text:
Military engineering

Military engineering is loosely defined as the art, science, and practice of designing and building military works and maintaining lines of military transport and military communications. Military engineers are also responsible for logistics behind military tactics. Modern military engineering differs from civil engineering. In the 20th and 21st centuries, military engineering also includes CBRN defense and other engineering disciplines such as mechanical and electrical engineering techniques.

According to NATO, "military engineering is that engineer activity undertaken, regardless of component or service, to shape the physical operating environment. Military engineering incorporates support to maneuver and to the force as a whole, including military engineering functions such as engineer support to force protection, counter-improvised explosive devices, environmental protection, engineer intelligence and military search. Military engineering does not encompass the activities undertaken by those 'engineers' who maintain, repair and operate vehicles, vessels, aircraft, weapon systems and equipment."

Military engineering is an academic subject taught in military academies or schools of military engineering. The construction and demolition tasks related to military engineering are usually performed by military engineers including soldiers trained as sappers or pioneers. In modern armies, soldiers trained to perform such tasks while well forward in battle and under fire are often called combat engineers.

In some countries, military engineers may also perform non-military construction tasks in peacetime such as flood control and river navigation works, but such activities do not fall within the scope of military engineering.

Etymology
The word engineer was initially used in the context of warfare, dating back to 1325 when engine’er (literally, one who operates an engine) referred to "a constructor of military engines". In this context, "engine" referred to a military machine, i. e., a mechanical contraption used in war (for example, a catapult).

As the design of civilian structures such as bridges and buildings developed as a technical discipline, the term civil engineering entered the lexicon as a way to distinguish between those specializing in the construction of such non-military projects and those involved in the older discipline. As the prevalence of civil engineering outstripped engineering in a military context and the number of disciplines expanded, the original military meaning of the word "engineering" is now largely obsolete. In its place, the term "military engineering" has come to be used.

History

In ancient times, military engineers were responsible for siege warfare and building field fortifications, temporary camps and roads. The most notable engineers of ancient times were the Romans and Chinese, who constructed huge siege-machines (catapults, battering rams and siege towers). The Romans were responsible for constructing fortified wooden camps and paved roads for their legions. Many of these Roman roads are still in use today.

The first civilization to have a dedicated force of military engineering specialists were the Romans, whose army contained a dedicated corps of military engineers known as architecti. This group was pre-eminent among its contemporaries. The scale of certain military engineering feats, such as the construction of a double-wall of fortifications 30 mi long, in just 6 weeks to completely encircle the besieged city of Alesia in 52 B.C.E., is an example. Such military engineering feats would have been completely new, and probably bewildering and demoralizing, to the Gallic defenders. Vitruvius is the best known of these Roman army engineers, due to his writings surviving.

Examples of battles before the early modern period where military engineers played a decisive role include the Siege of Tyre under Alexander the Great, the Siege of Masada by Lucius Flavius Silva as well as the Battle of the Trench under the suggestion of Salman the Persian to dig a trench.

For about 600 years after the fall of the Roman empire, the practice of military engineering barely evolved in the west. In fact, much of the classic techniques and practices of Roman military engineering were lost. Through this period, the foot soldier (who was pivotal to much of the Roman military engineering capability) was largely replaced by mounted soldiers. It was not until later in the Middle Ages, that military engineering saw a revival focused on siege warfare.

Military engineers planned castles and fortresses. When laying siege, they planned and oversaw efforts to penetrate castle defenses. When castles served a military purpose, one of the tasks of the sappers was to weaken the bases of walls to enable them to be breached before means of thwarting these activities were devised. Broadly speaking, sappers were experts at demolishing or otherwise overcoming or bypassing fortification systems.

With the 14th-century development of gunpowder, new siege engines in the form of cannons appeared. Initially military engineers were responsible for maintaining and operating these new weapons just as had been the case with previous siege engines. In England, the challenge of managing the new technology resulted in the creation of the Office of Ordnance around 1370 in order to administer the cannons, armaments and castles of the kingdom. Both military engineers and artillery formed the body of this organization and served together until the office's successor, the Board of Ordnance was disbanded in 1855.

In comparison to older weapons, the cannon was significantly more effective against traditional medieval fortifications. Military engineering significantly revised the way fortifications were built in order to be better protected from enemy direct and plunging shot. The new fortifications were also intended to increase the ability of defenders to bring fire onto attacking enemies. Fort construction proliferated in 16th-century Europe based on the trace italienne design.

By the 18th century, regiments of foot (infantry) in the British, French, Prussian and other armies included pioneer detachments. In peacetime these specialists constituted the regimental tradesmen, constructing and repairing buildings, transport wagons, etc. On active service they moved at the head of marching columns with axes, shovels, and pickaxes, clearing obstacles or building bridges to enable the main body of the regiment to move through difficult terrain. The modern Royal Welch Fusiliers and French Foreign Legion still maintain pioneer sections who march at the front of ceremonial parades, carrying chromium-plated tools intended for show only. Other historic distinctions include long work aprons and the right to wear beards. In West Africa, the Ashanti army was accompanied to war by carpenters who were responsible for constructing shelters and blacksmiths who repaired weapons. By the 18th century, sappers were deployed in the Dahomeyan army during assaults against fortifications.

The Peninsular War (1808–14) revealed deficiencies in the training and knowledge of officers and men of the British Army in the conduct of siege operations and bridging. During this war low-ranking Royal Engineers officers carried out large-scale operations. They had under their command working parties of two or three battalions of infantry, two or three thousand men, who knew nothing in the art of siegeworks. Royal Engineers officers had to demonstrate the simplest tasks to the soldiers, often while under enemy fire. Several officers were lost and could not be replaced, and a better system of training for siege operations was required. On 23 April 1812 an establishment was authorised, by Royal Warrant, to teach "Sapping, Mining, and other Military Fieldworks" to the junior officers of the Corps of Royal Engineers and the Corps of Royal Military Artificers, Sappers and Miners.

The first courses at the Royal Engineers Establishment were done on an all ranks basis with the greatest regard to economy. To reduce staff the NCOs and officers were responsible for instructing and examining the soldiers. If the men could not read or write they were taught to do so, and those who could read and write were taught to draw and interpret simple plans. The Royal Engineers Establishment quickly became the centre of excellence for all fieldworks and bridging. Captain Charles Pasley, the director of the Establishment, was keen to confirm his teaching, and regular exercises were held as demonstrations or as experiments to improve the techniques and teaching of the Establishment. From 1833 bridging skills were demonstrated annually by the building of a pontoon bridge across the Medway which was tested by the infantry of the garrison and the cavalry from Maidstone. These demonstrations had become a popular spectacle for the local people by 1843, when 43,000 came to watch a field day laid on to test a method of assaulting earthworks for a report to the Inspector General of Fortifications. In 1869 the title of the Royal Engineers Establishment was changed to "The School of Military Engineering" (SME) as evidence of its status, not only as the font of engineer doctrine and training for the British Army, but also as the leading scientific military school in Europe.

The dawn of the internal combustion engine marked the beginning of a significant change in military engineering. With the arrival of the automobile at the end of the 19th century and heavier than air flight at the start of the 20th century, military engineers assumed a major new role in supporting the movement and deployment of these systems in war. Military engineers gained vast knowledge and experience in explosives. They were tasked with planting bombs, landmines and dynamite.

At the end of World War I, the standoff on the Western Front caused the Imperial German Army to gather experienced and particularly skilled soldiers to form "Assault Teams" which would break through the Allied trenches. With enhanced training and special weapons (such as flamethrowers), these squads achieved some success, but too late to change the outcome of the war. In early WWII, however, the Wehrmacht "Pioniere" battalions proved their efficiency in both attack and defense, somewhat inspiring other armies to develop their own combat engineers battalions. Notably, the attack on Fort Eben-Emael in Belgium was conducted by Luftwaffe glider-deployed combat engineers.

The need to defeat the German defensive positions of the "Atlantic wall" as part of the amphibious landings in Normandy in 1944 led to the development of specialist combat engineer vehicles. These, collectively known as Hobart's Funnies, included a specific vehicle to carry combat engineers, the Churchill AVRE. These and other dedicated assault vehicles were organised into the specialised 79th Armoured Division and deployed during Operation Overlord – 'D-Day'.

Other significant military engineering projects of World War II include Mulberry harbour and Operation Pluto.

