Talk:Wrench/Archives/2014

Image moved (2004)
Image Wrench.JPG moved to Monkey wrench. I'll move it back and accomodate it here if you think it needs it. Drover 20:41, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image was moved to Pipe Wrench, not Monkey wrench. &mdash; Drover 00:06, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Any chance of "spanner" in the subject title?
"Spanner" redirects to "wrench", which is fine, but it's not the normal UK word for the tool. Any chance of the word "spanner" being put alongside "wrench" in the title, so as to not put undue emphasis on the American terminology?


 * Fair question. I suggest that some mention is made of the different names for the 'Allen Wrench'. Specifically to point out that in the UK it is commonly known as an Allen key, given the fact that it is not used for gripping the outer diameter of something like a normal wrench does.

I don't see any way to change the main title (as the page was started in the USA and so named 'wrench' and redicted from 'spanner'), but I have added 'spanner' to the sub-headings. --Pcrawford 15:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The page wasn't displaying correctly in Firefox 1.02 or Mozilla 1.7.6. The Contents box was either hiding beneath an image, or when it was closed, the page redraw was causing problems with the other images. I've moved the adjustable spanner down to it's description and rejigged a heading. Opera, FF and Mozilla are displaying it acceptably, hopefully IE will too. -- Graibeard 11:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nummular spanner
Please could someone knowledgeable add some info about a nummular spanner?

'Nummular' was the correct answer to a crossword clue "Type of spanner" but this spanner is not mentioned or described in Wikipedia, and a search on 'nummular' does not bring up anything relating to a spanner or wrench.

Many thanks!

Disambiguation
I think WRENCH needs a disambiguation page, there are actually quite a few ambiguities. Whoever's the wiki expert paying attention here, thanks in advance!

"Flat" to mean "open ended"?
Recent edits:


 * "Combination wrench, or combination spanner" replaced by "combination Flat and Ring spanner",
 * "Double open-end wrench or open-ended spanner" replaced by "double Flat spanner",
 * "Open-end wrench, or Open-ended spanner" replaced by "Open-end wrench, or Flat spanner"

It seems that for the person who made these edits "flat spanner" means "open-ended wrench/spanner" (is this S. Afican English?). However, existing standard terms should not be removed, also there maybe confusion with "flat" to mean the general shape of the whole tool. LDHan 12:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly you can get both 'flat' ring spanners (where the ring end is in the same plane as the handle) and 'offset' ring spanners (the more common type where the handle is, as the name suggests, offset from the nut-turning ring part). For example, this web site http://www.deltec.net/impact.htm is offering "a complete range of Slogging Spanners in Flat and Offset Ringed". Which also reminds me, no mention of Slogging Spanner yet... --Pcrawford 20:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Face Driving sockets

 * (For those who have not encountered this type of socket, ring, or open-end spanner, see .) Hedley (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed this statement:

"In addition, face driving sockets are available. These are more durable still, and have the ability to drive a range of hexagonal head sizes, with less risk of damaging the nut or bolt head than traditional "corner" drivers."

As I have some serious doubts about its accuracy. Here are my concerns:

(1) If such sockets do not drive the corners, can they drive a round bar? No, as what they are talking about is trying to move the nominal drive point around on the corner (i.e. hex protrusion). Still driving the 'corner' then!


 * No, each lobe presses on a face of the hex nut. If the nut is the maximum size meant to fit the ring, each lobe presses in the middle of the flat.  If the nut is one size smaller, the lobe presses on the flat but closer to a corner.  These spanners are especially useful when working with damaged nuts having rounded corners.  They also reduce the number of spanners required. Hedley (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(2) There are numerous companies all claiming to have a better shape for a socket to drive a hex nut/bolt head, but has anyone yet demonstrated that the shape is more important than the free play?

(3) So far, I have never rounded off a nut/bolt due to using the correct size of socket or spanner. Normally the bolt/stud shank shears due to excessive torque first. Where I have managed to round a nut it has been due to using an adjustable spanner (where the jaws tend to open at high torque, even with a good quality one) or open ended spanner with poor access (i.e. not perpendicular to the bolt axis and/or not fully engaged).

(4) The "ability to drive a range of hexagonal head sizes" is asking for trouble. Again, quality of fit is important, and what we are talking about here is attempting to save money with a socket that is not quite right for some sizes, but pretending it is 'good enough'. Most cases of damage are due to using the wrong size spanner/socket, typically due to having only one standard of tool (e.g. AF or Metric) and using it on another standard's head size (e.g. Metric, AF, Whitworth or BA).

