Talk:Mechanical advantage

German translation
There must be a better translation of the term "mechanical advantage" than "Übersetzung" or "Übersetzungsverhältnis" which I have given. But even as a German and mechanical engineer I don't know. The German page where I have linked to, talks only about gear ratio. The leo translation "Hebelarm" does also not really fit to this page. Maybe German does not distinguish between "mechanical advantage" and "gear ratio", like english does not distinguish between "steuern" and "regeln" (it is both called "control" in English).

Illustrations
reqdiagram I was trying to understand this and was having a difficult time mentally picturing the various pulley systems described. I think some simple illustrations, in the form of diagrams, would be greatly beneficial for readers of this article. --Wood Thrush 20:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A diagram was added --pfctdayelise (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hydraulic and pneumatic systems
How about mentioning hydraulic and pneumatic systems? Just as with the lever, it is possible to assemble combinations of pistons and connecting rods that multiply force at the expense of having to move more fluid or gas. &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 21:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * One guiding principle is, I think, what is common practice in education and industry. It is my experience that in those environments one does not speak in terms of 'mechanical advantage' when discussing hydraulic and pneumatic systems. But of course I may be wrong since I do not know all fields of knowledge. You say: "assemble combinations of pistons and connecting rods that multiply force". In such an assembly the use of 'pistons' seems irrelevant if the emphasis is on the external connections in the light of this article: anything outside the piston is mechanical and is covered in the article. If the increase in force (in other words 'advantage') is principally due to the internals and sizing of parts of the piston can one then still use the term 'mechanical advantage'? That depends on how you break down the working principle of the pistons, etc.. What you are suggesting should be broken down into the elementary parts related to forces and change in forces. Relevant is that the article Hydraulic cylinder alas has no explanation in that area, while it should have. The article Pneumatic cylinder does show a formula, but could do with more explanation. Also pictures are still missing. Articles on Hydraulic motor or Pneumatic motor should also be expanded with information on the force distribution and transfer. The article Fluid power could be expanded a lot to cover these areas. Another one I am thinking of is the use of explosives to create deformation in (large) sheets of metal. Or in airbags. That does not fit in this article (but in a separate article?) but is related to the idea. (I know I am rambling. I hope I make myself clear... It is still early.) --VanBurenen (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Torque multiplier
A torque multiplier is a specific type of mechanical advantage that is already discussed in this article. As such, it only makes sense for the two article to be merged. Wizard191 (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A 'torque multiplier' is a specific type of tool. It does use mechanical advantage to multiply the torque, however, it being merged with this article does not make sense.  The article for wrench for example, is not and should not be part of the article on Mechanical Advantage, even though a wrench is just a lever used to exert mechanical advantage on something.  A device, and the theory which it operates on, deserve separate articles.  I am removing the redirect for 'torque multiplier' to this article. Tom (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

pulleys used in burton configuration
There is a whole separate approach to using pulleys to obtain mechanical advantage that needs to be addressed here.

See http://www.wesleyan.edu/physics/demos/mechanic/1m2010.html for an illustration of the two approaches.

It is possible to obtain much greater mechanical advantage with only single pulleys using this approach because the overall mechanical advantage is the product of the individual advantages instead of simply the sum. The trade-off is that the pulleys meet after the load has moved only part of the way to the fixed block. This is not always a fatal disadvantage, because the load does not always need to move all the way, and there are common uses of this approach to achieving mechanical advantage. See, for instance the Trucker's hitch. A "Spanish Burton" is typically rigged in the main brace of square rigged sailing ships. This achieves a greater advantage in this critical line with less weight aloft; it allows a sufficient range of motion in the yard. In many cases a combination of approaches are used, so that a final burton is used to multiply the advantage of an additive tackle. A variation that uses slipping points of purchase to get a longer overall range of motion (called a Z hitch, I believe) is taught for some rescue situations.

