hadn't
| really heard that before. Works though!
| foolswisdom wrote:
| That actually fits well with the origin of the words (as
| described in the article). And it makes sense because engine is
| sometimes used metaphorically (?) (as you note), while motor is
| not.
| LinAGKar wrote:
| What would count as "work" under that definition (that's not
| motion)?
| JohnFen wrote:
| Yeah, the distinction is a bit fuzzy. I can come up with some
| examples, such as certain kinds of pumps that don't involve
| moving parts.
|
| But when I think of things I call "motors" and "engines", I
| admit the distinction appears arbitrary (but clear
| nonetheless in my mind). For instance, if there's a device
| that moves things as a component of a larger machine, I'd
| call that device a "motor", but am likely to call the larger
| machine an "engine". And to go back to the pump, I'd call the
| device that moves to push the liquid a "motor", not an
| "engine", for no good reason.
|
| As with much of English, this "rule" has enough exceptions as
| to question whether or not it should be called a "rule".
|
| I put "rule" is scare quotes because what I was originally
| describing is decidedly not a rule at all, just a description
| of how I tend to use those words.
| msravi wrote:
| My personal definition of "engine" had to have something
| combustible inside it that caused motion. So fossil fueled cars
| and buses and rockets had steam engines and internal combustion
| engines and rocket engines, but electric cars like tesla have
| motors!
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| Steam isn't combustible? What about the Stirling engine,
| powered by heat gradient and air?
| jabl wrote:
| Steam engines and Stirling engines are both examples of
| "External Combustion Engines", whereas piston engines and
| gas turbines are examples of "Internal Combustion Engines"
| (ICE).
| cm2187 wrote:
| But you don't say "jet motor". I think it's probably like pork
| vs pig. They are technically the same but the language has come
| to use one vs the other in a different context (food vs
| animal).
| vlachen wrote:
| I think that's just a matter of jargon. As an aircraft
| mechanic, I heard and spoke the phrase "Pull the motor on
| aircraft..." Many times. We used engine and motor
| interchangebly on an engine thrust powered aircraft.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Aren't there large areas of the anglophone world where "motor" =
| _electric_ motor and "engine" = something that burns fuel to
| turn?
| JohnFen wrote:
| In my part of the US, anyway, gas car engines are usually
| called "engines", but calling them "motors" is not that unusual
| and wouldn't raise any eyebrows.
|
| There are a few auto repair shops around here that even call
| themselves "motorworks".
| hunter2_ wrote:
| Alongside motorworks there are countless others: motorcycle,
| motorboat, motorway, motorhome, motel (hotel that you motor
| to), motor oil, motor mounts, etc. etc.
| geodel wrote:
| And Car used to be called Motor Car for as long as I
| remember in my country.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > motel (hotel that you motor to)
|
| When I was a child, I remember seeing some such
| accommodations calling themselves "motor hotels" or "motor
| lodges".
| hunter2_ wrote:
| "Motor inn" is still quite common.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| Obviously named accordingly since vehicles like this all
| contain an engine ;)
| jabl wrote:
| And then we have "motorhead", which, well, I'll let the
| reader work out what it means if unclear. ;)
| omoikane wrote:
| It's common to find references to "rocket motors", so it isn't
| always electric. Wikipedia now redirects "rocket motors" to
| "rocket engines", but "motor" is still used throughout those
| pages.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocket_motor&redi...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solid_rocket_moto...
| jandrese wrote:
| From what I've seen the "rocket motor" motor was mostly due
| to the packaging on the hobby rockets. Another example of how
| a single company can make a huge impact not only on society,
| but language itself.
| kobalsky wrote:
| for comparison, engine translates to motor in spanish, so both
| words are the same.
|
| engineer is translated as ingeniero, which originates from
| ingenious and not engine.
| gattilorenz wrote:
| Engine itself comes from ingenium:
| https://www.etymonline.com/word/engine
| JR1427 wrote:
| Yes, this is true in the UK (at least amongst people who know
| the difference between an electric motor and an ICE)
| martyvis wrote:
| Ullo John. Gotta new motor?
| https://youtu.be/7MqMZ6XqMfc?si=wwIVzKeDE7bdX2U2
| JR1427 wrote:
| Yes, a "motor" can also mean "car", but it does not mean
| "internal combustion engine".
| crazygringo wrote:
| Yes, this was absolutely always my colloquial understanding.
|
| I realize that there are traditional terms like a "motor car"
| that has an engine.
|
| But my ICE car has an engine, not a motor, because it burns
| fuel.
|
| While my coffee grinder has a motor, not an engine, because
| it's electric.
