Talk:Machine (mechanical)

New article
This article is focusses on the mechanical aspects of machines, which involve primarily forces and movement. This is intended to distinguish machines that are mechanical devices from the use of machine to refer to aspects of computers. Prof McCarthy (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Mechanism
I am trying to insert the following paragraph. But it does not show up.

A machine consists of an actuator input, a system of mechanisms that generate the output forces and movement, and an interface to the user. Electric motors, hydraulic and pneumatic actuators provide the input forces and movement. Mechanisms consist of gears and gear trains, belt and chain drives, cam and follower mechanisms, linkages and friction devices such as brakes and clutches. Structural components consist of the frame, fasteners, bearings, springs and a variety of specialized machine elements such as splines, pins and keys. The user interface ranges from switches and buttons to programmable logic controllers. Modern machines include computers and sensors that monitor performance and plan movement and are generally called mechanical system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof McCarthy (talk • contribs) 17:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Mechanical machine
It seems there is a regular need to revise articles about machines so all definitions include computers. This comes from a variety of uses of the term machine in the context of computers, such as machine room, Turing machine, and virtual machine, and perhaps because the original computers used mechanical logic and were strictly limited to mechanical movement. However, for hundreds of years the term computer referred to a person who performed computations. As I have discussed in detail in the talk page on the article "machines" this insistence that our current understanding of a computer correspond with our understanding of a machine makes it difficult to write clearly about the mechanical features of a machine. This discussion of how to distinguish the mechanical features of a machine from everything that others want to have considered to be a machine resulted in the phrase "mechanical machine." The result of that discussion was the creation of this particular article as much to avoid the phrase "mechanical machine" as to allow the focus on the mechanical features of a machine. I hope I can simply request that this phrase not be used in this article. Prof McCarthy (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

a wheel is a machine
What definition of machine are you using when you say a wheel is a machine? Jimbowley (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I found the American Heritage definition of machines to be helpful. Here is that definition(Prof McCarthy)
 * Thanks for reply. So, do you think a wheel meets the definition "A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form."?
 * I don't see any mechanical energy coming out in a useful form, only frictional losses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbowley (talk • contribs) 11:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A wheel is used to reduce the friction in pulling a cart. It acts to transfer forces in all types of machinery.  As I have written in many different places the concept of simple machines is flawed, though our elementary school teachers like it.  In my opinion it is not worth the effort to pursue a definition of a simple machine to its logical conclusion.  You would be better served by considering the modern formulation introduced by Reuleaux in the late 1800s.  Prof McCarthy (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are the one stating that a wheel is a machine. But you won't provide a definition of machine that the wheel fits into. Jimbowley (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't use the strawman argument that I believe in the Renaissance concept of 6 simple machines. Defend your own position not what you imagine is my position. Jimbowley (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As I have said, I consider this definition, among others, to be useful: "A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form."  In my opinion it is obvious that a wheel meets this definition. Prof McCarthy (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please point me to the more useful form of energy when I'm pulling my cart.Jimbowley (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Kinetic energy of the cart. Prof McCarthy (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When pulling a cart along the road at constant speed there is no increase in kinetic energy, all my input energy is going to waste heat. If you want to look at an accelerating cart you will need some extra input force over and above that to overcome friction, as you well know.Jimbowley (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A cart requires kinetic energy be added to maintain a constant velocity in order to overcome losses. Prof McCarthy (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You can add kinetic energy to something without increasing its velocity or its mass?Jimbowley (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you do not, then the cart will slow down due to losses. 13:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It won't slow down because I'm pullin it with a force equal to the frictional force at the road.Jimbowley (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your input force is adding the kinetic energy needed to maintain a constant velocity. Prof McCarthy (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being unfair by not stating my position. So I will. My concept of machine includes useful work output (I'm sure you've gathered that). If that is 'old thinking' and 'new thinking' doesn't use the concept of useful work output, then I will accept that. All I ask is to be shown some evidence that that is indeed the 'new thinking'. As yet no-one has shown me a definition that does not include useful work output/useful form of energy. I think I'm being fair here. Jimbowley (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are free to introduce and use any definition of a machine that you like. However, generally the definition of a machine does not include a judgement regarding the usefulness, or benefit, of its operation. Prof McCarthy (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to do that. But you have yet to show me a single definition that does not include useful work. At least we are getting somewhere, up to now I thought we agreed on the definition, but finally you have stated it does not include useful work. All I need now is to see some evidence of that. Jimbowley (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And to be fair, the first 2 sentences of this article, which you wrote, do look like they are saying what I'm saying, rather than what you just wrote above.Jimbowley (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * finally you have deliberately or otherwise failed to understand what is meant by useful work. It's not a value judgment, it's just work output other than heat. ie a force or some work done or an increase in kinetic energy, etc, etc. Jimbowley (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is heat not a useful output of the operation of a machine? Prof McCarthy (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it just dissipates into the environment.Jimbowley (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you were to capture that heat and use it to produce a mechanical output, then you would have a machine.Jimbowley (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Heat can be energy that we choose to dissipate such as in brakes and clutches for proper operation of a machine. Prof McCarthy (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Summary?
I think we've got to the bottom of this argument now. ProfMcCarthy's view of a machine does not require mechanical output, whereas mine does. I'd argue my view is more widespread (say among engineers) but ProfMcCarthy's is likely more up to date.