--AJim (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Jim, I agree with you. You are free to create a new sub-section and add some explanatory text about the burton configuration.  You can use the Wesleyan.edu website as an in-line citation to support your new sub-section.  Dolphin  ( t ) 05:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Jim, I believe you're talking about a z-drag.--john.james (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks. And there is already an article about it! --AJim (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Revisions to this article
If it is all right, I would like to make some revisions to this article to clarify the basic principles. Prof McCarthy (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Prof McCarthy. You are most welcome to make revisions to this article, and any other Wikipedia article.  No special approval or permission is required.  Happy editing!  Dolphin  ( t ) 01:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I will make the changes in a draft on my personal page for others to examine before I post them to this page. Prof McCarthy (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see the revised version of this article that I have prepared at mechanical advantage draft. I think I cover all the points in this article with a little more precision and depth. Prof McCarthy (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Rather than cut and past the entire article. I will move it in in sections. Prof McCarthy (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not delete the discussion of IMA and AMA, and relabeled the section efficiency. While it is an awkward explanation, I do not think it is wrong. Prof McCarthy (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed your draft and made my suggested changes. I have left some remarks on the Discussion page - see User talk:Prof McCarthy/mechanicaladvantage.  Dolphin  ( t ) 03:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edits were very helpful. I tried to include all of them in the actual article. If I missed any it was an error. Thank you very much. Regarding the use of moments rather than velocity to study the lever, I truly understand your point. However, many if not most elementary school science teachers study the lever using work, which in some ways parallels the analysis by Archimedes. The problem is that the correct analysis is based on virtual work, which introduces virtual displacements, which are best considered to be velocity that occurs over a virtual moment of time. The use of power is not familiar at the elementary level, but I believe it is important because it is critical to understanding the basic principles of machines. Prof McCarthy (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added a section on a block and tackle. This case really benefits from using virtual work because of the relationship between the velocity of the rope versus the velocity of the moving block is clearly seen to be the number of rope sections supporting the moving block. Prof McCarthy (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

not sure about the block and tackle case
Take the case of a car jack, the car jack inherently has the ability to hold the vehicle up which is why mechanical advantage is in it's favor. However in case of the block and tackle/pulley, there is no inherent "holding" mechanism provided. In other words, how is this giving a mechanical advantage is not clear to me. One can say the force is reduced, but given a finite element analysis, will the result be the same? If one takes the case of static equilibrium, one still has to apply F/2 to neutralize one end for the static case, and if you apply less than F/2 the other end will not hold the block in place. Formally this seems different to me, and if the block is falling, the impulses needed to hold it in place will be more than F/2 (virtual work) aEnergy is conserved but the concept of a mechanical advantage is clear in case of the car jack/ self locking mechanism, not in this case. There is no "power advantage" if one considers that one has to apply a force to hold the block in position once lifted (i.e that force is not considered in the calculation of power used, only the lift and the loss/gain of displacement is, but no virtual work is considered for that case). However a horizontal beam on a hinge pushing a large block (overcoming friction) in a horizontal plane may be a better example in this case. -Alok 06:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mechanical advantage calculations are based on the principle of virtual work which considers the flow of power through the device. A self-locking scissor jack has enough mechanical advantage to amplify the frictional forces in the drive screw and support the load.  A block and tackle that includes includes the friction of a rope wrapped around a shaft will have a similar self-locking feature.  Static equilibrium requires an input force to balance the output force in levers, gear trains, and block and tackle systems.  Mechanical advantage where the input force is less than the output force derives from the geometric design of these devices.Prof McCarthy (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If a block and tackle adds friction which can handle the "F/2" and is self locking, then most likely it will be no MA in that case, because that same friction has to be overcome when pulling the block. There is no MA if you consider that someone still has to apply an F/2 to hold up the block. This is not the case with the car jack. There is another thing which we assume in case of moments, by saying that in case of a lever the fulcrum is the "pivot" and moments balance around that point. However, consider the limiting case where "we are just overcoming the force", then moments should balance at any point on the lever and pivot mechanism. However if you try to do a "sum forces=0" and "sum moments=0" at one of the "tips" of the lever (considering there is no rotation), the equations are not always solve able. My suggestion as a former student is, that, if the idea is to illustrate the principle, then keep it simple and show locking devices. It is simply an oversight, in my opinion, if one does not consider the fact that there is a "force" needed to hold up the weight in the block and tackle case. A better example would be, say a wheel and ratchet like a fishing rod. Primarily, you are saying no work is done if you consider something "holding" a weight up (or holding torque in case of motors etc) -Alok 06:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that this is not clear. I will try again with a simpler example.  The input force FA required at one end of a lever to support a heavy load FB at the other end, is much less if the fulcrum is close to the heavy load and far from the input force.  The ratio of the output force to the input force is the mechanical advantage.  A similar relationship arises in the analysis of gearing and a block and tackle.  All of these systems require an input force to balance the output force, and none need have a ratchet and pawl to lock the system.  While I am not sure I understand your concerns, one issue may be that if the system is static, such as when you "hold" the system so it does not move, there is no power flow or work done.  The essential idea of the principle virtual work is that movement away from this static situation will result in power generated by the input and output forces that must cancel, and this principle provides a simple way to determine the mechanical advantage of the system. I hope this helps. Prof McCarthy (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * All I am asking is, does the fact that someone apply a force to hold a block up against gravity imply no work is done (the block is in static equilibrium). This bit is not clear to me in the block and tackle case, but is clear in "self locking" cases. The fact that an individual has to apply F to sustain the static equilibrium but this is not accounted a "work" done is unclear to me. (The lever example above is specific to the cantilever case, but then perhaps one would break it down to a pivot near one end and balance out everything.)It took me a while to digest it, and hence I suggested it is better we stick to simpler cases of self locking mechanisms to illustrate the MA cases.