|
| I'm curious if there's anywhere in the anglophone world where
| this is _not_ the common distinction.
|
| (Even if there might be technical fields that have their own
| different technical definitions.)
| dylan604 wrote:
| In modern day usage, I would never refer to an electric motor as
| an electric engine or just engine, but I don't know why. Maybe
| just because I have never heard nor seen it used referred to as
| electric engine. So it just sounds/feels weird to say/type it.
| That is the opposite from definitely referring to an ICE as a
| motor.
|
| English is just weird.
| ozim wrote:
| It is weird if you look from top down view like organized
| "Queens English".
|
| Truth is people just made stuff -bottom up- if some phrase was
| used it just spread out or not.
|
| It is that even rather close neighbors might use different
| names or phrases for the same thing or same names for different
| things.
|
| Even if at school you learn a generic version.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > Even if at school you learn a generic version.
|
| On a slight tangent, I took 3 years of Spanish in school in
| Texas where they taught Castilian Spanish instead of Mexican
| Spanish. You know how often I speak to Castilian Spanish
| people vs Mexican Spanish people...in Texas?
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Similar problem in Canada where Parisian French is often
| taught in English Canadian schools rather than Quebecois.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| i dunno, when i hear french teachers at english schools
| in bc, that accent is far from parisian
| fatnoah wrote:
| As the resident of a northeastern US state, relatives on
| one side of my family grew up speaking French, so
| naturally I took French in high school. I was embarrassed
| when I still couldn't speak French with the family and
| had to resort to English when visiting Montreal.
|
| I was, however, vindicated later in life when I visited
| France and was able to get by without English.
| devilbunny wrote:
| AIUI the Quebecois _understand_ Metropolitan French (from
| movies, literature, etc.), it 's just not what they
| actually speak. Canadian and Cajun French, again AIUI,
| are mostly derivative from Norman and Breton, which were
| never really the same as Parisian, and the emigrants who
| defined the language left before the French state was
| able to force Parisian language onto everyone in the
| country. It's not as far removed as, say, Provencal
| (which is in some respects closer to Catalan), but
| definitely not the same as Parisian, and they've had
| centuries of isolation from the developments in the
| mother country, during which they've been exposed to a
| torrent of English (and American English at that; don't @
| me, Canadians, we speak the same English and it's
| distinctly not British, ANZ, or Indian, even if we spell
| and pronounce a few things differently).
| fatnoah wrote:
| That's a great breakdown. To my ears, one of the big
| differences in Canadian vs. Metropolitan French is that
| the former is very much in the throat, while the latter
| is in the nose.
|
| Standing in line for currency exchange in Montreal behind
| a French couple almost broke my brain as I tried to
| listen into their conversation with the worker.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| A lot of people in RGV are directly Castilian descended as
| they will insist on telling you.
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| That's why I personally don't like ideas like "queens
| English", ect... language is defined by the way people use
| it. Some sort of authority attempting to police it's correct
| usage has always just seemed like gate keeping to me.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I think the horse left the barn a long time ago with the
| concept of gatekeeping English. Now, it's just a label of a
| dialect. Queen's English vs Newfie vs Geordie vs American
| Mid-Atlantic vs Southern vs Bostonian vs vs vs
| yakshaving_jgt wrote:
| In Geordie you don't tend to have completely different
| words though, save for a few colloquialisms borrowed from
| old Scandinavian languages. It's not as far removed from
| actual English as, say, a Pidgin.
| fragmede wrote:
| but maybe there are some gates are meant to be kept.
| language evolves, sure, but I literally can't use literally
| to mean literally anymore because it's sloppily become to
| also mean figuratively. in this day and age, bureaucracy
| doesn't have to be glacially slow, and new words could be
| proposed and officially adopted, if (wait hang on there
| couldn't possibly be a problem with my plan) people would
| follow the rules set down by a committee.
|
| Thing is, we have such committees for English, and they say
| Internet should not be capitalized and I say it should,
| just like Earth or Sun, there's only one.