Modern military engineering still retains the Roman role of building field fortifications, road paving and breaching terrain obstacles. A notable military engineering task was, for example, breaching the Suez Canal during the Yom Kippur War.

Education
Military engineers can come from a variety of engineering programs. They may be graduates of mechanical, electrical, civil, or industrial engineering.

Sub-discipline
Modern military engineering can be divided into three main tasks or fields: combat engineering, strategic support, and ancillary support. Combat engineering is associated with engineering on the battlefield. Combat engineers are responsible for increasing mobility on the front lines of war such as digging trenches and building temporary facilities in war zones. Strategic support is associated with providing service in communication zones such as the construction of airfields and the improvement and upgrade of ports, roads and railways communication. Ancillary support includes provision and distribution of maps as well as the disposal of unexploded warheads. Military engineers construct bases, airfields, roads, bridges, ports, and hospitals. During peacetime before modern warfare, military engineers took the role of civil engineers by participating in the construction of civil-works projects. Nowadays, military engineers are almost entirely engaged in war logistics and preparedness.

Explosives engineering
Explosives are defined as any system that produces rapidly expanding gases in a given volume in a short duration. Specific military engineering occupations also extend to the field of explosives and demolitions and their usage on the battlefield. Explosive devices have been used on the battlefield for several centuries, in numerous operations from combat to area clearance. Earliest known development of explosives can be traced back to 10th-century China where the Chinese are credited with engineering the world's first known explosive, black powder. Initially developed for recreational purposes, black powder later was utilized for military application in bombs and projectile propulsion in firearms. Engineers in the military who specialize in this field formulate and design many explosive devices to use in varying operating conditions. Such explosive compounds range from black powder to modern plastic explosives. This particular is commonly listed under the role of combat engineers who demolitions expertise also includes mine and IED detection and disposal. For more information, see Bomb disposal.

Military engineering by country
Military engineers are key in all armed forces of the world, and invariably found either closely integrated into the force structure, or even into the combat units of the national troops.

Brazil
Brazilian Army engineers can be part of the Quadro de Engenheiros Militares, with its members trained or professionalized by the traditional Instituto Militar de Engenharia (IME) (Military Institute of Engineering), or the Arma de Engenharia, with its members trained by the Academia Militar das Agulhas Negras (AMAN) (Agulhas Negras Military Academy).

In the Brazil's Navy, engineers can occupy the Corpo de Engenheiros da Marinha, the Quadro Complementar de Oficiais da Armada and the Quadro Complementar de Oficiais Fuzileiros Navais. Officers can come from the Centro de Instrução Almirante Wandenkolk (CIAW) (Admiral Wandenkolk Instruction Center) and the Escola Naval (EN) (Naval School) which, through internal selection of the Navy, finish their graduation at the Universidade de São Paulo (USP) (University of São Paulo).

The Quadro de Oficias Engenheiros of the Brazilian Air Force is occupied by engineers professionalized by Centro de Instrução e Adaptação da Aeronáutica (CIAAR) (Air Force Instruction and Adaptation Center) and trained, or specialized, by Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica (ITA) (Aeronautics Institute of Technology).

Russia

 * Russian Empire – Pososhniye lyudi
 * Soviet Union – Engineer Troops (Soviet Union); Assault Engineering Brigades
 * 🇷🇺 Russia – Russian Engineer Troops

United Kingdom
The Royal School of Military Engineering is the main training establishment for the British Army's Royal Engineers. The RSME also provides training for the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, other Arms and Services of the British Army, Other Government Departments, and Foreign and Commonwealth countries as required. These skills provide vital components in the Army's operational capability, and Royal Engineers are currently deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Cyprus, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kenya, Brunei, Falklands, Belize, Germany and Northern Ireland. Royal Engineers also take part in exercises in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Italy, Egypt, Jordan, Canada, Poland and the United States.

United States
The prevalence of military engineering in the United States dates back to the American Revolutionary War when engineers would carry out tasks in the U.S. Army. During the war, they would map terrain to and build fortifications to protect troops from opposing forces. The first military engineering organization in the United States was the Army Corps of Engineers. Engineers were responsible for protecting military troops whether using fortifications or designing new technology and weaponry throughout the United States' history of warfare. The Army originally claimed engineers exclusively, but as the U.S. military branches expanded to the sea and sky, the need for military engineering sects in all branches increased. As each branch of the United States military expanded, technology adapted to fit their respective needs.

 * United States Army Corps of Engineers
 * Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency, Rapid Engineer Deployable Heavy Operational Repair Squadron Engineers (RED HORSE), and Prime Base Engineer Emergency Force (Prime BEEF)
 * The United States Navy Construction Battalion Corps (better known as the Seabees) and Civil Engineer Corps
 * United States Marine Corps Combat Engineer Battalions

Other nations

 * 🇦🇲 Department of the Engineer Troops of the Armed Forces of Armenia
 * 🇦🇺 Royal Australian Engineers and the Royal Australian Air Force Airfield Engineers
 * 🇧🇩 Corps of Engineers and Military Engineer Services (MES), Bangladesh Army
 * 🇨🇦 Canadian Military Engineers
 * 🇩🇰 The Danish military engineering corps is almost entirely organized into one regiment, simply named "Ingeniørregimentet" ("The Engineering Regiment").
 * 🇩🇪 Pioniertruppe (Bundeswehr)
 * 🇫🇷 Engineering Arm, including the Paris Fire Brigade
 * 🇮🇳 Indian Army Corps of Engineers
 * 🇮🇩 Indonesian Army Corps of Engineers
 * 🇮🇪 Irish Army Engineer Corps
 * 🇮🇱 Combat Engineering Corps of the Israel Defense Forces
 * 🇳🇦Engineer Regiment (Namibia)
 * 🇳🇿 Corps of Royal New Zealand Engineers
 * 🇳🇴 Ingeniørbataljonen ("The Engineer Battalion")
 * 🇲🇾 Rejimen Askar Jurutera DiRaja ("Royal Engineer Regiment")
 * 🇵🇰 Pakistan Army Corps of Engineers and the Military Engineering Service
 * 🇷🇴 10th Engineer Brigade
 * 🇿🇦 South African Army Engineer Formation
 * 🇱🇰 Sri Lanka Engineers and the Engineer Services Regiment
 * The Le Quy Don Technical University is the main training establishment for the Vietnamese Army's Corps of Engineers

Related topics

 * Bailey bridge
 * Fortification
 * History of warfare
 * Military bridges
 * Military engineering vehicles
 * Military technology and equipment
 * Siege engine

Notable military engineers

 * Mozi
 * Gundulf of Rochester
 * Henri Alexis Brialmont
 * John Chard
 * Menno van Coehoorn
 * Pierre Charles L'Enfant
 * Giovanni Fontana
 * Leslie Groves
 * Cyril Gordon Martin
 * Coulson Norman Mitchell
 * John Rosworm
 * Charles Pasley
 * Vauban
 * Marc René, marquis de Montalembert
 * Charles George Gordon
 * Francis Fowke
 * Paul R. Smith
 * Vitruvius
 * Eugénio dos Santos
 * Tadeusz Kościuszko.
 * Leonardo da Vinci
 * Robert E. Lee
 * Herman Haupt
 * Douglas MacArthur
 * George Washington
 * Fritz Todt

title: Military engineering


text:
Talk:Feedback

Older comments
is external linking allowed?, in any case much good info in http://prof.usb.ve/williamc/Mejoramiento/historia.html should be made available here

in electronics the para are disordered, positive feedback (suject of great Armstrong deForset patent dispute)predates Black's negative feedback amplifier and should be refered to first, PID is a subset of negative feedback control techniques :jcox

--- I don't believe that the explanation of audio feedback is correct. It identifies the frequency of feedback noise as related to the transit time through the system (Implying it's a matter of repeating the waveform, the effect you might get with digital echo or flange). But I'm 95% sure that's completely irrelevant in a system like this, the waveform is completely obliterated by all the transitions made, all you're left with is frequencies that approximate those you started with.

OK, a quick test: I was able to get audible feedback with a 1/2 second delay in the loop, which should give a frequency of 2 hz, 5 octaves below audible.

So I'm rather sure the frequency of feedback is not determined by transit time, but by the frequency response of the whole system. All real world systems contain some capacitance and inductance, meaning they all act as very wide, low, bandpass filters. But when you amplify and feedback the filtered sound into the filtered sound, you've naturally created an oscillator (the simplest forms of analog oscillators work on exactly this principle).