-Alok 05:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to ask these questions. I believe I understand your view that a machine that locks itself in place has advantages over a machine that needs a person to apply the input force to hold it.  Please understand that this advantage is not what is meant by the term "mechanical advantage."  Mechanical advantage is the gain in output force over the input force, independent of how this input force is generated.  Mechanical advantage is a number that characterizes the properties of the device.  The mechanical advantage of a lever, gear train or block and tackle remains the same whether an individual applies the input force or another mechanical component such as a winch with the ratchet and paw locking system applies the input force.  In particular, the mechanical advantage of a block and tackle system is the same whether a person holds the rope to support the load, or that rope is tied down to a railing.


 * The analysis of mechanical advantage of levers, gears and block and tackle systems is at the core of machine theory, and is attributed to Archimedes, who is said to have used essentially the same ideas as the modern theory of virtual work. The principle of virtual work requires visualizing the very slight movement of a system from its equilibrium position.   One way to do this is to graphically compute the velocities in the device, and another way is to draw the device in a new configuration very close to the original configuration.  Once this is done the principle of virtual work requires that the power, or infinitesimal work, generated by the input force during this movement equal the power, or infinitesimal work, generated by the output force.   Because power is the product of force and velocity, equating input and output power yields the ratio of output force to input force, or mechanical advantage, as a ratio of velocities of components in the device.  The fact that this speed ratio equals the mechanical advantage is an important result in machine theory.  Prof McCarthy (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are going with the assumption that "energy is conserved", or the del.(del(energy)) is zero equivalent, then obviously virtual work will give you the desired results. By your logic a electrically/mechanically controlled lever where you input a small twist of a knob giving a large output (say a car accelerator) is also giving a mechanical advantage, but that is not the case, right? If that be the case, typically someone holding a bag up, is not doing any work :). I am just saying that the concept is better illustrated there.

-Alok 07:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokdube (talk • contribs)


 * I am sorry but I do not understand how a "small twist of a knob," "car accelerator," and "holding up a bag" combine to be "better illustrated there."  This discussion is on the technical definition of mechanical advantage based on the principle of virtual work with examples provided by levers, gear trains and block and tackle systems.  You seem to have other concerns.  Prof McCarthy (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My point is that the illustrations should be confined to self locking cases only.