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| The thing about language is it's basically the world's
| most pure democracy. Communities, cultures, ect... each
| decide for themselves how they're going to use it.
| Individuals or organisations can attempt to establish
| themselves as an authority on how it should be used, by
| forming committees or writing dictionaries, but the only
| people who care what they have to say are their own
| respective community of aligned interests. Everybody else
| ignores them. I would say if you want your dictionary to
| be actually useful, then it should attempt describe the
| way words are actually used, rather than attempt to
| dictate their permissible use.
|
| I think English is a language that lends itself to this
| rigid approach a bit more than some other languages,
| because of how common it is for English as a first
| language speakers to only speak English. Where I live
| there are a lot more languages, basically everybody is
| multilingual, and the level of slang, language mixing and
| other general bastardisation would probably make a lot of
| English speakers cringe...
| NegativeK wrote:
| Literally has been used to mean figuratively since the
| 1800s.
|
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
|
| 'The "in effect; virtually" meaning of literally is not
| new. It has been in regular use since the 18th century
| and may be found in the writings of some of the most
| highly regarded writers of the 19th and early 20th
| centuries, including Charles Dickens, Mark Twain,
| Charlotte Bronte, and James Joyce.'
| ruraljuror wrote:
| Check out dfw's Tense Present for a discussion of these
| opposing schools, prescriptvist vs descriptivist:
|
| https://harpers.org/wp-
| content/uploads/HarpersMagazine-2001-...
| nayuki wrote:
| > Some sort of authority attempting to police it's correct
| usage has always just seemed like gate keeping to me.
|
| This is the norm for many languages. For example, French is
| prescribed by
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_Fran%C3%A7aise
| , and they like to coin new terms and discourage popularly
| used terms.
|
| But not English! It is the true global language with
| distributed decision-making.
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| > This is the norm for many languages. For example,
| French is prescribed by...
|
| Prescribed to who? Is it typical for French speakers to
| consult Academie Francaise before using slang, or
| inventing a portmanteau, or using other colloquialisms? I
| doubt many French people care much about the opinions of
| Academie Francaise, unless they're actually trying to
| enforce the authority they believe themselves to have in
| some way.
|
| The authority these institutions claim to have is almost
| always based on the same set of delusions. Some people
| care about this sort of formalism and will hold them in
| high esteem. Most people won't care about their work, or
| will (I would say rightfully) see an institution like
| this as attempting to usurp authority over their
| language. Because a language doesn't belong to any
| institution, it belongs to the speakers of that language,
| who are free to (and typically do) use it in whatever way
| they feel conveys what they're trying to communicate.
|
| The only time I've ever seen a language authority being
| widely valued by its community of speakers is where use
| of the language itself becomes a political issue, like
| when a mostly dead language is being revived, or when one
| camp strongly values the use of a language as part of
| their identity because some opposing camp has a different
| language.
| echaozh wrote:
| Why not "Kings English" now, as the Queen, well, is gone?
| segfaultbuserr wrote:
| If you're not confused enough, here's another exercise: try
| distinguishing _generator_ , _dynamo_ and _alternator_.
| altruios wrote:
| DC from fuel | DC from mechanical motion | AC from mechanical
| motion... yes?
|
| Not enough dynamos: build more dynamos.
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| Nope, because power plants have generators that output AC
| (pretty much always 3-phase). Not to mention every
| generator you can buy in a hardware store has AC output
| (usually single-phase).
|
| A generator is a device that converts mechanical power into
| electric power. A dynamo is a generator that uses a
| commutator to produce pulsed DC. An alternator is a
| generator that produces AC (which may later be rectified &
| filtered to DC). The term "alternator" is usually
| restricted to small generators used in automotive
| applications, larger AC generators such as those in power
| plants get described more precisely, e.g. induction
| generators or self-excitation generators. There are some
| other less-common generator types, such as homopolar
| generators that output continuous DC.
| drewzero1 wrote:
| Interesting, in cars the terms "generator" and
| "alternator" are used to refer to a DC device (dynamo?)
| and an AC device, respectively. Cars used DC generators
| for their electricity until the 60s/early 70s (depending
| on make/model) when they started using an AC alternator
| with a rectifier to make a constant 14VDC.
| karmakaze wrote:
| We have game engines but no software motors. We do have
| generators though.
|
| Seems like motors are smaller (or maybe less complex) than
| engines.
|
| Engines came from steam motors too. Here's a distinction:
|
| Is a steam engine a motor?
|
| A steam motor is a form of steam engine used for light
| locomotives and light self-propelled motor cars used on
| railways. The origins of steam motor cars for railways go back
| to at least the 1850s, if not earlier, as experimental
| economizations for railways or railroads with marginal budgets.
| tofof wrote:
| My uncle worked at Estes, the hobby rocket company, for many
| years. He was always a stickler about calling the black powder
| propellant sources "motors" and indeed older motors are labeled
| such. [1] He insisted they were not engines as they had no moving
| parts and would always correct me when I said "rocket engine." He
| eventually explained that rocket engines exist, but they are
| engines with valves and pumps and use liquid fuel (e.g. the
| Saturn V's F-1 engines), while solid rockets (e.g. Estes'
| products, or the shuttle's SRBs) are simply motors since they
| merely consist of burning propellant and a nozzle. Indeed the
| wiki pages for the F-1 and the SRB are consistent in calling the
| former engine and the latter motor.