So unless anyone objects I'm going to change the explanation to reflect this. User:Wji

Although feedback was perhaps discovered during the course of the development of electronics, it exists in many natural processes and the word (although not present in earlier dictionaries, for example the original OED) represents a concept in general use outside engineering. Therefore the article should begin with the general concept but include a substantial section on control theory. I was first introduced to feedback during training on servo mechanisms many years ago and am a bit rusty, but I clearly remember it took both positive and negative feedback to make them work. What we call feedback like with a microphone is perhaps not feedback in the sense we are using it here. User:Fredbauder

I agree that there is more than one sense of the word feedback. The Penguin Dictionary of Electronics, for example, has separate entries for feedback in the general sense and feedback control loop in the specific context of control systems. The Chambers Science and Technology Dictionary has headings for feedback (acoustic), feedback (telecommunications) and feedback control loop, so perhaps there are really three different concepts. If we wish to separate the general from the particular, I would suggest the following structure for the Wikipedia (with separate articles for hunting and feedback): Do you think this is reasonable? Unfortunately it contradicts your idea of putting the natural phenomena first. My scheme lists things in the order of discovery by man, whereas yours is nature-based. I cannot say which is better.
 * Hunting (known to mechanical engineers as early as 1880, according to OED2)
 * Feedback
 * as originally defined, i.e. in electronic amplifiers (see OED2 citation from 1920)
 * acoustic feedback in public address amplifiers (OED2 has a 1921 citation of howl) - perhaps this could be a separate article
 * feedback theory applied to control loops (probably first applied in World War II)
 * control loops in nature, i.e. natural systems that can be analysed with control loop theory (existing since prehistory but only understood by humans in the light of control theory)

As for the microphone example, this is an illustration of feedback in the electronic (or electroacoustic) sense, not in the control loop sense. The feedback is always positive, because sound from the loudspeakers is always added to, never subtracted from, the sound entering the microphone. What changes is the loop gain, which varies as the user moves the microphone relative to the speakers. As soon as the loop gain exceeds unity, the system howls. This effect is independent of frequency. I believe that a system with negative feedback can only become unstable if the signal frequency exceeds the bandwidth of the feedback loop.

In control theory you can have multiple feedback paths (often three: proportional, integral and derivative) and it is meaningless to talk about overall positive or negative feedback, because the three paths may have different characteristics. --Heron

What I suggest is a simple introduction which includes the general case, followed by as much specialized technical information as you feel appropriate. I agree the notion of postive and negative is applicable only to 2 dimensional systems, but I think it should remain in the introduction. I don't think organization around order of discovery is good; I prefer organization to start with a brief general introduction using simple language and concepts followed by (in this case) an engineering section, followed by the ways the concept has been adapted to natural systems. I guess runaway positive feedback is what we are talking about with apmplifiers. Fred Bauder

I divided the article into sections, without changing the words much. I may go further and remove the acoustic example to a separate article, but I'll leave 'hunting' where it is. --Heron

I have been bold and removed the acoustic feedback section totally. I have linked the existing article at Audio feedback to the disambiguation page. The main differences in the removed section (reproduced below) lacking in the original page are the points about the band-pass filter and the electronic oscillator.

I believe the band-pass filter point is incorrect anyway. True, all systems have some kind low and high pass filter in them, but this is generally well outside the human range of hearing, and in any case, makes no difference to the presence of feedback. The deleted section was also vague as to whether this was affecting the presence or nature of the feedback, but if it were just the latter, there are plenty of other factors involved (at the very least, the inherant EQ of the system would be much more important).

Also, the electronic oscillator point seems slightly amibiguous too, although I could understand if people wanted this link in the main article. It might be worth pointing out that the simplicity is certainly not in the waveform, but in the construction. --postglock 07:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Feedback in audio systems

Main article: Audio feedback.

A well-known example of runaway positive feedback in electronic systems is called "howl" or "howl-round". This occurs in public address systems when sound from the loudspeakers reaches the microphone, is amplified by the system, and is then fed back into the system at even higher volume. All electrical systems contain capacitance and inductance and so act as band-pass filters responding better to certain frequencies. In a single loop through the system, this effect is negligible, but it becomes severe when the signal passes through the system repeatedly. This effect is the basis of the simplest kinds of analogue electronic oscillator.

on mention of "audio feedback"at top
postglock- lemme know if my last version works for you. thankz, Ished-out amounts of Vonn-ness 14:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Problems with the current definition of "Feedback"
> Feedback is the signal that is looped back to control a system within itself.

The mention of "signal" and "control" seem overly teleological. Here are some definitions of feedback loop from around the net; a definition of feedback ought to work well with these sorts of definitions:

 * "A feedback loop is a system where outputs are fed back into the system as inputs, increasing or decreasing effects." (from this wikipedia's "feedback loop" article)
 * "a linkage of two or more system components that forms a round-trip flow of information."
 * "the output of some process or system is fed back into the system as a partial input, modifying the process."
 * "a self-perpetuating mechanism of change and response to that change."
 * "A series of actions which affect one another in a way that circles back to the original action."
 * "In the climate system a “feedback loop” refers to a pattern of interacting processes where a change in one variable, through interaction with other variables in the system, either reinforces the original process (positive feedback) or suppresses the process (negative feedback)."
 * "In a system where a transformation occurs, there are inputs and outputs. ... In every feedback loop, as the name suggests, information about the result of a transformation or an action is sent back to the input of the system in the form of input data."

What is your favorite, least constraining definition of feedback?

love, raiph 05:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to refactor content
There's a long laundry list of important theories, phenomena and more built directly on top of feedback loops that aren't mentioned on this page but should, imo, be considered. (I think I could easily list a dozen, and maybe a hundred, but the specifics aren't my point and I really don't want to get into that game yet if we can avoid it.)

Conversely, much of what's on the page right now seems too detailed, even for me, someone who's been intellectually focused on feedback loops for over a decade.

I propose I/we refactor the page. The introduction should be as general as possible. A History section seems a natural. Maybe an Examples section. I see most of the details of particular feedback phenomena going on their own pages.

Comments?

love, raiph 03:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge Feedback loop into Feedback

 * Support: It's the same content. Certainly feedback loops are everywhere, so this is in a way a disambiguation page.+mwtoews 21:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: The concepts are directly related. Zarggg 19:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: Same stuff --Pgreenfinch 19:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets do it: see above Sancho McCann 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support; the other article has a pretty little picture, and links bordering upon the metaphorical, but it all belongs here. Jim.henderson 21:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: Presumably it's standard practice when making major changes like this to ensure the new page reads smoothly as a link from other Wikipedia pages. I'm thinking in particular of Cybernetics, which is basically the study of (higher order effects of) feedback loops. love, raiph 18:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It appears that the redirection has been put in place, so I removed the Merge discussion header. Nitsky416 05:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Content for first paragraph
I am used to finding concise explanations in the first paragraphs of a Wikipedia article, and would propose the following thumbnail sketch of "feedback" for the first para. I haven't edited an article so won't presume, but this example is technically accurate and memorable:

Feedback: an action changes a system and then the system changes the action. Positive feedback increases the action: you step on the brake pedal in a moving car, and the car slows, pushing your foot down harder on the brake. Negative feedback decreases the action: you step on the gas pedal and the car accelerates, pulling your foot off the gas pedal.

If this is appropriate perhaps someone will include it. 68.98.117.241 23:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above change, and suggest that the current definitions in Types of Feedback are in fact incorrect and misleading. An example of negative feedback is a thermostat heating a room that is too cold. This is not reducing output, but increasing output (from the heater) or increasing input (into the room).

I also feel that the "bipolar feedback" definition is confusing - both positive and negative feedback mechanisms can cause output to change in either direction, so both are bipolar. But feedback can't be positive and negative at the same time.

Finally, hunting is more correctly a case of over-control, where a negative feedback signal overshoots the mark. This is a type of oscillation, but doesn't strictly involve positive feedback at all.

I suggest that this article could benefit from better clarity of the terms positive and negative earlier on. I had started to edit, but realized that my background (electronics) is probably too narrow for a general article.

Trevithj (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Other Uses of the Word "Feedback"
There is a Rush album called Feedback that should be included in the disambiguation page. --The Fwanksta

 * The winning contestant from Who Wants to be a Superhero was called Feedback (Matthew Atherton). This should be included on the disambiguation page.