-Alok 08:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokdube (talk • contribs)


 * Your concern seems to be the physical effort that one must expend to hold something, which is separate from the mechanical advantage of the device the person may be holding. It is for this reason that self-locking is not part of the definition of mechanical advantage, and self-locking does not affect the analysis of machines such as levers, gear trains and block and tackle systems.  It is not appropriate to confine anything in this article to self locking cases, because self-locking is not relevant to the topic of this article.  Prof McCarthy (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are merely stating what is already prior art, or relevant literature on the topic, edits do not make sense. I am stating that self locking is relevant to the topic.

-Alok 07:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you are entitled to your opinion. But I think the Prof is right: "self-locking is not relevant to the topic of this article" as per its definition. --VanBurenen (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Then why do you want to re-edit the article, it was fine in it's original form. Or do you think because he writes "Prof" there he is right? -Alok 08:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in re-editing this article at this time. You are free to do that if you want. Why are you changing the subject? --VanBurenen (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * am I changing the subject? Or are you trying to? I have simply stated that the article is biased because archimedes etc wrote a lever law and did not tie it to work done. The prof is caught up in the dictum of prior art on this subject and I have stated my reasons why he is wrong... You seem to be trying to make it personal. -Alok 12:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokdube (talk • contribs)

Hi all, I find this very interesting, I've read this quickly and I wonder if Alok could explain why self locking is relevant. I am new to Wikipedia editing, (this is my second contribution). I am an engineer and take mechanical advantage for granted in a very practical sense. MA is force in vs force out or distance in vs distance out. since energy is the same on both sides (force x distance) both methods tell me what I need to know. I apologize if I am dragging up a heated debate. Tealeafe (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Weaknesses and strengths of Wikipedia
I am new to Wikipedia, but I know that most of my students use Wikipedia to get a general introduction to new things, including machines and mechanisms. It is also clear that my students are not alone in this, because Wikipedia comes up as the first entry in a Google search on most all of these topics. This is the reason that I now take the time to try to make the various articles on machines match more closely to our current understanding, but in a way that works to preserve the structure of the original article. In the process of doing this, I have been surprised by the number of people who vandalize articles, probably not with malice but because it is easy. But also, I have been amazed at how quickly others are ready to identify the vandalism and correct it. As with many things, it is the community that supports an organization that is its true strength. Prof McCarthy (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Prof McCarthy. You now have over 2000 edits so there is no need to say you are new to Wikipedia.  You are one of the more experienced editors!  I agree that vandalism, mischief and experimentation are a source of annoyance, and I do my fair share of reverting of such things.  The strongest weapon in our fight against damage to articles we know and love is the Watchlist.  You probably have at least a few articles on your Watchlist, but if not, and you aren't familiar with how it works have a look at WP:WATCHLIST.
 * For persistent vandals there are stronger tools, such as WP:AIV. There are other tools, one for each particular problem.  If you ever feel the need for a particular tool but can't find it, don't hesitate to ask me, or ask at WP:EAR.  Dolphin  ( t ) 02:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. This is very helpful. Great work by the way. Prof McCarthy (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories
I have tried to collect some of the articles on machines into the hierarchy of categories Mechanical engineering, Machines, Kinematics, Mechanisms, and Linkages. Some articles like this one on Mechanical advantage are important enough to appear in a number of broad categories, which causes problems with the hierarchy. In particular, I think this article should appear in both the introductory physics and mechanical engineering categories, but this forces either introductory physics to be under mechanical engineering or mechanical engineering to be under introductory physics. I have now done this both ways, and will switch it again if others prefer. However, I feel it is a small price to pay to ensure this article appears in both categories. Prof McCarthy (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Distinguish between torque advantage and force advantage
Hi I do not know much about the term "mechanical advantage" but clearly two gears interlocked cannot change the force ratio. We need to distinguish between T1/T2 and F1/F2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phvan (talk • contribs) 21:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Phvan, thank you for the note but we do not have to distinguish between the force and torque ratios. These can be calculated as needed.  One of the main uses for machines is to amplify forces and movement.  The slow rotation of the pedals on a bicycle transforms into fast rotation of the rear wheel and therefore speed of the bicycle.  This process changes forces to torque and torque back to forces, so the question of mechanical advantage depends on ratios of forces or torques that are important to the application.  The main point of this article is the connection between the velocity ratio associated with the input and output movement of a machine and its mechanical advantage.  Machines that do not absorb or dissipate power have a velocity ratio that equals the mechanical advantage.  This sets a maximum for the mechanical advantage that can be easily determined from the dimensions and geometry of the machine.  I hope this is helpful. Prof McCarthy (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Following your argument, would you say that the diagram of the lever should reflect a dynamic situation rather than simply two weights in balance? Jimbowley (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Best opening example
Is a bicycle the best example to use to open the article?