|
| However, at some point since he retired, Estes transitioned to
| calling them Engine/Motors [2], and now, the primary labelling
| Estes uses calls them Engines, though Engine/Motor is still
| printed on the cardboard casing itself. [3]
|
| Interestingly, the Spanish, French and German on the motors still
| use motor, as Motor, Moteur-Fusee and Raketenmotor, respectively.
|
| Because of that upbringing, I have since treated the words to
| mean that a motor is something that provides force of motion
| (thrust or rotation) - it may or may not also be an engine, as in
| the rocketry examples. An engine is a contraption with
| moving/interacting parts that uses energy to accomplish some goal
| - that goal may (F-1, car engine) or may not (cotton gin, search
| engine) be the propulsion of the contraption itself and what it's
| attached to.
|
| That said, as a child I made no such distinction, hence the
| frequent corrections. I am happy to recognize that in common
| vernacular they are usually synonymous, though it would still
| sound strange, I think, to call something a 'search motor' (edit:
| however, see comment by yau8edq12i !) or a 'graphics motor' just
| as it would be jarring to encounter 'servoengine'.
|
| 1:
| https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi...
|
| 2:
| https://www.apogeerockets.com/bmz_cache/f/f8ecac9604d017a5c7...
|
| 3: https://estesrockets.com/products/b6-4-engines
| cenamus wrote:
| As for German, there isn't really an equivalent for engine,
| even combustion engines are called (Verbrennungs)Motor.
| Trellmor wrote:
| Rocket and jet engines are sometimes called Raketentriebwerk
| and Turbinentriebwerk respectively.
| chopin wrote:
| But this has the meaning of something providing propulsion.
| pmayrgundter wrote:
| A friend who studied engineering at MIT made a similar
| distinction, and it's where I expected the article to go, being
| hosted there.
|
| The notion was that the development of engines, as opposed to
| simpler motors and mechanical systems, had required a net set
| of skills that led to a recognizably different discipline. More
| systematic, more concerned with dynamics and feedbacks, cross-
| disciplinary to materials and machining techniques, more data
| driven, more advanced mathematic and analytic techniques in
| support of these. The sense was simpler mechanical systems were
| more linear and engines were highly non-linear, and required a
| different mindset to approach.
|
| I like the distinction and appreciate the different terms.
| starspangled wrote:
| Electric motors have moving parts and at least where I am
| nobody would call one an electric engine.
|
| Automobiles generally have engines, but motor isn't uncommon
| for (internal combustion) engines there either. Motor car is
| something I remember my grandfather saying although I guess
| that's not really used anymore, but motorbike certainly is. So
| is motorsports. "Blown motor" is a pretty common phrase for an
| IC engine that has stopped working due to damage.
|
| Engine has some exclusive cases where motor does not
| substitute. Jet engine and steam engine come to mind.
| Retric wrote:
| Depends on what you consider part of the motor. Linear
| electric motors directly apply force to something else like a
| train car without themselves having moving parts.
| southernplaces7 wrote:
| >Electric motors have moving parts and at least where I am
| nobody would call one an electric engine.
|
| Second this. In photography, the little electric drive motors
| inside camera lenses are never called engines, though they
| definitely do have small moving parts.
| checkyoursudo wrote:
| Out of curiosity, what do you think your uncle would have said
| that the magazine _Motor Trend_ (first published 1949 according
| to wikipedia) is about, or what types of vehicles use a
| motorway, or what the going concern of the Ford Motor Company
| is?
|
| Or was it more one-directional, such that engines can be called
| motors but motors should not be called engines?
| b33j0r wrote:
| It also has to do with the "heat engine," and particularly the
| Stirling engine, and the related carnot cycle. An engine
| transforms heat to extract work.
|
| A rocket motor has the expansion part of a heat engine in an
| obvious way. An electric motor produces motion, but isn't an
| engine.
| themoonisachees wrote:
| French uses "Moteur" because it doesn't have a word for
| "engine". The closest is "engin", but that means "contraption"
| and generally applies to the entire class of "large mechanical
| devices that move".
|
| Both Motor and Engine are generally translated into french as
| "Moteur"
| nottorp wrote:
| Same in all latin languages I think. One word for both motor
| and engine. In spite of having a word for 'engineer'.
| metadat wrote:
| Interesting, I was surprised to learn this fact from you!
|
| _" engineer"_ in French is _ingenieure_ (feminine) and
| _ingenieur_ (masculine).
