Talk:Machine

	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.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Neutrality: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

To-do list for Machine:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do:
Priority 1 (top)

[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." --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)

[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

I would think that interface components like shafts and gears "transmit a capacity to do work"; they do transmit mechanical energy after all.

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[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)

You're messing with the "simple machines", which are the basis for all (non-electronic) machines. The simple machines are defined by their ability to provide mechanical advantage, not "accomplish work", e.g. a lever increases force in proportion to the difference in length on either side of the fulcrum. The capacity to do (accomplish) work is energy. Machines and tools require energy to do work, otherwise they haven't the capacity. A hammer (with a handle, not a rock in your hand, that's just a tool) is an extension of the arm and hand - the same principal as the lever; likewise an atlatl; they're both (simple) machines as well as tools.

As far as "an inclined plane ... may as well be a naturally occurring hill"; keep in mind that you have to find a hill with the right slope to move a heavy load vertically with the force available. (As no doubt you already know, force is not equivalent to energy. Force over a distance equals work, F x D = W; and work is equivalent to energy, i.e. it takes energy to do work, and the units, joules, are the same. Btw, the article on joule is a bit off - the fist paragraph anyway.)

Moving parts: The load on an inclined plane is in motion, so that's the moving part. An inclined plane and a length of rope would constitute a machine by your definition. (Technically the plane is in relative motion with respect to the load. But that's a stretch.)

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2008 (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)

An electric motor is a transducer not a machine; it converts electrical energy into mechanical energy. It can't do work unless connected to other components. Similarly a battery isn't a machine (converts chemical energy into electrical energy). A transistor on the other hand is not a transducer; it controls or modifies electrical signals acting as a switch or an amplifier - some engineers say that's esentially the same thing. If electronic circuits are machines (I say they are; some hold to the classic definition and say they aren't), then transistors are machines.

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A computer is a machine

The Longman diction defined a machine as "a man-made instrument or apparatus that uses power"; the Collins cobuild dictionary says it is "... a piece of equipment which uses electricity or an engine in order to do a particular kind of work." The OED, being based on historical principles gives definitions dating from the 1500 & 1600s; the world has moved on since then.

Computer people call computers machines and a variety of computing terms are defined in terms of machine, eg programming language and machine code.

Those of you who argue that moving parts are needed for something to be called a machine. Analog computers are obviously mechanical in nature. But what is a moving part? Computer memory operates by storing packages of electron charge, cpus operate by changes in electronic state. Are electrons, collections or otherwise, not moving parts?

Excluding computers from the definition of machine is obviously incorrect. Derek farn (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Derek farn here. The traditional mechanical sense of machine should definitely be emphasized in this article, but we shouldn't exclude "computing machines" from the definition or article. Nowadays, that latter sense is almost as widely used as the odler "transforming forces" sense. LotLE×talk 00:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "A 'machine' is any device that uses energy to perform some activity."

Not quite. The heating element on an electric stove uses energy to perform "cooking", arguably an "activity", yet a heating element is a transducer for converting electrical energy into heat energy, not a machine. Similarly, electric motors are transducers for converting electrical energy into mechanical energy. The spinning shaft of a motor is pretty active, but unless connected to a machine it can do no work. A cone-type loudspeaker however is a linear motor that indeed does work; while applying a force over a distance - the classical definition of work - it compresses and rarefies the air on either side of the cone.

I would say that the heating element of an electric stove is a simple machine, an electric motor is a machine in the same sense that an internal combustion engine is a machine and not a simple machine. We need to get away from this nineteenth century view of "rigid bodies". The article also needs to be differentiated from the one on simple machines, so the examples need to be mainly non-simple machines. Derek farn (talk) 09:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to re-write the intro with references.

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The simple machines need only a brief mention, but since they are the basis for the more complex machines we shouldn't leave then out entirely. I have no problem with deleting the list from the first paragraph, since there's a link and they appear below.