So where does that leave us? How do we transition from an established way of thinking to a new one, especially when the difference is quite hard to find? Do we point out the change or just hope no-one will notice?Jimbowley (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no argument, and no old thinking versus new thinking. There is simply one person's desire to characterize a machine in terms of useful work. Prof McCarthy (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually one person pointing out that every reference he has seen, including the ones provided by ProfMcCarthy, refers to useful output. Jimbowley (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Useful output is not the same as useful work. Prof McCarthy (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is heat dissipated to the environment useful output?Jimbowley (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be useful or not useful depending on the machine. Prof McCarthy (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Definition of machine
"Machines employ power to achieve desired forces and movement." Screwdrivers, hammers, saws ... are mechanical machines? Is that correct (or am I confused - which is often the case!)?. Are all tools machines? If not, how do I tell a tool from a machine? These questions arises, in part, because of the unqualified inclusion of "simple machines" in this "Machine (mechanical)" article. Whatever the answer, "human" should be added to power sources. ps - I was only looking for a definition of machine! 76.103.213.6 (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Human and animal effort are important power sources for machines. Employ is not the best word, machines are designed to direct, manipulate or control power from natural sources to achieve desired forces and movement. You can find an outstanding definition for machine in the American Heritage dictionary: definition:


 * 1.
 * a. A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form.
 * b. See simple machine.
 * c. See compound machine.


 * 2. A system or device for doing work, as an automobile or jackhammer, together with its power source and auxiliary equipment.


 * 3. A system or device, such as a computer, that performs or assists in the performance of a human task:The machine is down.


 * 4. An intricate natural system or organism, such as the human body.


 * 5. A person who acts in a rigid, mechanical, or unconscious manner.


 * 6. An organized group of people whose members are or appear to be under the control of one or more leaders:a political machine.


 * 7.
 * a. A device used to produce a stage effect, especially a mechanical means of lowering an actor onto the stage.
 * b. A literary device used to produce an effect, especially the introduction of a supernatural being to resolve a plot.


 * 8. An answering machine:Leave a message on my machine if I'm not home.


 * adj.
 * Of, relating to, or felt to resemble a machine:machine repairs; machine politics.