|
| And putting _" ingen"_ into google translate returns..
| _engineer_.
|
| Edit: @euroderf: Lol
| euroderf wrote:
| So how do these relate to ingenue ?
| yau8edq12i wrote:
| Fun fact: the French word _engin_ still retains its original
| meaning of contrivance, contraption. But we still translate
| "search engine," which refers to this archaic English meaning, as
| _moteur de recherche_ ( "search motor").
| fvdessen wrote:
| "engin de recherche" could have worked as well, but "engin"
| also has a taken negative connotation of something that doesn't
| work well
| Suppafly wrote:
| Pretending that they are anything but synonyms now is ridiculous
| and I'm glad the article pointed out that they are used that way
| instead of pretending that the older definitions still have merit
| like so many prescriptionist folks do.
| czl wrote:
| Motors primarily convert electrical energy (or fluid/air
| pressure in the case of hydraulic/pneumatic motors) into
| mechanical motion.
|
| Engines primarily convert chemical or thermal energy into
| mechanical power. The term is also applied metaphorically to a
| central component that drives a process or system.
|
| > Pretending that they are anything but synonyms now is
| ridiculous and I'm glad the article pointed out that they are
| used that way instead of pretending that the older definitions
| still have merit like so many prescriptionist folks do.
|
| So you are ok with having your opinion about this recorded in
| online forum's database motors and easily discovered by users
| of Google's search motor?
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| Rocket motors don't convert electrical energy into anything.
| Motorways are ways (roads) for automobiles, most of which
| which use petroleum products for their power. Motorcycles use
| gasoline to produce their mechanical motion.
|
| I view "motor" as a subtype of "engine". An engine drives a
| process or system, either literally (producing power from
| some fuel or other energy source) or figuratively (as in
| Google's search engine). A motor is a type of engine that
| changes the momentum of some object.
| mhink wrote:
| While I think I agree with your definition of "engine", I'm
| not sure I agree with the idea of "motor" being a subtype
| of "engine".
|
| To me, a "motor" is a specific part of a system's
| powertrain: it's the part which converts some other type of
| energy into kinetic energy for the purposes of moving the
| system. On the other hand, an "engine" is a self-contained
| system that establishes some kind of stable feedback cycle
| to perform a task.
|
| With that in mind, a car's internal combustion engine _is_
| the motor of the car, since that 's the place where
| chemical energy becomes kinetic energy, which results in
| motion after being transferred through the drivetrain.
|
| If you take the same exact engine out of the car, mount it
| in some fixed position, and rig it up to generate
| electricity, I wouldn't technically call it a "motor"
| anymore, because it's not acting to move the system it's a
| part of. (That being said, I probably wouldn't split hairs
| here, since the engine was originally designed to _be_ a
| motor. But you see my point.)
|
| Importantly, this lets us fit diesel trains into our
| definition: they use diesel engines to generate
| electricity, but electric motors to actually make the train
| move. In an old steam-driven train,
|
| It also addresses the question of what to call the part of
| a model rocket that makes it go up. It's the part of the
| rocket's powertrain which converts chemical energy into
| kinetic energy that moves the system. It's a *motor*.
|
| ---
|
| So, with all that said, an interesting point is that the
| terms "motor engine" and "engine motor" both make sense,
| but don't mean the same thing. "Motor engine" describes an
| engine designed to perform the role of motor (as opposed to
| a "generator engine"), whereas "engine motor" describes a
| specific kind of motor (as opposed to a "chemical motor").
| arghwhat wrote:
| If you use the expanded definition of engine (e.g., "search
| engine", where "engine" is mostly used as a synonym of
| "machine"), then neither is a subtype of the other - they
| just overlap occasionally.
|
| However, all engines producing motion would also be
| considered motors (what is under the hood of a classical
| ICE car is both an engine and a motor, and is _just_ a
| motor in other Germanic languages), and most motors
| producing motors would not be referred to as engines (an EV
| does not have "electric engines").
|
| So for the types of devices where you are likely going to
| have the discussion - things makings stuff move - motor is
| the supertype and engine is the subtype.
| Suppafly wrote:
| >So you are ok with having your opinion about this recorded
| in online forum's database motors and easily discovered by
| users of Google's search motor?
|
| Yes, assuming you're OK with your foolishness being recorded
| the same way.
| arghwhat wrote:
| > Motors primarily convert electrical energy (or fluid/air
| pressure in the case of hydraulic/pneumatic motors) into
| mechanical motion.
|
| Just like you call it a "hydraulic motor" in the parenthesis,
| the former is an "electric motor" (or rather, "inductance
| motor", "reluctance motor", etc.).