 * Feedback is also widely used to refer to suggestions given to people or companies in order to help improve behaviour, services, results or products. Feedback to students about homework results, to workers about team performance, to companies about product quality and so on. There is literature and research about effective feedback, impact of feedback and so on. It appears that Wikipedia does not have articles about this kind of feedback, other than 360-degree feedback - josei 19:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A possible article splitt should be cancelled
A splitting of the article has been proposed on 15 March 2007. Nobody made any suggestions about this untill I yesterday removed the splitting tag. Now today User:Intgr reversed this with the argument:

 * I don't think it's outdated: the article still documents different loosely related meanings for "feedback" -- different concepts should have different articles

Now I think there are at least four good reasons not to split:
 * A splitting proposal should be cancelled if nobody reacts. You can keep those ideas for ever.
 * A splitt is not a good idea because:
 * there are no real different meanings of feedback in cybernetics, mechanical engineering and in economics.
 * They are all kind of control theory related.
 * Maybe only the super expert see all different things.
 * The article is about strong related meanings
 * The fact that a band exist called Feedback (Matthew Atherton) shouldn't be a reason to make a disambiguation page
 * I agree with josei. There is yet only a 360-degree feedback article, which can exist beside this article.

I think this article is only in need of an expert, who creates a more general introduction, which shows how all these aspects are related to one central concept. For example this article is comparable with the complexity article. This is also one paradigm, with different applications in the disciplines. - Mdd 18:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The fact that nobody has done the split yet doesn't mean that it shouldn't be split at all. If the tag hasn't been discussed or contested since March then I'd think that most passers-by have been agreeing with the split, but haven't really bothered to do it themself.

 * My rationale: As you stated, the common meaning of "feedback" is its meaning in control theory — this which also embraces the positive/negative/bipolar feedback types. The overlap of how feedback applies to other fields (acoustics, optics, electronics, economics, nature or organizations) is strictly limited to the control theoretical meaning, so there is little reason to keep some of them together. In fact, almost universally, when you want to link to an article on "feedback" from another, you want to link to the term as it applies to a particular field.
 * The current sections on the fields in this article could surely be expanded, but right now they're stuck in a no-man's land: they do not form a part of a larger article, but they're not first-class articles either. You're saying that you are looking for an expert on this topic, but you will indeed need a "super expert" — rarely does a specialist grasp more than one of these fields.
 * So, as far as I can tell, this fits the pattern for disambiguation pages, and there are heaps of precedents like this.

 * Your mentioning of 360-degree feedback is inexhaustive: There also exist articles on audio feedback, optical feedback and low-key feedback. And the electronics meaning (which is currently a section in this article) even has its own category: Category:Electronic feedback.

 * My proposal: Either keep the control theory stuff here, or move to feedback (control theory) or some such. The rest should be split into feedback (electornics), feedback (biology) and feedback (economics) respectively; not quite sure what to do with the "organizations" section. -- intgr #%@! 22:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Their is no need to spread so related knowledge over a number of small articles - Mdd 05:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

 * As I stated above, the only thing related between them is the control theory aspect. This concept will remain as a separate article, and will not be "spread" over the splitted articles. The fact that they currently exist as sections here actually limits their growth, since more specific content is irrelevant to feedback in control theory, even if it would be relevant in the particular field; just see the nature section: it briefly lists several phenomena without much further explanation, but is quite long already.
 * If there is no need to "spread knowledge", would you for instance consider merging audio feedback, optical feedback, and articles in Category:Electronic feedback here? Obviously not. -- intgr #%@! 08:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Their are more arguments agains spliting the article: I also think that:
 * 1) The current article offers far to little information to justify the creation of separate articles
 * 2) International there is also one article; See for example in the French, German and Dutch articles
 * 3) An alternative can be an Feed back (disambiguation) page.
 * 1) This article should first be expended and improved
 * 2) Links should be made here to audio feedback, optical feedback and Electronic feedback

Now I think I look at the concept of feed back from a kind of fundamental "systems science point of view". In this perspective the control theory aspect is not whole separate aspects beside e.g. biological, economical, electronical, ergonomic and mechanical forms of feed back. The control theory aspects with their mathematical forms of representation are the fundamentals for all kind of specialized applications.

I do agree something has to be done with this article. In it's current form it's just a collection of seemingly unrelated facts. I'll see if I can improve this a little. - Mdd 20:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Tag to split this article removed
I removed the tag to split the article because there was no response the last four weeks. - Mdd 19:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I just ran across this article now. This definitely needs to be split.  As somebody mentioned above, the only thing linking these things together is a really broad concept of the term "Feedback".  The methods by which feedback occurs within each of these fields - electronics, biology, communication - are really distinct, and feel haphazardly jammed together in one article like this.  Put it this way: nobody is going to be looking for information about "feedback" at such a macroscopic level as to benefit from a one-size-fits-all article like this; they're probably going to be looking for it as it relates to a specific field.  I can take this on as a personal project to split these off and build a worthwhile disambiguation page. Torc2 (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Not haphazard, the article header explains it. Feedback is when the output of come process loops around back to become an input to the process. It simply is a broadly applied principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.220.108 (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Bogus examples
The example of vacuum advance control in older automotive ignition systems is bogus. Such systems did not employ any kind of feedback mechanism; i.e., they did not sense or react to any change they produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.7.221 (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect sentence
The overview starts with the following sentence: both is followed by three items instead of two. Hence, both should be removed. mailto:oehl@pobox.com Georg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.113.192.12 (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Feedback is both a mechanism, process and signal that is looped back to control a system within itself

 * Ok, go ahead. -- Mdd (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bipolar feedback
This seems confusing. How can feedback be both positive and negative at the same time? These are exclusive, surely. If this means a switching function, where the feedback changes between positive and negative, then the definition should clarify this. If it means a balancing, then two feedback loops must be involved (one positive, one negative.) I have searched several online sources, and they all seem to cite each other (including this one) but I can't find an original definition. I have noted several references to "bipolar feedback transistors", but suspect that means a feedback loop involving a bipolar transistor, rather than "bipolar feedback" involving a transistor. If bipolar feedback is present in many systems, can someone provide an example?

Trevithj (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Types of feedback
I suggest that the primary purpose of the "Types of feedback" section is to distinguish negative feedback from positive feedback and outline other commonly used terms for types of feedback. This section should not get bogged down into fine details. The material that discusses the history of negative feedback should be moved into the Negative Feedback article. 203.206.220.108 (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

 * However, the origin of the term "feedback" may be relevant, if that is what the Black and Rosenblueth citations are trying to do. Maybe some clarity is needed here, since the original use of "feedback" seems to have described what we now call "audio feedback", which is a more specific term.
 * On the other hand, there is a lot of emphasis put on the electronics POV. For example, the assumption that feedback goes from output to input (vs Ramaprada's generalization that can apply to any system parameter). Useful for the origin of the term, but no longer generally true. Also, the mechanism of applying feedback is assumed to be by cancelling or reinforcing some of the input signal - again very specific to electronic signal amplifiers.
 * I support the above idea, and further suggest several points in this section be made more generic. To that end, figure 1 should be moved down to the Electronics section. -- Trevithj (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

In electronic engineering
The subsection "In electronic engineering" re-explains the concepts of negative feedback and positive feedback, which are not particularly specific to electronic engineering. Anyway, the section that contains this subsection is "Applications" so this is not the right place for explaining a general principle. 203.206.220.108 (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Feedback equals No Feedback

 * 3 - the feedback signal does not change when the input signal changes, in which case there is no feedback. This is known as a Linear system.

If no feedback is an example of feedback then sitting on your bum is an example of flying. In addition linear systems can have feedback, and non-linear systems do not require feedback. Thus the above should be deleted. 203.206.220.108 (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bad example, When everytime I've been on an airplane, I was sitting on my bum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RaptorHunter (talk • contribs) 02:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This article suffers from vagueness
This article has the same naming problem that correlation article had years ago. People at first mislabeled correlation as positive and negative. That is nebulous. It was correctly changed to direct and inverse correlation.

This article suffers from the same issue. It should NOT be positive and negative feedback. Instead the proper more accurate terms are converging and expanding feedback. The article needs renamed as well.