But your definition is incorrect and you cite no references; that's not acceptable. Heating elements, light bulbs, batteries, photovoltaic cells AND electric motors ("actuators") are transducers, not machines - they do no work, that's a very important distinction. The CEofS&T article on the internal combustion engines doesn't call it a machine, but "a prime mover"; the article runs half a page without once using the word "machine". Although an ICE employs many simple machines, technically it's not as a whole a machine, but a source of rotationary energy. (It's not list under "Types of transducers".) This may sound counter-intuitive, but nonetheless it's correct. However it seems a gray area, which is why I kept it in as a courtesy. (But why did you edit out the operational details?! I specifically outlined the moving parts at the heart of the system to slip it in under the machine definition.)

Machines and the sources of energy that drive them fall into separate categories that we maintain for very sound reasons, not just semantic whim. I suggest you bone up on you physics and engineering. We have a hard enough time getting "computing machines" into the mix.

Instead of "perform some activity" (vague and incorrect), try "alters or transmits applied forces to do work." (Technically it's "useful work", but I think we can survive without that bit.) That phrase can be referenced to The AHD

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If work is crucial to the definition of a machine (I'm not certain that it is), then we need to agree on a definition. We have Mechanical work and Work (thermodynamics), perhaps there are others, the work page does not list any others that look relevant. What is your argument for showing that a transducer is not a machine? It certainly fits within the attributes of a simple machine. What is you definition of work (in a sense the definition chosen selects what is and is not a machine)?

With regard to CEofS&T article not mentioning that an internal combustion engine was a machine, perhaps they thought it too obvious to mention. Does the article state that such engines are made of metal (another obvious statement)?

I don't see a universal connection between applied force and something being a machine. I hope we agree that the human body is a machine, where is the applied force that operates this machine? Does the work have to be useful? Ok, you are using the term useful work in a technical sense, but I suspect that most readers will apply the common meaning of useful (I can think of a device that is a machine and does useless work) and be unaware of its technical usage. Derek farn (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok... back from hiatus. Hmm... If my comments above seem to suggest I'm arguing that an internal combustion engine (ICE) is not machine, then I've expressed myself rather poorly. (Which on review seems to be the case. Shame on me for not reviewing my own work.) My point was that an ICE is a machine for converting chemical energy into mechanical energy. The output of an ICE is mechanical energy, hence the "not as a whole a machine" comment. (A "prime mover" by the way is a device that transforms heat or pressure into mechanical energy.) ICEs aren't defined to be made of metal; they happen to be (mostly) made of metal because that's what our present technology can economically produce that meets their physical requirements. I can easily imagine ICEs made of composite material, perhaps coated with Teflon or some other suitable polymer.

Since this is an article for an encyclopedia, not a two-line entry in a dictionary, I see no problem with exploring both the "classical" and modern meanings of the term "machine", as well as the colloquial (informal) usage of the term. The "useful work" referred to in the "classical definition" - resistant bodies, moving parts, etc. - would be mechanical work.

Furthermore, I feel the article should inform the reader of the various meanings of the term machine, and examples thereof, rather than simply reiterating what "most readers will apply". If that were the case, there would be no need for the article. Readers deserve formal definitions and explanations supported by authoritative sources and adhered to by physicists, mechanical engineers, electrical/electronic engineers, computer scientists, etc.

Useful work? Well that's a crucial part of the classical definition. For example, odd as it may seem, a mechanical clock is not a machine in the classical sense because it does no "useful work" - defined as applying a force over a distance. Is the human body as a "machine"? In the modern - and I suppose informal - context, not only the body, but molecular mechanisms within its cells are referred to as machines. There are innumerable examples of biological machines.

My primary concern here is that you seem to want a simple, succinct explanation of what constitutes a machine, and I'm just suggesting that that's not enough. By all means we should explore the modern understanding of the term, but let's not neglect the historical context just because we apply the term so much more broadly than as it was initially conceived hundreds of years ago.

Anyway, nice chat; you make some interesting and valid points. I'm considering expanding the article - incprorporating some of the things we've discussed here, and making sure it is all supported by authoritative sources - and posting here in "Talk". If we can agree on the content, then it can be uploaded to the article page. When, if ever, I get around to that I can't say. I'm behind as it is on some articles I've promised to work on.