|
| The term "motor" is used for any conversion into mechanical
| power. Molecular motors and motor proteins are such examples
| of entirely chemical motors, albeit at quite small scales.
|
| (The distinction also appears unique to English, as Germanic
| languages generally just have "motor".)
| johnwalkr wrote:
| Me too, especially for engineering, where you often work with
| people with different locations and backgrounds, and very often
| work/document in English even in non-English speaking
| countries. Depending on your native language, you might tend to
| use one or the other word and it shouldn't matter.
| arghwhat wrote:
| ... engine and motor has never been synonymous. The phrase
| "electric engine" should cause physical discomfort to anyone
| hearing it.
|
| But feel free to call it all a motor - that's a clean superset
| of all the things an average person would use either term
| for[0], and most languages don't even have the "engine" term
| anyway, indeed using motor for the whole lot.
|
| [1]: For other uses like "train engine", there are more
| distinct alternatives such as "locomotive".
| mp05 wrote:
| >> Today, the words are virtually synonymous.
|
| Ehhh that's a stretch, unless we're talking Real Housewives type
| of "lay people".
|
| As I understand it (within an engineering context), a "motor"
| converts electrical energy to mechanical energy, and an "engine"
| takes thermal/chemical/some other form of mechanical energy and
| outputs mechanical energy. But it's confusing because I've
| changed the "motor" in my old Honda when I was a teenager. So
| while I agree there is some nuance and blurry lines, not sure the
| two words are quite "interchangeable".
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| It seems reasonable to say that a motor is something that moves
| something else, while an engine is also something that moves
| something else but uses internal moving parts of its own. We
| can just leave it at that. All engines that involve physical
| motion are motors, but not all motors are engines.
|
| That seems better than making arbitrary distinctions regarding
| which type of input energy is being transformed into which
| output type. It would also be compatible with the OED
| definition mentioned in the article, as well as terminology
| used in rocketry.
| johnwalkr wrote:
| I agree with this but I also wouldn't blink if someone used
| one or the other term unless there was a specific context
| where it was important.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Yep, pretty pointless hill to die on.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| Wouldn't want to anger a mean biker who was a member of a
| violent enginecycle gang ;)
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| Disagree that not all motors are engines, I'd say motor is a
| subset of engine. An engine drives a process or system,
| either literally (producing power from some fuel or other
| energy source) or figuratively (as in Google's search
| engine). A motor is a type of engine that changes the
| momentum of some object.
|
| This fits every definition I can think of.
| inetknght wrote:
| The way I see it:
|
| A motor produces _locomotion_. It makes other things move.
|
| An engine produces _power_. Locomotion can be derived from power
| but isn 't required to.
|
| A train locomotive might be referred to as a "locomotive engine".
|
| A car with an internal combustion engine moves from power
| generated by that engine. But a car with electric motors does not
| have an engine because power is not produced there. Power is
| produced elsewhere and then stored in the battery. Locomotion is
| produced by consuming the stored power.
|
| Of course, that's just my interpretation of the two words without
| referring to a dictionary.
| saalweachter wrote:
| A tractor was originally a "traction engine", to distinguish it
| from the steam engines you would haul around with horses to
| power equipment.
| czl wrote:
| Go further back and there were machines called "siege
| engines".
| jessekv wrote:
| also, fire engines
| upwardbound wrote:
| > An engine produces power. Locomotion can be derived from
| power but isn't required to.
|
| By this definition, is a fuel cell an engine?
|
| https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/fuel-
| cells#:~:text=A%2....
| LinAGKar wrote:
| Or even just a barrel of fuel that's lit on fire to produce
| thermal energy
| inetknght wrote:
| Perhaps! But I think by the time you're asking these kinds of
| questions you're then also dealing with one of the many
| reasons definitions can become nuanced as technology moves
| on.
| LinAGKar wrote:
| And with an ICE, power is produced elsewhere and stored in the
| fuel tank.
| arantius wrote:
| I used to think along these lines. But in actuality, not so
| much. By this definition they're the same thing. An electric
| motor converts electric energy into kinetic energy. A gasoline
| engine converts chemical energy to kinetic energy (and even
| more waste heat than the electric motor). (Neither of them
| _produces_ power, this is of course impossible. Unless you 're
| subtly using a very specific technical meaning of the word?)
| This input/output difference is a minor distinction.
|
| Or in other words: the power that a gasoline engine uses wasn't
| produced in the engine, it was produced by geological and
| chemical means, and in a giant refinery somewhere else.
| 8372049 wrote:
| In my language, everything is a motor and the "engine" root is
| only used in engineer.