173.188.7.24 (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Please provide sources for the terms "expanding feedback" and "converging feedback" and why they are more applicable than the traditional terms, positive and negative feedback. Joja  lozzo  22:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 * May I suggest that the terms "reinforcing loop" and "balancing loop" are used more often to avoid the ambiguity of the terms "positive" and "negative" (and even "feedback"). See for example the work of John Sterman and Peter Senge, and Systems dynamics or Causal loop diagram. Trevithj (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

 * They could be mentioned, but probably not "used more", since they aren't the terms most commonly used in discussion of feedback. Dicklyon (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

 * That may be true, but I submit that "reinforcing loop" is a less ambiguous term than "positive feedback". Both "positive" and "feedback" have (by my count) three distinct meanings, so the common term could refer to "desirable speaker-howl", "beneficial appraisal" or "increasing criticism", to name a few. Trevithj (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Cited Definition
If no objection I would like to insert the below cited definition into the preamble, just above "feedback is also a synonym for...":
 * Feedback is information about the gap between the actual level and the reference level of a system parameter which is used to alter the gap in some way.
 * [Arkalgud Ramaprasad, "On The Definition of Feedback", 1983.

I hesitate only because the definition comes from the Behavioral Sciences, and may not be broadly applicable. Although it looks pretty good to me. --Trevithj (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Above changes made, and also modified the synonym "feedback signal", since this definition makes that (old) distinction unnecessary/redundant. --Trevithj (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

 * I would say that's a very odd and specific definition, not very applicable to the general case in engineered systems, where there is often no "reference level" or "gap"; a simple definition from a dictionary such as this one might be better. Dicklyon (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the definitions. I had considered something similar. Notice that the two Science and one Behavior defs refer to "information". In general, this information is often taken to imply a "discrepancy".
 * I'm a little surprised to hear that there is often no reference level. How does an engineer know when the system is working correctly? Can you give an example? -- Trevithj (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarity on Usage of Positive/Negative
As a suggestion, I would like to add a lead to the Types of Feedback section ... something like this:
 * Feedback is commonly divided into two types - termed positive and negative. How these terms are defined can vary depending on the context, and on the reference value. It is possible for a specific case of feedback to be defined either as positive or negative, depending on how it is measured. [Levine et al., 1992]
 * Positive and negative feedback can refer to:

-- Trevithj (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) the gap between reference and actual values of a parameter, based on whether the gap is widening (positive) or narrowing (negative).[A Ramaprasad 1983]
 * 2) the desirability of the means of correction, based on whether it is pleasant (positive) or unpleasant (negative). [BF Skinner 1954]

 * Initial modifications made. I intend to remove the paragraphs in this section that deal with the electronic amplifier example, and the positive/negative feedback paragraphs too. They seem very specific to electronic circuits, and are largely a repeat of what is already stated elsewhere in the article.
 * --Trevithj (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Tidying the Overview
I see a need to make this section: I propose: describing the history of the term "feed-back", and show its adoption from verb phrase to noun; moving the examples to their relevant sections in Applications, where they can be explained in greater detail; removing the description of positive/negative types, since these are already covered later in the article - and have their own pages anyway. --Trevithj (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * more generic. The current overview emphasises the cybernetic/electronic sense, jumps too quickly into definitions of positive/negative, and assumes a mechanism of control that is largely specific to electronics (output used to influence input). Feedback doesn't always involve measuring 'output', and not all mechanisms influence 'input'. (Ramaprasad, 1983)
 * more about the origin of the term. The paragraphs on feedforward seem to be trying to do this, but don't define feedforward clearly (with citations). Also other authors use 'feedforward' in a different way to this (e.g., Hendry 1988), which is confusing.

Remove redundant synonyms
Any objections if I remove the Audio feedback and Performance appraisal sections in the lead? They aren't really in the right context here, and are already covered in the disambiguation page and the "See also" list. --Trevithj (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Generic diagram for lead
Proposal is to return the "ideal feedback model" image to the electronics section, and put a more generic image in the lead. The existing image IMO better serves the article if placed in the Electronics section, for reasons stated here.

I agree with User:Teapeat that the lead image needs to summarize the overall topic in an abstract way. The image I propose follows Senge's definition of feedback as "any reciprocal flow of influence ... every influence is both cause and effect", or Astrom & Murray's "situation in which two (or more) dynamical systems are connected together..." and would consist of two abstract entities connected to each other by arrows representing a loop of influence or causality. This is equally applicable to either type of feedback, and applies broadly to any example.

Other options are welcome. --Trevithj (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Note that source of the diagram (as "ideal feedback model") appears to be Wai-Kai Chen, Active Network Analysis (1991, pp186-187), who likely based it on Hendrik Bode's Network Analysis and Feedback Amplifier Design. Can anyone sight and cite Bode's book? -- Trevithj (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, after a month and no comments, I will move the "ideal feedback model" diagram back down to the Electronics section, with cited reference to (and diagram description from) W.Chen. -- Trevithj (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Sorry for the shortage of feedback to your suggestions. Sometimes it's just easier to react to edits, rather than to ideas.  I'm not so sure; the system diagram is not particular to electronics, though it is most typically studied in EE courses.  What diagram are suggesting to put up front instead?  I think something with an input and and output makes more sense than the abstract of two things feeding back on each other.
 * There is an old conflict of definitions here - check out the quote in the Feedback section. My background is in electronics, and I took for granted that the output is used to modify the input. But that actually is very specific to electronics, where two signals can cancel or enhance each other. Get away from electronic signals, and the model doesn't hold. Also, I couldn't find a single cited source for the previous diagram that didn't involve electronics. -- Trevithj (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe not cited, but this book has block diagrams with outputs feeding back to summing nodes at inputs, and discusses it as such. Dicklyon (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know the book, but if it is about the origins - that would very likely include Black's negative feedback amplifier, as discussed in the Feedback.-- Trevithj (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

 * As for dividing feedback into two types, positive and negative, that's too simple in general. Real feedback systems tend to be a mix, depending on frequency and such. Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Frequency? Would I be right in assuming you are thinking of electronic signals here? -- Trevithj (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Frequency is important in all linear systems, and most nonlinear ones, too. My background is also EE and electronics, but since I work on modeling hearing, the system I'm working with is not electronic, but full of feedback of various sorts.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. Okay, sorry for presuming. Re the two types - they are commonly used in the literature. I agree that real systems are a lot more involved (quote by WR Ashby "The fact is that the concept of "feedback", so simple and natural in certain elementary cases, becomes artificial and of little use when the interconnexions between the parts become more complex.") but I figured we should follow the peer-reviewed majority for this article. -- Trevithj (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Email and social science
Is email administration really a social science? Maybe in the 90's it was, but we must have passed that stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.55.92 (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Types of feedback
The "Types of Feedback" section was poorly written, and jumped immediately to a rather unclear discussion on the social-science meaning of the words "positive feedback" and "negative feedback". I've tried to rewrite it to make it a bit clearer. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't question your intentions. However, the terms "positive" and "negative" are ambiguous terms, and the previous version reflected this. It didn't say anything about social science - in fact the quoted definitions come from behavioral and management science. So now one context is assumed, and the other is rather narrowly labeled almost as an afterthought, whereas before they were given a more equal weighting. New version isn't really clearer. Trevithj (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

 * However, your approach in moving the discussion on conflicting definitions out of the discussion of types does make sense. I have generalized the sub-heading (it may well be a social-science phenom, but citations are required.) Sorry if my edit-reversal was too precipitous. Trevithj (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 * the "types of feedback" section is still rather poorly written. "the altering of the gap between reference and actual values of a parameter, based on whether the gap is widening (positive) or narrowing (negative)" may be technically accurate, but it is nearly incomprehensible to anybody who doesn't already know what feedback is. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Definition appears to be over narrow, propose new definition
The current definition used in the article to scope it is:

 * Feedback is a process in which information about the past or the present influences the same phenomenon in the present or future.

The issue I have with this is that it doesn't map well onto many feedback loops. For example a ball-cock/float valve does not communicate information in any normal sense, it physically closes the valve. Another example is climate, there are feedback loops on the rainfall and temperature that go via bacteria seeding clouds. These are not information in any normal sense. Information is usually considered as a trigger to action, whereas these are mechanical feedback loops that physically force negative feedback.

Additionally there is the question of what the 'same' phenomenon means; it could mean practically anything.

I propose to change it to:

 * Feedback is any process in which the state of a system influences the future state of that system via a closed causal loop.