I think the bicycle is a bit too complex. The lever would seem the perfect example to analyse.

Also I find it a little perverse when the first example of mechanical advantage has a mechanical disadvantage. Of course I realise that you can talk about a mechanical advantage of 0.3, but for the first example??

Finally, why is the output force shown as acting on the road? The output from this machine is a force on the bicycle (leading to motion of the bicycle). The diagram shown would make sense if the rear tyre was being used to drive a connveyor belt.

Jimbowley (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your point is persuasive. I suspect it may simply be an incorrectly positioned picture. I'm not commenting on the technical aspects of the diagram. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I note that the image in question was removed and that removal subsequently reverted, though with a rather awkward edit summary. I have reverted the reversion and the article (as I post this) has the bicycle graphic not present. I suggest that the inclusion of, the content of, and the placement of that graphic now becomes a matter for talk page discussion and consensus prior to any reinsertion.
 * With regard to my own opinion, I am not competent to discuss the content of the graphic, I am competent to say that its position prior to removal was incorrect. Assuming the contents to be technically correct, and only then, I have no objection to its placement in a less prominent, correct position in the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to confirm it was me that removed it. Wikipedia logged me out whilst I was doing the edit. I'm always more than happy to discuss my edits :) Jimbowley (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure that matters at all :). Let's now reach a consensus over this item. Do I take it from your removal that you see no position for it anywhere in the article, or simply that you removed it pending thinking where it might be placed?
 * Someone might be able to add it into the article sympathetically (after correcting the direction of the output force if we reach consensus on that). I'm happy for anyone to try (hint: there is a bicycle example already). Just dumping it into the opening section as was done does not improve the article.Jimbowley (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The more I look at the diagram the less I like it. If it's meant to be a free body diagram then the wheel and crank are about to disappear off the page downwards and to the left, which might surprise the cyclist.Jimbowley (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

lever diagram
The current lever diagram needs some forces! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lever_Principle_3D.png

This is better: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:LeverPrincleple.svg at least it has forces but it's not clear what is the input and what the output.

I would prefer to see a dagram showing a human effort lifting a weight, is that wp:POV though (I have a fetish for machines lifting weights) Jimbowley (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Should the diagram depict a stationary or dynamic situation? ie the difference between some work being done, versus a static balance. Does it matter? I don't know. Jimbowley (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No-one else have any comment? Ok. I will draw a force lifting a weight with forces Fa,Fb and distances a,b. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lever_mechanical_advantage.png Jimbowley (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirect
I recommend that leverage (mechanical) redirect here at present. 70.247.162.84 (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Law of the lever
A recent revision to this article defines mechanical advantage as "how much easier work is." This is simply not correct. The best performing machine does not dissipate power, which means the power in equals the power out, so over time the work in and work out are the same. There is no reduction, or easing, in the amount of power or work. Furthermore, without any explanation it is impossible to make sense of the equation.
 * $$ MA=\frac{LF}{EF}.$$

Suppose L is load, F is fulcrum and E is effort then LF must represent the distance from the point of application of the load to the fulcrum and EF is similarly the distance from the point of application of the effort to the fulcrum. However, this same statement is made with the figure and the paragraph that follows. Prof McCarthy (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If it is not correct then it should not be there, right? --VanBurenen (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

False scent in "Chain and Belt Drives" section
In the section "Chain and Belt Drives", under the second equation we have:


 * "where NA is the number of teeth on the input sprocket and NB is the number of teeth on the output sprocket. For a toothed belt drive, the number of teeth on the sprocket can be used.  For friction belt drives the pitch radius of the input and output pulleys must be used."