| panzi wrote:
| My native language is German. We only have the word Motor.
| Thought engine is just the 1:1 translation of it, but apparently
| not.
| ajuc wrote:
| Same in Polish. "Silnik" is both motor and engine. You add
| second word to specify the kind (electric, combustion,
| stirling, steam, ...).
| yakshaving_jgt wrote:
| I think _silnik_ translates most directly to _powerplant_ in
| English, given that the root word is _sila_.
| amszmidt wrote:
| Power plant would be elektrownia. The suffix -nik is a
| common one that one can append to almost any noun to
| indicate that something or someone doing something, e.g.
| robot, robotnik (worker). So silnik translates to
| motor/engine, not powerplant.
| yakshaving_jgt wrote:
| In English, you can use the word _powerplant_ in a more
| abstract sense, _e.g._ , to refer to the engine or motor
| of a car. It doesn't only specifically mean the large
| industrial building which generates electricity, as I
| believe elektrownia does.
|
| I think your note about the -nik suffix is congruent with
| my point. A silnik is a thing that is doing/making sila.
|
| To clarify, I'm perfectly aware that if I tell someone in
| Poland that I have a problem with my silnik, I'm
| referring to the engine in my vehicle. But in this
| discussion here, I'm talking about the most _direct_
| translation.
| amszmidt wrote:
| As someone fluent in both English and Polish (being my
| native language), I cannot see how silnik and a fixed
| place where power is generated, specifically connected to
| a network where that power is put out (i.e. powerplant)
| have anything in common.
|
| The only direct translation of the word is really just
| engine/motor, one can often use the word motor to mean
| silnik as well.
| yakshaving_jgt wrote:
| English is my native language, and I'm confident that
| _powerplant_ can indeed be used in the more abstract
| sense as I wrote in my previous comment.
|
| This can be evidenced[0], for example, in motorsport
| journalism.
|
| > For more than a quarter of a century, Cosworth's DFV
| (and it's variants) was the off-the-peg powerplant of
| choice for independent F1 teams
|
| Or of course, in the dictionary[1].
|
| [0]: https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/the-best-
| engine-p...
|
| [1]: https://www.merriam-
| webster.com/dictionary/power%20plant
| amszmidt wrote:
| That seems more like a typo than anything, in Formula
| jargon the engine is called a "power unit" not plant, not
| to mention that that a plant is generally a place of
| industry and not a object (e.g., nuclear plant ...).
|
| In either case, calling a "silnik" a "powerplant" is a
| very large stretch, where as a "powerunit" would be a
| more accurate translation since it has the same meaning
| as a engine/motor.
| amszmidt wrote:
| The word "silownia" could be directly translated to power
| plant though, -ownia is being a suffix for places /
| plants.
| yakshaving_jgt wrote:
| > That seems more like a typo than anything
|
| I assure you it isn't.
|
| > To increase the agility, steering response, handling
| and starting performance of the Macan T, Porsche uses a
| particularly light powerplant
|
| https://media.porsche.com/mediakit/macan/en/the-new-
| macan/ma...
|
| > Porsche has developed a hydrogen powerplant prototype
| that can be installed in luxury sports cars and perform
| as well as a 4.4-liter, eight-cylinder petrol engine
|
| https://www.ryzehydrogen.com/2023/03/07/5172/
|
| > Of course, removing the roof completely on a car
| boasting such a supreme powerplant presents its own set
| of unique aerodynamic challenges
|
| https://www.ferrari.com/en-EN/magazine/articles/the-
| ferrari-...
|
| > The Mercedes-AMG GLC 63 S E Performance allies a hefty
| 671bhp powerplant to a 2,310kg body
|
| https://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/mercedes-benz/glc-
| amg-es...
| amszmidt wrote:
| I don't see how quoting random articles proves either or,
| specially when it comes to specific jargon in a sport or
| even the original topic here wrt. engine vs. motor.
|
| > This article gives an outline of Formula One engines,
| also called Formula One power units since the hybrid era
| starting in 2014. Since its inception in 1947, Formula
| One has used a variety of engine regulations. Formulae
| limiting engine capacity had been used in Grand Prix
| racing on a regular basis since after World War I. The
| engine formulae are divided according to era.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_engines
|
| You are also not really addressing the original point you
| where making that "powerplant" is a "direct translation"
| of the word "silnik".
| yakshaving_jgt wrote:
| Quoting random articles should prove the point that the
| author of that page on the F1 website did not in fact
| make a typo, as you suggested. The word _powerplant_ is
| used -- fairly commonly, both written and spoken -- in
| motoring journalism in place of the word engine or motor.
