Talk:Machine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

what about it?

What about computers and hypothetical machines like Turing machines? Shouldn't they be listed here, too? --zeno 16:32, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Electronic computers are not machines, technically speaking, because they do not consist of moveable parts. The disk drives and the fan are just accessories; the CPU, the other chips, and the IC board are not mechanical at all. 75.63.18.1 (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

How about this: "The original meaning of the term, from 19th century mechanics, was a mechanical device with parts that used energy to perform useful work. This is still the usage in mechanics and physics, but in common usage the term has spread to nonmechanical devices that perform other types of work, such as information processing." --Chetvorno^TALK 00:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Computers are most certainly "machines". See Association for Computing Machinery, "the world's first scientific and educational computing society" (and still going strong). Founded in 1947 for Pete's sake!, when electronic computers were displacing mechanical ones. I disagree strongly with the notion that because a mechanical device is replaced with an electronic one, it is no longer a "machine".

From The America Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, 1985, Houghton Mifflin Co.: "Machine … 3. A system or device, such as an electronic computer, that performs or assists in the performance of a human task."

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"[T]he Eckert-Mauchly Award … was named for John Presper Eckert and John William Mauchly, who collaborated on the design and construction of the first large-scale electronic computing machine, known as the Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer (ENIAC), in 1947." (emphasis added) ("ACM, IEEE-CS Honor F. P. Brooks for Defining 'Computer Architecture'", ACM MemberNet, Volume 3, Issue 2, May 2004)

Rico402 (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Machinec:Machinec.com is a leading product sourcing and supplier discovery platform about machine, machinery, and other industrial products/services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.225.56.34 (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Flint hand axe

The article has an image of a flint hand axe. This is not a machine, except perhaps in a very tenuous sense, and neither "flint" nor "axe" nor "stone" is mentioned in the main text. Since it is irrelevant, I suggest that it be deleted. Eric Drexler (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. While it certainly is a "tool", it hardly qualifies as a "machine". There must be better images to be found in Wikimedia Commons. Reify-tech (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

As discussed above, a wedge is defined as a simple machine, and the article did comment on the wedge-like properties of an axe. That comment was removed without explanation, and the following edit appeared to be a self-revert (but wasn't). I have reinstated it. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

not a good start

This article commences with "A machine is a tool containing one or more parts that uses energy to perform an intended action." This is a poor start. Everything on the planet uses energy to perform an intended action. Everything on the planet has one or more parts. In other words, the current introduction is simplistic rot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.46.232 (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Simple Machines

Elementary school teachers like the concept of simple machines because it appears to move their students toward knowledge of technology and even engineering. There are many web-pages that illustrate simple machines and analyze their operation as applications of physics and mathematics. Unfortunately, the engineering is wrong and sometimes the physics as well. In the 1800's the classification of machines along the lines of Aristotle became increasingly complex as more machines were designed. The individual who most diligently pursued this effort was Franz Reuleaux. His collection of 800 machine elements can be found at Cornell's KMODDL site. It is, perhaps, no surprise that it was Franz Reuleaux, who identified a more fundamental approach to describing machines that informs designers to this day. This approach, which is over one hundred years old, has nothing to do with the statement: "A simple machine is a device that transforms the direction or magnitude of a force." Prof McCarthy (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The existing statement is straightforward and like all simple statements is an approximation that has fuzzy edges. What alternatives would you suggest? Derek farn (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Pillars that support a highway overpass transform the magnitude and direction of the bridge and highway loads, but I for one do not consider a pillar to be a simple machine. A dam that holds back water transforms the magnitude and direction of hydraulic forces, but again I for one do not consider a dam to be a simple machine. I recommend deleting the sentence. On the other hand, if a pillar and a dam are examples of simple machines, then leave it. Prof McCarthy (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Good examples. Leaning a broom against a wall would also transform the direction and magnitude of a force and is even less likely to be considered a simple machine. The sentence is a good explanation of the six examples given in the main body of the example. Do we move the sentence there and say its the linking concept or do we try to narrow its scope in the introduction? What about: "A simple machine is a device whose primary purpose is to transforms the direction or magnitude of a force"? Derek farn (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not find this sentence to be a good explanation of the six examples because just about everything changes the direction and magnitude of forces. Prof McCarthy (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

So... Basically, you are making the above statement in order to... complain (?)... that what Wikipedia currently has... is not good enough? There's this great premise to Wikipedia that anyone can edit it and make it better, and that if you don't think something is sufficiently accurate or meaningful, you are not only welcome but are actively encouraged to change it and improve it. But simply stating a complaint isn't by itself all that helpful unless you have suggestions about where to go from there. Is a broom a machine (simple or otherwise)? I agree that it is not! Is the offending sentence therefore worth removing or rewriting? Absolutely! Why, four years later, is it still there? Apparently because no one with the right background and sufficient confidence has come along and fixed it. No other reason! KDS4444^Talk 09:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)