Antonym(s): Ghost, Natural, Living, Organic, and Mutable
A machine requires rigid moving parts
A machine must have rigid moving parts. Some things that are not machines: a hammer, a rope, an airfoil, a barometer, a fountain (sans pump), a loudspeaker (although that's on the border). An atlatl is not a machine either, although the combination of atlatl and spear might be considered a killing machine. Things containing hydrolics are only machines in that they contain rigid parts that the hydrolics move; otherwise they're fountains or irrigation systems or some such.
I understand wanting to call all electronic devices machines, but I don't think they are any more than a hydrolic irrigation system is a machine. In other words, electrons are more like fluids than anything else. Entirely electronic devices -- electronic devices with no moving parts -- are pretty much in their own catagory, they are electronic devices. Most electronic devices, cellphones, computers, etc. have rigid moving parts anyhow. Regardless, electronic devices are only machines in a laxer, and more modern sense. There is a physics definition of simple machine but that's really another definition.
The existing definition is just plain wrong. I propose it be changed back to:
- a mechanical device having rigid moving parts that produces an application of force, usually over a distance, usually to useful effect.
--kop 04:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
|1||A mechanical or electrical device that performs or assists in the performance of human tasks, or is used for amusement (like a pinball machine).||Current one.|
|2||A mechanical device having rigid moving parts that produces an application of force, usually over a distance, usually to useful effect.||Proposed in the above section|
|3||Any device that transmits or modifies energy.||Given by Wikipedia as the scientific one.|
|4||A device having rigid moving parts that perform or assist in performing some work.||Given by Wikipedia as the one describing the common usage of the word, as opposed to scientific defition.|
I wondered about the current definition, so I collected the above options to choose from. --Daniel Polansky 17:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I like the second one. —Stephen 18:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. In the English language, the word has verifiably been used with reference to devices with but a single part, devices with non-rigid parts, and even non-mechanical devices. Consider key policy number 4: "Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all usages fairly and sympathetically." 126.96.36.199 01:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- That does not mean that the single defintion must cover all usages. We are permitted to write more than one definition if there is more than one common meaning. --EncycloPetey 01:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. I was objecting to declaring the broader definition invalid. Rather than replacing a broad definition with a narrower one (or attempting a comprehensive set of narrow definitions), it would be better to indicate some usages are specific. 188.8.131.52 01:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)