|
| I don't find your arguments convincing, for the logical
| holes I've spotted. I don't think you find my arguments
| convincing either, so I guess we'll leave it at that.
| froh wrote:
| "die Maschine ist im Eimer" is something "old" people like
| myself would happily say about the, well, engine of a car that
| broke. Maschinenschaden. broken engine.
|
| greetings from Nurnberg, Mittelfranken...
| panzi wrote:
| Yeah, but Maschine is machine. Or at least I thought so.
| froh wrote:
| yup that's also tempting
|
| Dampfmaschine = steam engine
|
| which unless specified otherwise boils down to
| locomotive...
|
| the two languages are so similar yet different. what amazed
| me the most was that in English speaking countries they
| learn beautiful English words, famose worte of sorts.
| BlindEyeHalo wrote:
| > We only have the word Motor
|
| I disagree, depending on the context you also use "Maschine"
| and "Triebwerk" in instances where english would use engine.
|
| For example you would not translate "jet engine" to
| "Dusenmotor" but instead "Dusentriebwerk" and "steam engine" is
| translated to "Dampfmaschine"
| mikewarot wrote:
| In my usage, Engine is generally something that consumes gasoline
| (sometimes Diesel) and generate rotational power and lots of
| exhaust gas and heat.
|
| I _almost_ always use the term motor for an electromechanical
| machine that turns electrical into mechanical power.
|
| Like all words, there's ambiguity to it.
| garyfirestorm wrote:
| Same here. Maybe it's how I grew up. Gas engine Electric motor
| Never understood why people used the word motor to describe the
| engine.
| 0x0203 wrote:
| Similar for me, except that I always saw engine as specific
| type of motor. Hence "motorsports" was perfectly normal for
| gas burning vehicular racing.
| unwind wrote:
| So, uh, Harley Davidson is a well-known brand of noisy engine
| cycles to you, then?
| jandrese wrote:
| This is how I use it as well. It is a convenient way to encode
| a hint about the power source into the base word. A slight
| refinement of the language and a good example of how languages
| evolve over time to better suit the era they are in.
| 0x0203 wrote:
| > "Engine" is from the Latin ingenium: character, mental powers,
| talent, intellect, or cleverness.
|
| And thus we get a common root for the words engine and genius.
| Fascinating.
| DDayMace wrote:
| In French and German the word for engineer is "Ingenieur"
| lkuty wrote:
| ingenieur (with the accent) in french
| smitty1e wrote:
| If asked to craft a definition, I would offer that motors are
| electrical and use magnetism to induce rotation on an armature.
|
| Engines are chemically driven and use some flavor of combination
| to rotate a shaft.
| coffeedan wrote:
| Is a bicycle an engine (or a motor)? It is a machine with moving
| parts that converts power into motion.
| leecarraher wrote:
| Was the article written by an llm difference engine? In that it
| failed at discussing the differences of the two and really just
| regurgitated the etymologies and ancient definitions of the two
| terms with no insight about modern usages. My quick difference as
| a matter of opinion only is that engine is related to carnot some
| heat cycle creates enables work that can be turned into
| locomotion. Motor is a superset, and is some system, process or
| machine that turns potential energy into kinetic energy. That is
| my opinion, of which i am open to, in fact very interested in
| reading others. Unfortunately this was not that article, instead
| you get a brief history lessons on words, with the thesis that
| some word's meanings change over time (allow me to pick my jaw
| off the floor) and don't worry about delineating the two terms
| because they pretty much mean the same thing. Not what i was
| expecting from mit engineering.
| nottorp wrote:
| It's from 2013 so I guess this essay-ish style of writing is
| one of the _sources_ present day LLMs have been trained on.
| leymed wrote:
| My understanding engine is a device governed by laws of
| thermodynamics, whereas motor is based on electrodynamics.
|
| Always thought calling car engine a motor is incorrect, shouldn't
| be used interchangeably. In my experience machinery would be
| common name for both in engineering terms, not daily usage.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Engine converts lower form of energy, like heat, into higher form
| of energy, like kinetic, at a loss. It's shifting up
|
| Motor converts equivalent forms of energy, or down, at very high
| efficiency. Electric to kinetic
| dpifke wrote:
| A related bit of terminology I recently picked up[0] is "electric
| motor" vs. "electric machine", with the latter being preferred
| when the machine can function as either a motor or a generator
| (as is the case e.g. for most brushless DC motors).
|
| [0]: I've been working my way through this book:
| https://www.amazon.com/Design-Brushless-Permanent-Magnet-Mac...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-23 23:02 UTC)