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biological 'machines' should be excluded

I strongly disagree with the concept of biological 'machines' and propose that all examples of such usage are by definition analogy or metaphor. If we accept that a machine is a device, which in turn is an "invention or contrivance" (Macquarie Dictionary, 2nd ed.), then a designer is necessary. Tacitly invoking 'intelligent design'(cf. evolution) hardly meets Wikipedia neutrality guidelines. Shythylacine (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should not invoke any form of intelligent design. However, I do think that some biological systems can be considered to be machines. So the problem is with use of the term 'device'; we need to use another word. Nothing springs to mind at the moment. Derek farn (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the problem is with Derek farn. There is no problem with the term "device", except in the ignorant little mind of the aforementioned, who chooses to ignore the conventions of science and engineering in favor of his own prejudices, apparently pulling ideas out of thin air, as he can cite no references for his erroneous assertions, nor provide us with a resume of his qualifications on his user page. He continues to assert that a machine is whatever he says it is, lording his ignorance over and above the established scientific and engineering nomenclature.

"Biological machines" are disparate from the man-made mechanical and electrical contrivances formally defined as machines. Other suitable terms include contrivance, system, apparatus, mechanism, "collection of rigid or resistant bodies", etc. (Sources- Concise Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, Third Ed., Sybil P. Parker, ed., 1992; New Age Encyclopedia, Bicentennial Ed., 1975; McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 5th Ed., 1994; Amer. Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Ed., 1985; Webster's New School and Office Dictionary, 1974; The New Amer. Roget's College Thesaurus in Dictionary Form, Revised Ed., 1978, etc., etc., etc., ...)

Can Derek farn cite even a single source for his misguided notions?? Rico402 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I cite Rico402, who referred to something called "Biological machines" in his tirade, as a reference that biological machines exist and should be included in the set of machines enumerated in this article. Derek farn (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain such a citation doesn't meet Wiki guidelines. Besides, you seem to be reading content into my comments that isn't there. I never argued one way or the other whether biological machines should be included in the article, only that they are "disparate from" devices "formally defined as machines". In any case, the previous comment was primarily in regard to the use of the term "device" to describe a machine, which I argue is appropriate (within the formal definition), but which you find unsatisfactory because it would exclude biological systems.

With regard to the following-

"Is the human body as a 'machine'? (sic) In the modern - and I suppose informal - context, not only the body, but molecular mechanisms within its cells are referred to as machines. There are innumerable examples of biological machines." (Emphasis added.)

Being informally referred to as machines is not the same as being formally defined as machines. I would suggest the article differentiate between the formal classical mechanical definition (rigid or resistant bodies, useful work), the informal use of the term in describing mechanisms that don't do "useful work", and the modern (and again, informal) definition which includes electrical/electronic devices. The lines should be clearly drawn so as not to confuse the reader. Including "biological machines" may do just that, but I haven't a firm position on the matter. I do, however, take issue with airfoils and electronic components being listed as machines (even though the title says, "... and other devices"). Except for the simple machines, which are separately defined, a machine comprises a collection of parts, not a single part.

Rico402 (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is a moving part?

What is a moving part? Electronic computers operate by controlling the flow of electrons. Some people might consider these to be moving parts. I am not that taken by the term groups of atoms, but don't see what else to call a moving part. What term would you suggest? Derek farn (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I thought I made it clear - but perhaps not - that the phrase "moving parts" is used only in reference to the classical concept of a machine, as in classical mechanics, which doesn't include electrical circuits or the behavior of electrons. In other words, the "moving parts" are by definition "rigid or resistant bodies".

The article does not make any distinction between classical and non-classical concepts. Perhaps it ought to, but at the moment reads cannot be assumed to have this reference point. Derek farn (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Even under a rather broad, modern concept of a machine, electrons should not be considered "moving parts". That would essentially be mixing classical and quantum mechanics - not a good idea for a general audience. And electrons are not "rigid or resistant bodies", they're considered "point particles", that is, they have no volume (that we can detect). They interact with one another and other particles according to electrostatic principles.