 * v.ma·chined, ma·chin·ing, ma·chines
 * v.tr.
 * To cut, shape, or finish by machine.
 * v.intr.
 * To be cut, shaped, or finished by machine:This metal machines easily.
 * Prof McCarthy (talk)

Merger proposal
I propose that Machine (mechanical) be merged with Mechanical system and Machine. I don't see the benefit of having three articles so similar to each other and feel they would do better as one. Azyrana (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I've thought about this for a couple years... ;)  ...and decided:


 * Merge. I agree that distinction between these articles could be made, but distinctions aren't currently clearly stated.  Even if they are better defined, I don't see how any such distinction would be notable anyway.  The article titles don't make distinction obvious to readers; worse, editors don't seem to be consistent in maintaining any distinction here, and I don't see that's likely to change.  It's true that the combined article after merging is likely to be large, but that's not necessarily wrong for such a wide subject.  Maybe after fully merged, it will be more apparent where some larger sections can be separated into fully distinct new sub-articles.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have thought about this a long time as well. Unfortunately, the reasons for the initial separation have not changed. The article Machine as it was promoted for a long time by Derek farn was intended to include the electronic computer as a machine.  There is so much that can be written about the electronic computer as a machine, and separately about mechanical computers and other machines that it is not appropriate to have them in the same article.
 * Therefore I vote Do Not Merge.Prof McCarthy (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This argument appears dated. If the distinction is about computers, then the article names and subjects should reflect that.  But as it stands, the distinction between the two articles is lost on the reader by name, is not being followed by content, and therefore the opposite of helpful.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The article machine seems to have degenerated over time into a collection of everything to which one might attach the term machine, Computing machine, electric machine, electronic machine, molecular machine. I understand that this is poor service to the reader, but it is equally poor service to mix this grab bag of claims on the term machine with what is a clearly defined article about the mechanical concepts inherent in modern machinery. I do not know why Derek Farn has lost interest in maintaining the quality of this article, but its poor quality does not justify combining its worst features with the separate and higher quality article on Machine (mechanical). Therefore Do Not Merge. Instead repair or remove the poorly written sections on "fill-in-the-blank machine." Prof McCarthy (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Let me add that the table Types of Machines is breath-taking in its confident presentation of nonsense. Machines are classified as: simple machines, mechanical components, clocks, compressors and pumps, ..., information technology, electricity, and miscellaneous. The wonderful examples of information technology machines are the computer and the calculator, the examples of electricity machines are the vacuum tube and transistor.  Justification of this requires mental gymnastics that turns every single thing into a machine.  Please stop proposing to mix this nonsense with the article Machine (mechanical).Prof McCarthy (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * More machines for this article: Vending machine, adding machine, sewing machine, milling machine, flying machine, Turing machine, wind machine, walking machine, slot machine, screw machine, spring-making machine, bread machine, braiding machine, machine room, machine gun, machine tools, machine screws. Prof McCarthy (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I have revised the article machine to repair a number of what I felt were fundamental flaws. I am surprised to see that those in the past who insisted that electronic systems are machines have not noticed or responded to my edits. If there continues to be no objection to my edits, then I believe it would be possible to merge these articles. However, please wait until those who were so adamant in the past that a computer, a television and a radio are machines, and a transistor is a machine element, have the opportunity to revert my edits.Prof McCarthy (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I have significantly edited both Machine and Machine (mechanical) to prepare for merger. This also allowed me to move much of the material in Mechanical systems to Machine. Here is hoping that the electronic-systems-are-machines crowd remains quiet. Prof McCarthy (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge. There is no reason to have a separate article on essentially the same topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether you could have a look at this merge proposal again, as enough time seems to have passed and I can't quite see your final specific proposal for Machine, Machine (mechanical) and Mechanical system. Klbrain (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have tried to be clear. The pages Machine (mechanical) and Mechanical system were created because there was a group of wikipedia editors who were committed to maintaining that machine included everything associated with an electronic computer.  I do not know if that group still exists, or will appear again. Prof McCarthy (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge seems fine to me, as per Prof McCarthy entry of 04:41, 27 September 2017. Klbrain (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * x2 ✅ Klbrain (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)