This is slightly more abstract, but the concept of the 'state of the system' is fully general, as is the term 'influence' and the notion of the loop being closed and causal. These seem to be wider than the current definition and the minimum necessary ingredients for feedback to be said to occur.

I welcome comments.GliderMaven (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I think that making up abstract definitions without showing support for them in sources is not likely to get us anywhere. And I think your definition is too general, in that the state of a system almost always has a causal influence on future state and output, whether there is something identifiable as feedback or not. The previous definition has the same problem, assuming you interpret information broadly enough for it to mean anything.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

 * In a ball-cock valve, the "ball" is a device which measures the amount of water in the tank. This information is fed (via a mechanical connection) to the valve, the device which controls the rate at which water flows to the tank. In modern times, the idea that information can be fed via a mechanical connection seems old-fashioned, but it's still feedback. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Unless you are getting into quantum mechanics, which I don't think we are, information is a human thing, whereas the actual feedback is a mechanical or electrical or chemical causal connection.GliderMaven (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Dicklyon has pointed to what is the point of WP: to report the contents of reliable sources and not WP editors' personal and unsourced views. If a definition is to be discussed, it should be related to sources. It doesn't have to copy them verbatim, of course, but it should be a clear presentation of the content of sources. Brews ohare (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

 * On the contrary, this is very often misunderstood, and you have done so. The first few sentences of the lead is the part where we state what the editors are considering to be the scope of the article for the readers; what is, and is not in scope is firmly an editorial decision. It cannot be found in any reference at all.GliderMaven (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Well, I doubt you believe the intro is open to wild imaginings. Such invention is constrained where definitions are involved by citing supporting sources, a common practice on WP that does not interfere in any way with the purpose of an intro. However, if you object, then provide the sources on this talk page so editors can assess that your proposed definition is indeed consistent with a balanced view of published reliable opinion, and is not a poorly worded approximation. If editors find your sources provide good support, they can decide whether to cite them in the lede or not. Brews ohare (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

 * That's basically what I'm doing here, in marked contrast to what you seem to be up to- which is forcing some randomly chosen definitions references on Wikipedia. The point is that the editors, particularly with the wider scoped, more general articles such as this one, end up having to synthesise an umbrella definition that encompasses all of the other definitions (or most of them, some definitions when you look at them hard enough are simply incorrect; dealing with incorrect reference information is something else that Wikipedia editors have to deal with.)GliderMaven (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ashby's discussion of the limited utility of 'feedback' as a concept
Before becoming embroiled in extreme positions on what is or is not feedback, it is worthwhile to consider Ashby's discussion of the limitations of this concept.

In Ashby's extensive work, on p. 58, article 4/10 he compares the case of two parts of a system, P and R and contrasts the case where P affects R but not the contrary, denoted P → R, with the case where each affects the other, denoted P $$\rightleftarrows $$ R. In this last case he says "when this circularity of action exists between the parts of a dynamic system, feedback may be said to be present." He continues:
 * "Other definitions, however, are possible, and there has been some dispute as to the best."

Among these, he considers those
 * "who want to use the word to refer, when some forward effect from P to R can be taken for granted, to the deliberate conduction of some effect back from R to P by some connection that is physically or materially evident."

He goes on to say that for the mathematician the requirement of a physical connection renders the theory "chaotic and riddled with irrelevancies". Ashby continues:
 * "The exact definition of 'feedback' is nowhere important...the concept of 'feedback'...becomes artificial and of little use when the interconnections between the parts become more complex. When there are only two parts...the properties of the feedback give important and useful information about the properties of the whole. But when the parts rise [in number] to even as few as four, if every one affects the other three, then twenty circuits can be traced through them, and ...[they]... do not give complete information about the system. Such complex systems cannot be treated as an interlaced set of more or less independent feedback circuits, but only as a whole...For understanding the general principles of dynamic systems, therefore, the concept of feedback is inadequate in itself...Complex systems ...have complex behaviors, and these behaviors can be goal-seeking in complex patterns."

The implications here are that feedback has a number of possible definitions, and whatever definition is chosen it will prove immaterial to the understanding of complex systems. This idea becomes paramount in philosophical considerations like enactivism, emergence, self-organization, and situated cognition.

With that in mind, a view of feedback in this article that takes a somewhat skeptical and distanced view of the matter seems appropriate, presenting a variety of views and their limitations. Brews ohare (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

 * This work is exceptionally dated. He's talking about 4 feedback loops.

 * The computer I have in front of me has of order a thousand million feedback loops inside it. A lot of that is RAM, but the microprocessor also contains large numbers of them; and the basic operation of the microprocessor actually is feedback. Computation is feedback, the program counters and registers are fed back internally in complex patterns over buses and so forth.

 * Far from being some little irrelevancy, the concept of feedback is completely central to computing.

 * The idea that coupled feedback loops can produce complex behaviours and so feedback is unimportant is exactly backward to the reality; coupled feedback loops are used incredibly, amazingly extensively for that very reason.

 * If feedback is so unimportant, why is it so important to my computer?GliderMaven (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

 * There are two problems here. The first is that you misunderstand Ashby, who is simply expressing the view that understanding feedback in simple cases is not helpful in complex cases where it is difficult to trace the interdependencies that may defy subdivision into parts with separable interactions. (The very simple case of feedback circuits in amplifiers is complicated in this way. See. for example, Chen and the article on return ratio, a method used because feedback is hard to quantify even in relatively simple circuitry.) Even where few parts are involved he has pointed out that debate exists. The more important problem is that you are not objecting to Ashby based upon sources with a less 'dated' perspective, but using your personal interpretation of your own experiences. Brews ohare (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Things like Chaos theory postdate Ashby; and are formed from using feedback in non linear systems.GliderMaven (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

 * There's an implicit idea that all forms of feedback are positive or negative; this is clearly false. And it's not difficult to see that a point in a state space of system with 3 or more dimensions can be both positive and negative at the same time when perturbed in different directions, although that would normally be considered positive feedback behaviorally.

 * Another thing that's missing from the article is catastrophe theory; which leads to things like Schmitt triggers which also use feedback, but are not simple positive/negative.GliderMaven (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ashby advocates the "circular causality" idea - which I believe is the thinking behind GliderMaven's suggestion. While historically the term "feedback" has referred to "output-to-input" (or out→in for short) the causal loop idea is more generic - which is what we want here.

I can see that the information term could be confusing. If we are using a specific term in a generic sense, we could either make that clearer, or simply drop the term. I would argue that the same can be said for the term "process", which strongly implies out→in.

Regards causal loops: it seems we have two basic models: a system that influences itself, or two parts of a system that influence each other. (S→S or P $$\rightleftarrows $$ R) I suggest they are the same idea, with differing levels of detail. Which is the more convenient for purposes of explanation? Trevithj (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Sorry Trevithj, I'm having trouble understanding your remarks which seem to assume some context I don't have. If you can understand GliderMaven, maybe you can also understand that if he used sources, his explanatory powers and credibility would be enhanced?. As for S⟺S vs. P $$\rightleftarrows $$ R, what is it you want to explain?

 * If you are talking about "information" as in "Feedback is the return of information about a system", this is from Morris, and I don't know what is confusing about it. Maybe you can elaborate? Brews ohare (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, that's the kind of thing. That's a more general definition, and this needs to be a general article that points off to the more specific places.GliderMaven (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ooops
Sorry about my broken edit, and thanks for fixing it, GM. I must have been looking at an old version.

On the Ramaprasad ref and definition, I don't know what to think. Does someone have a copy I can read? As an attempt at a "general" definition it seems way narrow, so it's not clear why we are including it there. Dicklyon (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

 * I have a hard copy, but am unable to find online free version. Wish it were more available - his references are very good, IMO. Can discuss, but am travelling at present. Trevithj (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

 * I bought a copy. I see it's all about the use of the term in "management theory", so I will clarify that in the article.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's the abstract:

The paper discusses the lack of a commonly accepted definition of the concept of feedback in management theory, dealing with communications networks and decision processes in living systems at the organization level. It proposes a general definition. It deals with living systems at the organization level, including the total system and all subsystems. Implications of the proposed definition to current conceptualizations of feedback processes in management are explored.

KEY WORDS: organization, decision making, feedback, management theory.''

 * Thanks Dick for the summary. Consider this quote: "Thus as long as the definition of the concept of feedback used by management theorists is at variance with the definitions used in cybernetics, general systems theory, control theory, etc., knowledge from these disciplines cannot be translated into the context of management. ... On the other hand, there is no universally accepted definition of feedback outside management theory either."