Your quantum mechanics argument is a red herring. There are many situations where electrons can be treated according to classical mechanics and there are situations where atoms and groups of atoms must be treated according to quantum mechanics. Electrons might be idealised as point particles or as non-point particles, it depends on the situation being modeled. Atoms also interact according to electrostatic principles, after all the sharing of electrons is what holds molecules together. Derek farn (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I think it would be best to make a distinction in the intro between the classical and modern (or common) usage of the term "machine" - seems we're only confusing the reader if we don't differentiate between the two early on. (Or is it three, or four?? I've lost track. :)

For what it's worth, electron's have a "work function" expressed in electronvolts that has to do with it's movement from within to immediately outside a solid (electrons exiting the cathode of a vacuum tube, for example, have a "thermionic" work function), but this is unrelated to mechanical work - it's not electrons "pushing" against one another, and I don't think we need to delve into the minutiae of quantum mechanics and energy states to include electronic systems as machines; recent history and common usage should be sufficient, don't ya think? Electronic "computing machines" and all that... If we need a further explanation or a reference or two, I can probably come up with something. I think I'll look into whether anyone ever referred to wireless telegraphy or radio equipment as "machines". After all, the "electronic age" is generally considered to have begun with the introduction of the triode vacuum tube or "audion" - first used as a detector in wireless telegraphy (pretty sure).

With regard to electrons pushing against each other. It is electrical repulsion that pushes clumps of atoms (ie, moving parts) away from each other as they get closer together. Derek farn (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Long answer to a simple question.

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't find any of your arguments convincing and in some cases they are technically incorrect. Derek farn (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Quantum mechanics is a red herring"??!! Quantum theory is crucial to the understanding of modern electronics. About the only "situations where electrons can be treated according to classical mechanics" is with respect to the Newtonian theory of gravity, since they have mass. But an electron's tiny mass is irrelevant in this regard because gravitation is so weak compared to electromagnetism (and the other fundamental forces). Whether an electron (or a photon or any elementary particle) actually has a physical size is irrelevant. What is relevant is that its size is too small for its behavior to be described according to the principles of classical mechanics. (Electrodynamics and electrostatics are disparate from classical mechanics.)

"With regard to electrons pushing against each other. It is electrical repulsion that pushes clumps of atoms (ie, moving parts) away from each other as they get closer together."

Your mixing apples and oranges; "clumps of atoms" don't go zipping about in electronic circuits. The electrostatic repulsion of which you write occurs between solid bodies, and is why such bodies don't just flow through one another; their constituent electrons repel one another. (And why a coffee cup doesn't just fall right through the table it's setting on.)

If you're try to argue that electrons are "moving parts" obeying the principles of classical mechanics, and therefore electronic circuits are machines in the classical sense, then you're way off the mark. Furthermore, it's unnecessary. Electronic computers (and perhaps other electronic devices) are machines in the modern sense - if at all - by common custom, not because they have "moving parts".

Rico402 (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

How about providing some references for Types of machines and other devices and Machines in Education and Art so the "original research or unverified claims" tag can be removed.

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article is inaccurate and lacks references

The first paragraph of this article is largely inaccurate as it stands, and cites no authoritative reference for the content other than for the etymology of the word "machine" (which I provided). In fact, this is the only reference cited, which is why the article is tagged "may contain original research or unverified claims".

Efforts to remedy the situation have been consistently resisted by Derek farn, whose ignorance of the subject is exposed in his comments in the above sections, "A 'machine' is any device that uses energy to perform some activity" and "What is a moving part?".

Apparently Derek farn believes a machine is whatever he says it is. (E.g., "the heating element of an electric stove is a simple machine" and "a transducer ... fits within the attributes of a simple machine"; both statements are patent nonsense.)

I have done my best to disabuse him of this conceit, but he refuses to accept established scientific and engineering nomenclature and principles as a suitable foundation for the content of this article. Thus far I have been extremely patient with regard to his obstinacy, but it has become quite clear that polite discourse will not resolve the matter.

In an attempt to reach a compromise, my last edit retained most of the previous content, but with the first paragraph rephrased and expanded in such a way as to make it more accurate and in general agreement with the references cited. (I would still judge it at least somewhat inaccurate.)

We don't know who or what Derek farn is, as his user page is blank, but I see he received a "last warning" from an editor for his "reverting habit and loose restatements".

My credentials can be viewed on my user page. If my next edit of this article - which will likely be a revert to my last edit - is again reverted by Derek farn, I will submit a Request for page protection.

Rico402 (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Rico402 I would be happy to discuss any improvements to the article, but see no benefit in joining a slanging match. Derek farn (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)