Talk:Screw mechanism

	This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

Hey how did the simple machine called the screw get its name??

That would be an excellent question to ask at Wiktionary. Definitions, word origins, etc, are best covered by dictionaries and are not traditionally part of encyclopedias. Try asking at wikt:screw. Rossami (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology might be helpful; this from Merriam-Webster: Middle English scrue, from Middle French escroe female screw, nut, from Medieval Latin scrofa, from Latin, sow (15th century) AdRock (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you guys have any diagram of a screw (simple machine)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.40.38.76 (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

the screw is very helpful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.186.240 (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... Is the diagram with this article (the small blue fastener, Image:Wiktionary-logo-en.svg) an example of the item that this article refers to? Because the "Examples" section refers to totally different kinds of things, like Archimedes screws (for lifting water) and screw-shaped gears. Just asking—I'm just a layman. AdRock (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The small blue fastener is one of many examples of the screw as a simple machine. The Archimedes screw converts rotational force into linear force for the purposes of raising water. Worm gears convert rotational force into linear force for the purposes of raising and lowering a grage door. The wood screw converts rotational force into linear force first for the purpose of penetrating the wood, then for the purpose of increasing friction in order to fix the device in place. Rossami (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There must be added some physics equations explaining relations work, force, torque, etc... about the screw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.156.220.131 (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I added some. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I overlooking something obvious or does it look like the screw is being created at one end while it's destroyed at the other? If that's what it's showing and someone thinks it's obvious that that's not happening, I'd say it's not obvious (among other reasons, why would the animation be wrong when it's easy to get it right?) and there must be animations, or someone could easily create one, where the screw goes out one end while it goes in the other.HowardJWilk (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you are saying. This is a lead screw in a machine; the screw shaft itself does not move axially (lengthwise), but only rotates, supported by smooth pivots at either end. The thread moves the "nut" axially along the length of the screw as it rotates. If you look closely at the ends, the screw thread itself does not pass through the support brackets, but ends in smooth pivots which rotate in holes in the brackets. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. The problem is that looking at most of the length of the screw, excluding the ends, rotational movement is indistinguishable from axial movement. It would help if the screw had some "surface texture" (I don't know the computer-graphics term) to distinguish the one from the other. Does that make sense?HowardJWilk (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, it does look somewhat ambiguous. It would have been nice if the animator had included some texture as a cue to the motion. --Chetvorno^TALK 09:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article not getting too much information that does not quite belong there? Today an entire section was added about thread angles and types: [1]. Of course very useful information. However, when more and more information like this is added then the intention of the article, informing about what is known as one of the six simple machines, is definitely getting lost amongst all that detailed information. What was added here today surely belongs in the article screw. But here? I have serious doubts. --VanBuren (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The shape of a screw's thread is a major factor in its efficiency as a machine (as you would have known if you had read the section). Many engineering texts about simple machines have long mathematical analyses of screw threads and how they affect the efficiency. 1, p.291-296, 2, p.250-251 At only 12kB "readable prose" size the article is hardly big enough to get "lost" in. I have never actually read a complaint about an article having "too much information". Readers who do not want to know about screw threads can, of course, skip the section. That is what the table of contents is for. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-academic with random interests which often land me on articles of this kind, I would say that creating a section with in-depth information about an aspect of the topic seems like the right way of doing things. This allows the user to read to the depth of their interest. The articles that could probably benefit from the types of concerns you've expressed would be the ones that seem to assume an academic approach to a topic on the part of the reader from the start. Those readers probably shouldn't be getting their information from wikipedia anyway... one monkey's opinion. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The recently added info (e.g., pitch, lead, handedness) forks info already covered in the screw thread article (not the screw article, which is about fasteners, but the screw thread article, which is about the details of thread forms). It's fine to discuss efficiency in this article, but there's some extent of forking here that should instead be linking to the main discussion without recapitulating it. — ¾-10 22:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. The section should probably be compressed and linked to the main article. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that duplication of content is not a fork. From WP:CONTENT FORK: "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork.". The argument being made here about the Screw threads section applies to most sections of the article. For example, there are also articles on Handedness, Lead (engineering) and Pitch (screw); should we edit down the sections "Handedness" and "Lead and pitch" to prevent duplication also? For that matter, the derivations of ideal and real mechannical advantage in Frictionless mechanical advantage and Actual mechanical advantage and efficiency pretty much duplicate derivations in Simple machine; maybe they should be deleted? My feeling is they should not be. --Chetvorno^TALK 06:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand the objections. If the consensus is that some of this section doesn't belong in the article, I am agreeable to it being edited out. However, be sure you understand what is and isn't needed. The goal of this section was to make an important point, which I feel needs to be in this article, and is not in the Screw thread article. This is that the "thread angle" is a major factor determining the efficiency of the screw as a machine, and therefore different threads are used for screws whose function is to be a fastener (large angle threads), and screws whose function is to transmit power (small angle threads). Making this point required including some diagrams of different screw threads, and so I thought a diagram and list of the major thread types was not out of place. This list does duplicate some content in Screw thread. But making the above point is going to require some diagrams of threads, at least two (a large angle and small angle thread). --Chetvorno^TALK 06:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I follow both points (above) and agree overall. On second thought I encourage you to proceed and not put much concern on forking for now (sorry). I do realize that forking is not an all-or-nothing thing; some discussion overlap is inevitable between articles. My point was just that if the articles screw (simple machine) and screw thread both have sections laying out a fairly complete exposition of what pitch is or what handedness is, then there is some forking on a level of article sections (although not whole articles). WP:Content forking says, "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant ..." The same principle can apply to multiple separate article sections if they overlap to the point of duplicating each other. The underlying idea is not to entirely duplicate what you can briefly summarize in one place and link or transclude the main discussion from elsewhere. But I just realized that there is a more important factor that overrides my concerns about duplication. The biggest priority is just that it's great that you are developing the content and you are addressing the need for exposition in this article (for example, efficiency). A little duplication can always be replaced with a summary and link later. It's a refinement at a revised-draft stage. The main improvement is just building the content at all in the first place (that is, the first-draft stage), which is what you're doing. — ¾-10 03:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with with that. It is good to see articles being improved. At a later date refinements can take place to harmonize different articles that have subject overlap. --VanBuren (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]