5 ms·

Motors primarily convert electrical energy (or fluid/air pressure in the case of hydraulic/pneumatic motors) into mechanical motion. Engines primarily convert

by czl 2y ago

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 2y ago
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 2y ago
  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 2y ago
  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 2y ago
>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.
- AlexeyBelov 2y ago
  That was a really poor counterargument on your part.
arghwhat 2y ago
> 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".)

by czl 2y ago

SAI_Peregrinus 2y ago

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 2y ago
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 2y ago
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 2y ago

>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.

AlexeyBelov 2y ago
That was a really poor counterargument on your part.

arghwhat 2y ago

> 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".)