Having said this, I have used a socket that had the tips of the corner opened out, but the reason for this was to allow a good tight fit on the main 'flat' section without having problems of fitting the socket on if the tips of the nut have already been damaged. Again, the key factor here is a good fit.

Has anyone any comments or facts (e.g. test results, stress analysis, etc) about this? --Pcrawford 11:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the quote might be confusing two things: the "one tool fits all sizes" type of spanner (not adjustible spanner), and normal sockets made for one size of nut of bolt which drive the flats instead of the corners. LDHan 14:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the original author was refering to the 'metrinch' (and similar) claims for both spanners and sockets such as: 'For example, with a spanner 19 mm it is possible not only to tighten or undo a metric nut or bolt, but also the inch bolts 3/4" AF, 3/8" BSW and 7/16" BSF'. This example is allowing for 1.02mm of difference in nut size and it is something I am sceptical of working well. This is why I wondered if anyone had actual facts to back up the marketing claims and vague technical assertions that come with a lot of these tools. --Pcrawford 15:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Curiosity of a college student...
just curious... what kind of material or metal is commonly used in making wrenches, vise grips, etc.? (ex. AISI C1020 Annealed, etc.) forsaken_boyForsaken boy 17:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Gear (ratcheting) wrenches
These geared versions of box-end wrenches (ring spanners) have a ratcheting ring at one or both ends. Gear Wrench brand turn in one direction only (flip the wrench over to gear in the other direction). Other brands apparently have reversing ratchets. These little jewels are incredibly useful and fast, but I don't see them mentioned. Nor do I know what the UK term is. Search "Gear Wrench" and you will find lots of pictures. Verdant C 01:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Bung wrench
There seems to be something called a "bung wrench" in various catalogs, but I'm not sure it's a separate class from a drum wrench. -- Beland 02:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Bionic wrench
Should the "Bionic Wrench" be added to the article? Jobarts-Talk 22:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mentioned in Popular Science magazine (They plug a lot of gadgets, so this may not mean much.)
 * link to company web site

This article does not cite its sources.
How do I note this? Is anyone willing to look for sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.226.65 (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the mechanical action
Sorry, I'm French so I may be wrong, but I read here that "wrench" can also be "a set of forces that can be reduced to a resultant force and a couple whose vector is parallel to the force." Is there any page related to this meaning? I would like to create an interwiki link on fr:Torseur and wrench seems to be the translation.

cdang| write me 12:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be torsor or Principal_homogeneous_space. Mdmcginn (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Duplication within this file (image)
File:2008-04-14 Chrome-Vanadium Wrenches.jpg There are two (2) 17 mm wrenches in this "set". There is a duplication within this image. Peter Horn User talk 14:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Article format
What do people think about formatting the types of wrenches/spanner in the follow table format?

