Talk:Machine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! This subject is outlined on the List of basic machine topics. That list, along with the other Lists of basic topics, is part of a map of Wikipedia. Your help is needed to complete this map! To begin, please look over this subject's list, analyze it, improve it, and place it on your watchlist. Then join the Lists of basic topics WikiProject!
This article is within the scope of the Technology WikiProject, a group related to the the study of Technology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
To-do list for Machine: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    Priority 1 (top) 

    Contents

    [edit] 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." --ChetvornoTALK 00:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Buildings as machines

    Isn't i also possible to incorporate other views of "machines". It is a famous thought among a lot of architects to look upon buildings as machines. But what do they mean? What does this machinery consist of? What makes it a machine?

    Nothing. That was just Le Corbusier summing up (one aspect of) the post-modernist view of architecture. --Heron 17:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    Le Corbusier was speaking metaphorically. A building does not generally fit the definition of a device that transforms energy. A building contains many machines - so I suppose you could wedge it in if you had to. SteveBaker 17:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Buildings and bridges and other large structures do have moving parts, and sometimes, some of those moving parts actually are intended to transform energy. Some extremely tall buildings and some bridges have mechanical systems that are intended to dampen oscillations caused by wind, earthquakes, etc. Those dampers are designed to transform the mechanical energy of oscillations into heat energy.
    Other moving parts include bearings that relieve strain as structural components expand and contract due to changes in temperature. Here in Pittsburgh, PA, USA, we had a bridge fail on a particularly cold night in March 2008 because a bearing locked up (lack of maintainence, most likely). The bearing failed to move, and so one end of the span slipped off of its supporting structure when the span contracted. (FWIW, It only dropped a few inches. Engineers were able to raise it back into place with no major damage done.) 192.55.12.36 (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    See Tuned_mass_damper#Examples_of_buildings_and_structures_with_tuned_mass_dampers 192.55.12.36 (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Device that transmits or modifies energy

    The link to energy defines it as the capacity of a system to do work. So the definition of a machine therefore becomes a device that transmits or modifies the capacity of a system to do work. Is that right? How do you transmit a capacity to do work? I would have thought a machine would be a device that does work by modifying force.164.159.255.67 21:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Glen Tarr

    [edit] Moving parts

    IMO a machine must have moving parts, in the "commonly accepted" view of a machine. A wheel and axel is a machine because the axel turns in a bearing. Whereas an inclined plane (one of the examples of a simple machine) may as well be a naturally occuring hill. One could say that a constructed inclined plane is a tool, but not a machine. Likewise an atlatl, or a hammer for that matter, are not a machines even though they both accomplish work. They are tools. So, I'm fiddling with the introduction. --kop 04:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Machines vs other kinds of devices

    It'd be nice to see the table separate machines from other sorts of devices. Again, IMO, machines have rigid moving parts. A ramjet combustion chamber is a device, but not a machine in and of itself. To be a machine it needs pumps and stuff attached to feed the fuel. Neither is a rope, an airfoil, a sustained nuclear reaction, or a single gear a machine. Maybe the whole table should be moved to the device article. --kop 04:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Electric Motors

    How can the electric motor be left out!? It would fit the bill a lot easier than a transistor. ~RayLast «Talk!» 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)