 * The second point is the difficulty we are having. While focused on management theory, the usefulness of this paper is the author's broad discussion of definitions across many disciplines, and his rationale for choosing the definition he does. The exact definition may not be agreeable for this article, but I believe it to be a very useful guide for discussion. Trevithj (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It also is the first result in Google scholar when I search on "definition of feedback", for what that's worth. Trevithj (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

 * I think if we make the (to some extent artificial if you believe in physicalism) distinction between feedback and reinforcement, then the problem goes away. If you subscribe to physicalism, there's still no strong necessary connection between the bulk of mechanistic feedback theory and reinforcement, due to the much higher complexity of animals, but in that case you could add reinforcement as a subarticle.GliderMaven (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

 * In terms of definitions, to the best of my knowledge, this diagram is basically the definition of feedback:

 * where the inputs and outputs can be many, since any feedback system can be mapped to it, if P is allowed to be any general function of its inputs; any feedback system has an equivalent system of this form.
 * I saw the diagram in a book once, but I don't have a reference, I already added it to the article because it identifies the input output and system boundary for the existing text.GliderMaven (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Negative feedback definition
At present, the lede states:
 * "The term "feedback" in this sense is also used as an abbreviation for:
 * Negative feedback – when the fed-back information acts to control or regulate a system by opposing changes in the output or measurement.

This definition of negative feedback suggests that it is an event that occurs when the fed-back information acts. The idea that negative feedback refers to an 'event' seems awkward to me because it emphasizes a transient behavior, rather than the consequence of a particular arrangement or set-up. I am also disturbed by the notion of information as an agent that can 'act'.

Some sources refer to negative feedback as a process.1 2 3 or as a form of control,4, or as a particular circumstance.5.

That suggests this change:
 * "The term "feedback" in this sense is also used as an abbreviation for:
 * Negative feedback – a process in which the fed-back information acts to control or regulate a system by opposing changes in the output or measurement.1
 * Sources
 * 1

Of course, a different reference could be chosen. Brews ohare (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

 * There being no discussion here, I implemented this change with two additional references. Brews ohare (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of large sections on feedback in education, management etc.
This edit removed extensive sections dealing with educational and other aspects of feedback without providing any feedback here on the Talk page. The in-line editorial comment was made regarding the educational material that article is not about individual uses of feedback, it is about feedback loops; the entire loop- and in quantitative science, and about the social science material removed the most egregious examples and unreferenced material.

No doubt, some changes were warranted. However, some discussion also is warranted. In particular, the idea that this article should be restricted to "quantitative science" is rather debatable, particularly because cybernetics arose in this context.

There appears to be a prejudice here that 'feedback' in other areas is used only in the everyday sense of rejection and unfavorable comment. However, that is not the case. Material where feedback is used to imply a detailed critique aimed at modifying a process or organization seems to me an appropriate topic for this article. While overlap will occur with the subjects of Reinforcement or "operant conditioning", and Reinforcement learning, the more technical aspects of feedback are mentioned in these fields and this article could usefully include some subsections that briefly make these connections. Brews ohare (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Whether they're formally types of feedback or not, they're still firmly and clearly forms of reinforcement; if you want to cover them, you should cover them in the most relevant article, which this article isn't.GliderMaven (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Reinforcement is an aspect of the use of feedback, but it is only part of it. And even if were everything, which it is not, this article should mention it as some readers will visit this page with applications to education and management in mind, and the connection with cybernetics, and wonder why it is not here. Brews ohare (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Feedback mechanism
Brews, why the hangup on "feedback mechanism"? Isn't an X mechanism just a mechanism involving X? What needs to be said about that? And where did you get that crazy definition you had added? Dicklyon (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Dick, your view that this is a 'hang up' is your own opinion favoring 'feedback' as a noun and denying its use as an adjective to identify a particular type of mechanism, afeedback mechanism. It appears some authors like the latter.
 * I'm not sure what 'crazy' definition you mean, and just why is it 'crazy', pray tell?
 * Dick, try addressing sources in place of me. Brews ohare (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Feedback mechanism – the action or means used to act upon feedback information, to implement a response
 * is what you "restored". I don't recall seeing it before; maybe someone else made it up if not you.  But it's lame.
 * and then you came back with "feedback mechanism" as a synonym for "feedback", and piled on a bunch of refs that use that term. Nobody is denying that such term is in use, with feedback as an adjective.  That's why I wrote "Isn't an X mechanism just a mechanism involving X?"  Well, isn't it?  What is your point here?  What is it about the term "feedback mechanism" that so makes you want to include it in the lead?  Dicklyon (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's used by many authors - cited several because I wanted it clear when you reverted that you were censoring. Brews ohare (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Censoring, right. It's in my book of prohibited concepts.  No mechanisms.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, feedback mechanism is common enough in sources. But what do you want to say about it that's worth a mention in the lead? So far I don't see anything. And I have no issue with sources, which is why I address you, Brews; tell us why you think this is worth a mention in the lead. Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Source supporting lead sentence
The lead sentence reads:
 * "Feedback occurs when outputs of a system are "fed back" as inputs as part of a chain of cause-and-effect that forms a circuit or loop.[2]
 * Source
 * [2] United States Naval Academy, "Elements of Feedback Control", Chapter 3, Fundamentals of Naval Weapons Systems (accessed August 29, 2014)

Presumably this source is meant to support the 'chain of cause-and-effect' claim. However, this idea does not show up in this source. The word 'chain' and the words 'cause' and 'effect' do not appear in this source. An alternative source is:

This source states:
 * "This chapter describes causal loop diagrams to portray the information feedback at work in a system. The word causal refers to cause-and-effect relationships. The word loop refers to a closed chain of cause and effect that creates the feedback."

A bit disconcerting for the lede is that Ford restricts the 'chain of cause-and-effect' to a particular type of feedback, namely information feedback, and suggests that the 'chain of cause-and-effect' is not actually the feedback (which is the information, of course) but the mechanism that creates the feedback.

My suggestion is that the Ford source replace the present source that has nothing to do with the lead sentence, and that some thought be given as to what is the feedback and what is the feedback mechanism.1 2 3 4 5 Brews ohare (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In this connection, CW Kirkwood suggests (§1.3 Feedback and causal loop diagrams in this source) that "Feedback is defined as the transmission and return of information (Richardson & Pugh, 1981)" This source is Brews ohare (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This definition is in widespread use. Brews ohare (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

 * That's Norbert Wiener's 1965 definition from his cybernetics work. It's not bad, but also not very used in engineering.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This feedback definition is not the main point. The main point is replacing the source. The next point is distinguishing between feedback and the way feedback is arranged for, the feedback mechanism. Brews ohare (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the Naval Academy source with Ford for the reasons given above, there being no objections raised here. Brews ohare (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've interchanged the first two sentences of the lede because the second sentence provides the definition of feedback and the first sentence describes its implementation. The reverse order is more logical and clearer. Both sentences are now solidly sourced. Brews ohare (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a particularly useful or clarifying definition. I agree with the revert of it.  The figure was also not so useful; what source motivated that one?  And what source motivates distinguishing between feedback and the way feedback is arranged for, the feedback mechanism?  Is distinguishing these better than claiming they are synonyms?  Or is "mechanism" essentially a meaningless term in typical uses?  Dicklyon (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Change in lede
The lede now reads:
 * Feedback occurs when outputs of a system are "fed back" as inputs as part of a chain of cause-and-effect that forms a circuit or loop.1 The system can then be said to "feed back" into itself.

 * 1

This version has replaced the previous version:
 * Feedback is the return of information about a system or process that may effect a change in the process, for example, the regulation or optimization of performance.1,2 Feedback occurs when outputs of a system are "fed back" as inputs as part of a chain of cause-and-effect that forms a circuit or loop.3 The system can then be said to "feed back" into itself.

 * 1
 * 2
 * 3

This change was made by GliderMaven with the comment removed unnecessary definition that is probably wrong, or at least incomplete and deceptive, an action supported by Dicklyon with the comment It's not a particularly useful or clarifying definition. These are rather odd evaluations, as the definition originates with Norbert Wiener as cited above, a particularly authoritative source, and additionally is found in Morris' dictionary also cited above, in Ford, and has wide currency.