The language here confused me&mdash; particularly I think the sentence starting "For a toothed belt" lays false scent (I came to this article for the first time, browsing). I was just told about the input sprocket and output sprocket: now, which is "the sprocket"? And what sort of mechanism was I reading about before, if now I am to be told about toothed belts?

The third sentence took me a long time to get to after puzzling the second (i. e., because of the false scent), but finally it lights the way out: the second sentence is in apposition to (and apprehension of) this third one on how we measure friction belt drives.

But it is no use to say "the third sentence makes it clear." I stopped at the second, retraced and reread several times in case I had misunderstood something.

Less importantly, there is also a change of grammatical number between sentences from "toothed belt drive" to "friction belt drives", which is not ideal in apposition; "radius" should be "radii"; and "can be" and "must be" are not equivalent.

May I suggest a simplification such as this?:


 * "For a chain or toothed belt drive, NA is the number of teeth on the input sprocket and NB is the number of teeth on the output sprocket.


 * For a friction belt drive, NA is the radius of the input pulley and NB is the radius of the output pulley.

This wouldn't matter in a more-technical article, but this one is (I presume) aimed at a general audience. I would normally just be WP:BOLD, but I am a little wary that I may have missed something.

Si Trew (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Slightly confusing terminology in Example: bicycle chain drive
There seems to be a mistake in the example of the bicycle chain drive (or at least, the wording is strange in my opinion). It states the following:


 * Consider the 18-speed bicycle with 7 in (radius) cranks and 26 in (diameter) wheels. If the sprockets at the crank and at the rear drive wheel are the same size, then the ratio of the output force on the tire to the input force on the pedal can be calculated from the law of the lever to be
 * $$ MA = \frac{F_B}{F_A} = \frac{7}{13} = 0.54$$

The calculated value of 0.54 here is referring to the crank-wheel ratio and not to the MA value. In fact the MA value of the sprockets is one, since the sprockets are the same size.

I would suggest to replace MA with crank-wheel ratio and remove $$\frac{F_B}{F_A}$$ from the equation.

Alternatively, change the equation to this: $$ MA = \frac{F_b}{F_a} = \frac{a}{b} = \frac{7}{13} = 0.54$$

Sjiep (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This is quite interesting, it is common to calculate gearing for bicycles simple in relation to the gears, while ignoring the crank length or the wheel size, not very correct, but common. This website has information that is relevant but perhaps best put in an area specifically about cycling.

http://sheldonbrown.com/gain.html Tealeafe (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Move request affecting a redirect to this page
I have proposed to move the disambiguation page Leverage (disambiguation) over the redirect Leverage, which currently points to this page. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please see Talk:Leverage (disambiguation). Ivanvector (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Gearing listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gearing. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 23:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Appeal to "zero sum or torques" rather than the velocity argument
Can't this be simplified by appealing to a balance of torque argument rather than the current argument involving power and velocity? The Torques are balanced when Fa a = Fb b and from that we calculate the mechanical advantage as a/b. --Lbeaumont (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Deflect/Defect
Why does it say "does not deflect" in the first overview or whatever its called section? I would think the ideal mechanism "does not defect," "not does not deflect." Also, the gear GIF seems kinda jerky.

Talk page section saved about noon, aug 11, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.106.186 (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's correct as written. A rigid body is an idealized object in engineering or physics which does not (cannot) deform or deflect. Please stop adding the redundant "completely". There's no need to say a "completely" rigid body, it's simply a rigid body. I'll add the link to the article to clarify things. Meters (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure. "Rigid body" is completely rigid so you don't have to clarify. My only worry is that someone who doesn't click on the link might be just assuming that its a finitely rigid body made out of something like steel. But its not too much misinformation to worry about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.106.186 (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you understand rigid bodies why did you suggest that we change "deflect" to "defect"?
 * As far as explaining a rigid body, for those who are not familiar with the idealization we already explicitly say that it does not deflect. That's an absolute. It really, really, really does not deflect. Meters (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)