Talk:Socket wrench

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Metalworking Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Metalworking on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalworkingWikipedia:WikiProject MetalworkingTemplate:WikiProject MetalworkingMetalworking Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Engineering Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Need to discuss the different socket types and their applicability in different situations, i.e. deep ones to handle bolts/spark plugs, 6pt vs 12pt sockets, standard sockets vs impact sockets, etc. --Hooperbloob 23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! - DavidWBrooks 23:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

software is irrelevant to this subject

1) You said: Some[who?] assert that 12 -point sockets are more likely to round the points of a fastener than a 6-point socket, but since the torque is applied at the points of the fastener, there is no measurable difference between the two for a given fastener head.

Just think geometry. Also the idea that force is on the points only is almost a wives tail, but even if I go with that claim, 6 points has more surface on the points. I mean when you say the points only, you don't really mean the 1mm or so on the very pointy point. Imagine a six point that is very snug being turned, it is contacting half of the head surface. Or, take the extreme, what about a 24 point, or at 48, or 96? At some point, there is nothing to connect to the bolt head.

2) You say: greater torque can be achieved with 12 point fastener heads.

This is wrong, and misunderstands how torque works. It is the moment arm, times the force on that arm (may not have those terms perfect). That means if the socket is well connected to the bolt, then it cannot matter how many points there are.

Hope this helps.

Khervey (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On point #2 above, that's not how torque works in this context. We need be concerned with the tolerable torque of the fastener, it does matter how many points there are as it affects contact area, especially at the moment when the fastener begins to deform. More points on the fastener allow the fastener to tolerate more torque up to some limit which depends on the hardness of the metal and tools used (you cannot infinitely increase # of points till it's almost round). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.254.181 (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what "Tall and large" in the heading of one of the paragraphs in the article refers to. Qha 12:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I. The discussion is basically 'hand' and 'impact' sockets. This article definitely needs some editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.171.202 (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a ratcheting wrench intended for sockets. I don't know the industry word for sure, but Harbour Freight Tools uses 'Drive Ratchet' on the contents list for one of their toolkits. Placement for this type of wrench needs probably should be considered, but this page seems so well done, I don't want to screw it up. Maybe a resident expert could give this some thought. Tim legg (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a picture or diagram of the internal workings of a ratchet wrench? Thanks! --Wizard191 (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find a picture of the internals, but I added the picture of the first ratchet from the 1864 Scientific American article. --Chetvorno^TALK 05:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried searching for picture too, but didn't have any luck. Thanks for the effort! Wizard191 (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've often wondered, what goes on inside the head or one, when rotating the knob to reverse direction. And how dumb is that design: to look at it, you don't know whether it's set to do up or undo! Maybe that's why someone invented the swivel lever design.DaveDodgy (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inside the ratchet has two pawls, one on each side of the ratchet wheel, allowing motion in either direction. Flipping the lever lifts one pawl and allows the other to make contact with the wheel, reversing the direction it can turn. If I can find the right tool, I'll take the cover plate off my wrench and add a picture of the insides to the article. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have a description of the various head types. I found pear heads, round heads, and flex heads listed at the Stanley Website. --Scorpiuss (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T handle, flex handle, rachet, air rachet, flex handle rachet, and what is that rachet thing that you twist the shaft going through the handle that rotates the socket via gears. Very handle in tight places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcshawman (talk • contribs) 14:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the definition in the lead sentence, "...a wrench with a female socket (recess) that grips the male head of a fastener..." is insufficiently specific and could apply to other tools such as nut drivers and box-end wrenches. I think the definition must include detachable sockets which all fit on a common drive connector on the handle, as the second paragraph describes. If the two were combined it might not be misleading, but as it is the lead sentence stands alone and seems to imply it is the full definition. --Chetvorno^TALK 02:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. It will have to be addressed by tweaking the article somehow. The problem, in my opinion, is that there's a limit to the precision of the naming in natural language. Here's what I mean. This is a socket wrench, even though its "business end" is not detachable. But what is the etic difference between a nutdriver and that wrench? Nothing much, really, other than size (under half inch versus over half inch) and a handle that's coaxial instead of an L or T handle. It's just that English doesn't call nutdrivers "sockets" or "socket wrenches", even though, from a Martian's perspective, it rationally could (or it could explicitly define nutdrivers as a subset of socket wrenches, but emically people might feel that "they're analogous but different"). The essence of the word "socket" is of a blind hole, which is why terms like ball and socket joint, socket head cap screw, and light socket work, and why, as you pointed out, a box-end wrench is not a socket even though it's a female wrench surrounding a male fastener head. Food for thought on how to address this. — ¾-10 23:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always assumed that "socket" in the title referred to the fitting attaching the replaceable heads (sockets) to the handle, not the cavity in the head that fits over the fastener. Your argument sounds more plausible. But it doesn't matter how you or I or Martians use the term. WP:NAME requires that article names be the "typical" usage in reliable sources. I believe that the typical usage of the term "socket wrench" in reliable sources for this article, which would be mechanics' technical literature, refers to a wrench with detachable heads, and would not cover box end wrenches and nut drivers. --Chetvorno^TALK 06:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, no question, you're right about excluding those. I just haven't worked out how to write a concise, denotative definition that excludes them. I think the reason the differentiation works in natural language is that it's based on connotation via links of mental association—mechanics "just know" that this should be called a "nut driver" in English, and should not be called a "socket wrench", because "that's not how the words are used." But when you try to write a denotative definition that excludes nut drivers and box wrenches, it's harder than one would think, or at least, it sounds like a Martian wrote it. For example, you could say "a female wrench whose hole is blind [not a through-hole] and whose handle is not coaxial and whose handle is usually detachable." That's one tough thing about encyclopedia-writing. Logical taxonomy/ontology/classification can be figured out, but it doesn't always match natural language in natural-sounding ways, and encyclopedia article naming convention requires natural language names (as you pointed out via WP:NAME). Various people wrestle with this kind of thing (people in automation, computational linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education/pedagogy). It just goes to show that the human brain is remarkable; it's amazing that reality, with endless facets and angles of view, is made to seem so simple by the conscious brain. It takes one hell of a territory and makes a nice easy map of it. But the map always has various degrees of emicness; meanwhile, encyclopedia-writing and pedagogy tend to draw out the latent etic factors. — ¾-10 00:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in addition to your T-handle example, this is described as a 'socket wrench', which conflicts with the word "interchangeable" in the lead sentence. Open4D (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is more commonly called a nut driver, which is covered by the 4th paragraph in the introduction. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A common misconception is that a 12-point socket is more likely to round off the corners of a nut or bolt than a 6-point socket. In fact, since the torque is applied at the corners of the fastener, the two sockets have the same number of contact points, apply the same amount of torque, and one is no more likely to round off the corners than another. Although extensive industry testing documents this fact[citation needed], the myth persists.