In addition, the earlier version and its three sources emphasize feedback as an exchange of information, but also that for it to work we need a mechanism to insure consequences. There exist a variety of structures for putting feedback to work, but the various possible mechanisms can be described generally as "closed chains of cause and effect". Although the present lede retains Ford as a source, his identification of these two aspects, the information exchange and its activation,(also pointed out by Wiener and Morris) has been lost. Brews ohare (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

 * What you refer to as "the earlier version" is your recent new version, right? I think you got the order wrong.  Anyway, Wiener's cybernetics definition is not very clarifying or useful, even though widely quoted.  I'm not sure what the history of the ref on the lead sentence is.  We should fix that.  Usually we don't put refs in the lead, but summarize what's in the article.  So yes maybe there's work to do.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you attributed that one to me, a while back, . Not sure what I said to provoke that.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And here is where GliderMaven replaced it with something that to me at least seems more meaningful, sourced to a Navy thing. Dicklyon (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Dick: You repeat that Wiener's definition from his well-regarded book is 'not very clarifying'. GliderMaven says it's probably wrong and misleading. Well, I feel in good company with Wiener, and suggest that the notion that feedback involves making use of an information exchange is perfectly clear and helpful, while the present lead sentence, in contrast, actually does not undertake to define feedback at all, but only tries to say under what circumstances it can happen - it 'occurs when...' That is like a so-called explanation of ebola as something that 'occurs when you visit Liberia'. The change of the source to Ford and the lack of relevance of the Navy source is very carefully explained in the thread  above that provides reasons you have not taken into account.   Brews ohare (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "occurs when" construct is not great. But Wiener's "Feedback is the return of information about a system or process that may effect a change in the process" is very unclear.  What does "return" mean here?  And "information" is also so general as to be uninformative.   And "effect a change in the process" is very unclear; how do the examples of "regulation or optimization of performance" relate to feedback as we know it, which doesn't regulate or optimize or change the process, but just modifies an input?  His cybernetic view was trying to take the usual feedback and generalize it to something so big as to be almost anything.  It's not necessarily wrong, just not useful or clarifying, which is why you don't see anything like it in most engineering texts.  What Wiener talks about is more what I'd call "learning" or "reinforcement" than the usual concept of feedback.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Wiener's definition is clear to me because I already know what he is talking about. You do too. So perhaps you can reword his definition to be clearer? That would be better than abandoning ship for a non-definition about 'it occurs when...'.
 * The key point of Wiener's definition is the role of information. To elaborate using an example you are familiar with, error-controlled regulation, the information begins with the performance gap. This information is processed by the controller to figure out what correction is needed, the implications of the initial information. Then this combination of what the system status is and information about the nature of the system's operation is repackaged by the controller as information in the form of instructions to an effector that can modify the system. The conduit for this information in its various forms as it passes around the loop is the 'chain of cause and effect'.
 * Now, your take on things, that Wiener has unfocussed the content of his definition so it can encompass a ridiculously broad range of topics, could be seen instead as an abstraction that covers the various forms of feedback succinctly and can be illustrated for an audience not familiar with its ramifications by providing a few examples so its generality can be understood. That approach is used by these authors, for instance Lein. Brews ohare (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Inadequacies of the present lede
The version of the lede installed by GliderMaven with Dicklyon's blessing has the demerits of containing no definition of 'feedback' (it states, not what it is in fact, but only circumstances attending its appearance - it 'occurs when...' ), and of ignoring the role of information pointed out by a seminal source (Wiener) and adopted by many subsequent authors. The present lede employs a source focused upon information (Ford) without benefiting from its teachings. This version removed by GliderMaven has none of these defects and is more completely sourced. Brews ohare (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

In making this change in the lede that de-emphasizes the importance of information, GliderMaven is reversing his previous recommendation for a generality of approach involving explicit reference to the conduit of information. Why? Brews ohare (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Apparently the only changes to the lede are the addition of links to two seemingly opposing sources. Ford suggests that feedback is a causal loop, while Aström & Murray point out that in a simple feedback loop it is impossible to say whether part A is a cause acting on part B or vice versa as each affects the other. Probably Ford would agree that a "casual loop" is inherently ambiguous in this way, although he has no hesitation in calling part A a cause acting on part B, and ignores the fact that part B influenced the cause provided by part A via part B’s own action.  For more complex systems, feedback may not be a loop of any kind, of course, as pointed out by Ashby, p. 54 who goes so far as to say the concept of feedback "becomes artificial and of little use when the interconnections between the parts become more complex". In any event the present substitution of some circumstances where feedback might occur (Feedback occurs when ...), instead of what the lede needs, namely a definition of what feedback actually is, has not been addressed. Brews ohare (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sections on flip-flops and on oscillators have not been connected to the topic of feedback
The section on Feedback and on Feedback make no connection to the role of feedback in their operation. The oscillator subsection is little more than a repeat of the lede for Electronic oscillator, and likewise, the subsection on flip-flops is little more than a repetition of the lede for Flip-flop (electronics). Without clearly describing the nature of the feedback used in these applications and its role, preferably sourced and not just some WP editor's opinion, these subsections have no place in an article on feedback. In their present form, these subsections could be replaced by See also links at the end of the feedback article. Brews ohare (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A possibly useful discussion for oscillators is provided by Kal "Sinusoidal oscillations can be produced using two different types of principle: negative resistance oscillators and feedback oscillators." and by Chattopadhyay "Both negative-resistance and feedback oscillators can be sinusoidal and relaxation types." Brews ohare (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 * See also is for things that they are not the same topic. Flip flops are multivibrators and multivibrators are devices based in feedback theory- they're cross-linked feedback loops. Flip-flops are also extremely important, and incredibly widespread.

 * I don't think we're covering negative resistance oscillators here though; the article is about feedback. Feedback based oscillators are completely on-topic though.GliderMaven (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Not the point. The point is to include a description of the role for feedback and its type in these devices, with sources. Brews ohare (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Poorly written article
This article is poorly written and it's not concise. The introduction is lousy and it does not list positive feedback so I wonder why only negative feedback should be listed. The section on terminology implies two confusing definitions and later, in the electronic engineering section, a third definition based on direction is included. Later, in the negative feedback loops section, a definition based on phase is introduced. In my opinion, the definition in terms of direction and phase are confusing or even incorrect. Also, if multivibrators are a form of positive feedback, they should be listed under the positive feedback section. Oscillators are presented and my understanding is that they use positive feedback. This is not explained or mentioned at all. Lastly, as far as I know, latches use positive feedback. This is not state anywhere in the article. Nothing is mentioned about flip-flops either. Both oscillators and latches/flip-flops should be listed under their respective categories. This article needs a huge rework.

ICE77 (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Response speed positive/negative feedback in Biology section
> A negative feedback loop is one that tends to slow down a process, whereas the positive feedback loop tends to accelerate it.

This sentence is capable of being completely misunderstood, seemingly supporting a common misunderstanding in certain fields of biology, namely that systems possessing a positive feedback tend to respond faster, and systems possessing a negative feedback tend to respond slower.

The problem arises because it is not stated at all as compared to what exactly a "negative feedback [..] tends to slow down a process". That is: given a process with a positive or negative feedback loop, how does the corresponding process without the feedback loop exactly looks like? This is very problematic because in a very common way to answer this question, rather the direct opposite of the statement above holds.

Example: Consider the linear system

$$\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}x(t)=(1-k)(u(t)-x(t)), x(0)=0$$

where 00) increases the time constant (makes the system slower), and a negative feedback (k<0) decreases the time constant (makes it faster).

I propose to completely delete the statement rather than keeping it in its current form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Langmo (talk • contribs) 12:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

life sciences & engineered systems - what' the breakdown? 50/50?  90/10?
this article/ subject matter & its related concepts- are they more closely associated with life sciences or with engineered systems? can anyone estimate a proportion break-down, like a percentage that it pertains to each?

leaving this question unanswered will leave the article muddled and possibly confusing, depending on the initial assumptions of the reader. skakEL 19:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Medical electronic 3330303
Op-amp with nagative positive feedback 2402:3A80:16E1:87D:0:3B:122A:2A01 (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

 * @ 159.192.43.62 (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

MANAGING 196.189.127.101 (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Feedback


text:
User talk:Conrad.au

Hello there Conrad, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit How does one edit a page and experiment at Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, I like your improvements to Canberra, Australia. Cheers! --maveric149

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Conrad. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Conrad~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Conrad.au