This format gives a very easy way to layout out the various different names between American English and British English. Wizard191 (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Flippin' awesome idea in my opinion. The "wikitable sortable" attribute is the icing on the cake. People can sort each column alphabetically (and back again) at will. Plus the whole thing would look more organized and scannable. — ¾-10 02:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I did it. I also added a "group" column to maintain groups. I couldn't find any info on the "graduated wrench" so I didn't know how to group it. Some of the Br/Am English translations need help to, but overall I think it looks a lot better. Wizard191 (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the win of the week. Killer upgrade. — ¾-10 21:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Section description
Can we get a description for the "Other types of key not emically classified as wrenches" because I'm not sure what is meant by "emically"? Wizard191 (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * [Belated reply] I made an edit that improved things. — ¾-10 21:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Words not in Chambers or Webster should not be used in Wikipedia unless both essential and immediately explained. Replace the sentence with one in normal English expressing whatever it is meant to mean. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Good faith duly acknowledged, but there are important problems with your argument: (1) It is immediately explained, whenever any user who needs the explanation simply clicks on the link. That's the nature of hypertext, and it's been the everyday experience of regular people for almost 20 years now, ever since the web took off. Time now for everyone to get used to it, for an important economic reason that I mention below. (2) Science uncovers knowledge (such as anthropology uncovered the emic-vs-etic distinction 30-40 years ago), and thereafter, to talk about a topic in a circumspect way, we may need to reference that knowledge. If that knowledge is not yet commonly known by regular people who speak "normal English", then maybe that is going to change going forward. "Normal English" 20 years hence may include the terms that originated in anthropology. By the logic you gave above, no words out of chemistry or physics of the 19th century (for example, "oxygen", "direct current", or "electron") could ever have entered the "normal English" vocabulary, because there was a time when they were newfangled. But no; that time came and went. (3) It is not always necessarily better to use 20 "normal" words to awkwardly circumlocute what one apt word, with a link to more explanation if needed, will say in a much shorter, simpler sentence. Thus it is not always advisable to "Replace the sentence with one in normal English expressing whatever it is meant to mean"—that may depend on the meaning in the specific case, and how much circumlocution it would require. Sorry, I'm not trying to be snide, it's just that I get a lot of this attitude at work, too, and I hate the tone of patronizing condescension that often comes with it there, because the person claiming to know better is the very person who's too dull to have learned a decade ago (like the rest of us) that links are their friend, and that GIYF. The world has already moved on, and anyone who doesn't want to be left in the dust had better climb aboard or head for the bread line. In another 10 years I doubt anyone will even be employable if they've failed to wrap their heads around this concept. Again, I'm sorry for venting here, I'm not venting at you specifically so much as at the attitude that I've been given on this topic by others. The very person who thinks that they need to explain something basic to me is the person who in fact needs to have something obvious explained to them. Again, this observation applies to anyone, not just those of us here on this talk page. I bear no ill will toward anyone personally on this topic; I know they're acting in good faith; but geez, we need to create an FAQ item to cover this topic in the instruction manual of post-1990 life on earth. In the web era, the advice is fatally outdated (although it was great advice in the pre-web era, when [unlinkable, unsearchable] paper could be assumed to be the medium), and I say "fatally" for the following economic reason: The people who "get it" are just going to keep creating a bigger divide, getting further ahead, outcompeting the people who don't get it. The latter should think twice about that fact before refusing to learn, or feeling entitled to not have to learn anything. The globalized market has no mercy; it doesn't recognize entitlement at all. In the market's eyes, no one is entitled to anything. Which is why we need to look out for ourselves and be willing to change and grow, so it doesn't turn us into roadkill. — ¾-10 04:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Graduated wrench
Is this a picture of a graduated wrench? File:Hakenschlüssel.jpg Wizard191 (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

adjustable vs. crescent
The section on adjustable vs. crescent seems very judgmental about generic vs. brand name usage. There are lots of similar situations where the brand name has become the generic name. For example, I typically xerox materials on machines that aren't Xerox. I think crescent wrench has made a similar jump. This dictionary agrees with me: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crescent+wrench Johncolton (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * i'm adding "crescent" to the United Statian side of the names box. It's as generic a name for the things as Kleenex, and has been for at least the last 30 years.  dunerat (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No one calls it spanner
Not even in the U.K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.20.93 (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Calls what a spanner? In the UK spanners are certainly called spanners. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The user who wrote the above was most likely just vandalizing the page for some trolling kicks. — ¾-10 00:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, you may well be right but I prefer to assume good faith until proven otherwise. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No one calls it spanner. Search spanner on google, you won't find British companies selling "Spanners", you might find an American company selling a "Spanner Wrench". Besides, what does spanner even mean? Something that 'spans' something? That could be a rubber band, or a compass and pencil. People know what a "wrench" is. I did find one article that supports your claim, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spanner, but it seems to amount to nothing more than slang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.20.93 (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And thank you, Martin, for not resorting to name calling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.20.93 (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Upon further reading of that article, it does not appear to be just slang. I'm still not sure, but let's just lay this to rest.75.80.20.93 (talk)
 * OK, I see that much as convincing proof. I'm calling troll on this one.
 * Incidentally, "wrench" is British too. A "spanner" was originally used for "spanning" a wheellock pistol and used a tool rather similar to a clock winding key. Although spanner is trivially obvious as the ubiquitous UK name, wrench is used and understood and spanner might indeed (research needed) be historically more associated with box spanners used axially than with open-ended wrenches used from the side. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's just forget it. The more information the better, anyway.75.80.20.93 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments, from a UK perspective.
Comments from a UK resident with considerable experience buying, and using, these tools. All using what I believe to be common UK terminology. Comments will not be systematic and I will add to them as I get time. When revisions are made anything worthwhile may be incorporated.

Lead. Mole Grips, these are also known in the UK as Vice Grips (no S) and, generically, as self-locking pliers. I think these should be in another article.

Table, it would be easier if rows were numbered.

Scaffolder's Spanner. AKA a Flex-head wrench. (This has an open-end and a socket end. These are the same size. The socket is captive and can rotate about 180 degrees). I believe it is more common for a podger to be called a Scaffolders spanner.

Ratcheting ring spanner. The item shown is a ratcheting podger. Ring spanners in the UK have two ring ends, these also have ratcheting variants.