I think it's safe to say this is utter b.s. You can take a hop over to the garagejournal for links to contact studies by various manufacturers (Wright Tool included) as well as individual users, but there's absolutely no truth to the claim a 12pt socket will work just as well as a 6pt. Patent #5284073 offers some enlightening information on so called 'flank drive' sockets.

I'll refrain from any anecdotal evidence I have to offer. Thank you. 184.153.224.177 (talk) 05:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted previously in the discussion, the primary issue is how much force the fastener head can withstand before deforming. Although the contact area per point is approximately the same for both 6 pt and 12 pt sockets, the 12 pt socket has twice as many contact points and therefored can withstand nearly twice the force. That's why 18 point heads are used for higher torque fasteners.

This effect is widely understood and documented, and test results and papers in both academic journals and manufacturer documentation support these facts. The idea that a 6 pt socket is less likely to round a fastener seems to be an "urban legend" developed and repeated based on anecdotal experience by less technical tool users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decolores9 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the changes made to the introduction in the last month improve it, in my opinion they are wordy and confusing. The changes to the lead sentence seem to imply the ratchet is separate from the handle so the device consists of three pieces, not two. I also don't think the detailed explanation of turning a ratchet needs to be in the intro. WP:MoS says the introduction should consist of 3 or at most 4 paragraphs for large articles. The current intro consists of 5 paragraphs and barely fits in my browser window. Readers are going to be discouraged by such long-windedness. --Chetvorno^TALK 01:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to flag the article for having a way too long introduction, but I think the reason it's being done is to accommodate all the small pictures of wrench types. These pictures should be moved to a section further down and placed in a gallery where they will appear side by side instead of vertical. See WP:Galleries and Wikipedia:Gallery_tag. This is my first time here. I hope another editor with more time will fix this. 5Q5 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]