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'.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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"
The word in Germanic that is used closest to "engine" would be maschine/maskin/ ... and so on.
It is called motor with respect to its effect, and machine with respect to how it works. A machine is called motor to denote it is connected to wheels or propellers, but service or repairs are technically performed on the machine.
This distinction can sound a little old-fashioned now.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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!
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.
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.
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".
Alongside motorworks there are countless others: motorcycle, motorboat, motorway, motorhome, motel (hotel that you motor to), motor oil, motor mounts, etc. etc.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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").
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.
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.
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?
> 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".)
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.
... 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".
Readit News
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
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.
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.
Second this. In photography, the little electric drive motors inside camera lenses are never called engines, though they definitely do have small moving parts.
Both Motor and Engine are generally translated into french as "Moteur"
It is called motor with respect to its effect, and machine with respect to how it works. A machine is called motor to denote it is connected to wheels or propellers, but service or repairs are technically performed on the machine.
This distinction can sound a little old-fashioned now.
"engineer" in French is ingénieure (feminine) and ingénieur (masculine).
And putting "ingen" into google translate returns.. engineer.
Edit: @euroderf: Lol
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.
Or was it more one-directional, such that engines can be called motors but motors should not be called engines?
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.
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.
There are a few auto repair shops around here that even call themselves "motorworks".
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocket_motor&redi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solid_rocket_moto...
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.)
engineer is translated as ingeniero, which originates from ingenious and not engine.
Deleted Comment
English is just weird.
Not enough dynamos: build more dynamos.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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".)
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.
Yes, assuming you're OK with your foolishness being recorded the same way.
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".