Combination spanner. There are are three main variations at the ring end. #1 A flex end, #2 a ratcheting end, #3 a flex and ratcheting end. In my experience these are ALWAYS the same size at both ends, otherwise you would need more than one tool which nullifies the concept. AnnaComnemna (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Pin, Hook wrench etc. I believe it would aid the reader’s comprehension if the article explained that:-

The face spanner has two or more pins, fits on the end of the fastener and can only be used on one specific fastener configuration.

The Pin/hook spanners fit around the circumference of the fastener, into one of several mating female apertures, and can be used on a range of sizes.

There is also an adjustable face spanner which has two pivoting arms which can be used on a range of fasteners having the same size aperture. AnnaComnemna (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Socket wrench, Pipe Wrench. Wikipedia already has articles with these titles to which I think the reader should be referred. AnnaComnemna (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Breaker bar. Wikipedia has an article with this title. I think the reader should be referred elsewhere or the item deleted.

Torque wrench. Wikipedia has an article with this title. Which refers to the article I am editing.

Ratchet. Wikipedia refers to this device in both "Socket Wrench" and "Ratchet (device". AnnaComnemna (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * They don't make self-locking pliers in England. Mole Grips are Welsh (Newport). Vise Grips are US and (even when sold in the UK) spell it with an S. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Plumbers wrench, duplicated in this article, see note "pipe wrench" above. AnnaComnemna (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Chain/Strap wrench, Oil filter wrench, these are a duplication. There is also a Wikipedia article "Strap Wrench". Tap wrench this also has its own article. AnnaComnemna (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the various list items above that talk about Wikipedia having an article with that title: the existence of a main article doesn't mean that they can't be mentioned in this article (not sure if that's what the point/implication was above). As long as they are linked, there's no problem. The ones I checked are already linked. Summary style covers this theme. — ¾-10 02:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you -10 ¾, and thank for your pertinent, relevant, germane, essay above 2011:06:19. However, I give precedence to :- Wikipedia.DUPLICATION_SHOULD_BE_AVOIDED

Wikpidia.DO_NOT_RE-INVENT_THE_WHEEL

Wikipedia.RELATIONAL_DATABASE_PRINCIPLES_SHOULD_APPLY

Wikipedia.IF_I_AM_A_READER_AND_I_FIND_CONFLICTING_INFORMATION_IN_MORE_THAN_ONE_ARTICLE_WHICH_DO_I_BELIEVE? AnnaComnemna (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, you are entirely right about the latter 3 principles (and also largely right about the first one, granted a touch of qualification). With most of your point I agree heartily. In fact, there is even a name for content that violates the latter 3 ideas: forked content. Content forking talks about it. The emphasis at that page leans heavily on entire articles forking each other, but the same principle equally applies to mere sections as well, for the very reasons you pointed out: relational database (RDB) principles should apply; avoid unintended inconsistencies of content by not having duplications of description or explanation. Notice, however, that even in RDBs of the soundest and most impeccable design, one can mention a field or entity in multiple RDB tables. It's just that one describes it in only one RDB table. So, in keeping with Summary style, one can mention a particular kind of wrench here in the list of wrench types, as long as (1) one links to its main article and (2) one does not attempt to re-describe and re-explain everything about that wrench here. However, one pithy sentence that recaps (summarizes) a few highlights is considered acceptable—that is, it is widely accepted as not constituting undue duplication—it is a tiny bit of duplication that is not a disservice to the reader and, on the contrary, benefits the readability by touching on all relevant info (i.e., not failing to broach it); but touch on is the key word (right connotation)—it's not about exposition or digression; it's about summarily covering something. Anyway, if you find forked content here, by all means I support your pruning it and linking through to the main article. I just wanted to object to the idea of deleting all mention here of certain wrench types (deleting because they have a main article). In other words, the right move is to keep the mention, but to prune the description back to one summary-style sentence. My "not sure" parenthetical in last night's comment was an acknowledgment that the radical deletion may not even be what you were proposing—I just couldn't tell for sure. Cheers, — ¾-10 23:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 3/4-10 What I am trying do do is repay a debt to Wikipedia, which I have used for years, without making any donations. I am making comments on this article in the hope that, someone, editing the article in the future, will find something worthwhile which can be incorporated concurrently. The alternative being me attempting to do so, failing badly due to inexperience, leaving a mess someone else has to clean up. I agree with most of your comments. If, in the future, you have to clean up an article that I have inadvertently butchered, I apologise now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaComnemna (talk • contribs) 10:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)