Talk:Ideal machine

Revisions to this article

I would like to try to make this article more useful. I have revised the introduction to define ideal machine more precisely. The section Use in Physics seems to be more of a personal observation than a discussion of the use of ideal assumptions in analysis. Prof McCarthy (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I find the expression if there is no loss of power from the input to the output to be less than ideal. The reader might observe that power must pass from the input to the output. Something like the following might be better: if input power and output power are equal and there is no loss of energy from the machine other than from the output. Dolphin (t) 07:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, I had meant this sentence to be limited to the case of a simple machine where there is a flow of power from the input to the output. This clarification is welcome. Thank you. Prof McCarthy (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The real challenge is the section use in physics. I do not think I can preserve the basic ideas. It states that there are two cases: (1) losses are negligible and (2) no losses. In the first case negligible is a choice by an analyst, and the second case is claimed to exist only for the entire universe. This seems to be a statement about the conservation of energy for the universe, combined with an odd claim that subsets of the universe must lose some, though negligible, amount of energy. This is a long way from the notion of an ideal machine. Prof McCarthy (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed the section User in physics in its entirety. It was unsourced and unreferenced. I have no objection to the Use in physics heading being restored but the content should be consistent with the basic ideas and should be sourced.

The section Criteria also looks puzzling. It contains two criteria and implies that they are distinct. I can't think of an example where a machine might meet one of the two criteria but not the other. I think there is really only the one criterion but it can be described in at least two different ways. Dolphin (t) 22:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look at this. I put a note on the talk page of User:Beast_of_traal who wrote that section. I will think about how to expand this article in a way that connects with other articles on machines and efficiency. Prof McCarthy (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I encourage you to align this article with others on machines and efficiency. I see Beast of traal has been inactive since January 2009 so it is likely there will be no response to your note. Dolphin (t) 01:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)