Jeff wrote:
"Is a microscope a machine? What about a telescope"
Depends on the mechanism involved. If it's solely a magnification, then I don't think it would be a machine. If it's something like a SEM (scanning electron microscope) where you are physcially doing something and measuring changes, then possibly -
However, around here, these are all INSTRUMENTS, as long as they are working correctly. When they break down, then they are MACHINES!!!
Nanohedron wrote:Here's a thought: all machines are tools. Not all tools are machines.
Discuss.
Hmm...tools are devices that give you a mechanical advantage, meaning it takes MY muscle input and multiplies it. Do all machines give you a mechanical advantage? If I'm running a CNC lathe, sure it's a machine, but does it give *ME* a mechanical advantage since I'm not using my own power to turn the steel? My gut instinct is that no, not all machines are tools.
"Reality is the computer hardware, and religions are the operating systems: abstractions that allow us to interact with, and draw meaning from, a reality that would otherwise be incomprehensible."
Nanohedron wrote:Here's a thought: all machines are tools. Not all tools are machines.
Discuss.
Hmm...tools are devices that give you a mechanical advantage, meaning it takes MY muscle input and multiplies it. Do all machines give you a mechanical advantage? If I'm running a CNC lathe, sure it's a machine, but does it give *ME* a mechanical advantage since I'm not using my own power to turn the steel? My gut instinct is that no, not all machines are tools.
Could be it's all in how you view it. For me, a tool is a physical object and is a means to an end. One accomplishes a goal with it. A flute is a tool. Is it a machine? Not to me. To me, a CNC lathe, unquestionably a machine, is a tool; it's just a very complex one and doesn't require my direct physical effort. But that's just how I see it, is all.
It seems that part of the Idea of Simple machines is that they are currently allowing a concentration or diffusion of energy. A pulley that is just redirecting the force, or a wedge just holding a door open, would not seem to qualify.
Back to the glasses example, usually heat is an undesirable byproduct thought friction, so I will not consider that a form of machine (after all a black piece of paper would do the same thing) however if you use optics to concentrate sunlight to power a solar cell, I could see how that would be concentrating the power of the energy into a smaller space to do work.
As for the machine/ tool debate (different context, so I have a different definition), I always thought of it as user input, a tool needs craftsmanship, a machine does not. A keyless flute allows the person to make music (a tool); a stereo makes music for the person (a machine). This definition has two many gray areas though.
"Be not deceived by the sweet words of proverbial philosophy. Sugar of lead is a poison."
I'm of the opinion that lenses aren't machines, for the same reasons others have given.
I think the puddle of water metaphor is a strong indication of why a lens should not be classified as a machine. Should everything (a wall, a newspaper, a mirror, a yellow shirt, etc) be classified as a machine simply because light bounces off or passes through it, changing it?
Is the fact that the sky is blue make our atmosphere a machine?
Is a catalyst (like the platinum in your catalytic converter) a machine? Should something be called a machine simply because other stuff reacts to it? Would that make oxygen a machine since stuff can spontaneously combust in it's presence?
Following this slippery slope, we eventually come to the point where we're calling anything that remotely affects anything else a machine...A nitrogen atom is a machine, because every once in a great while, it will bounce a neutrino off of it.
I am under the impression that WORK not a change of energy is the basis for the definition of a machine. And where there is no motion, there is no work.
The original question that was posed by the originator of this thread is whether eyeglasses are mechanical, not whether eyeglasses are machines. Yes, eyeglasses are mechanical, in part. However, I doubt whether they are machines, but that wasn't the question.
NicoMoreno wrote:And where there is no motion, there is no work.
And what about electrons and photons? If they move does that count?
To add to the mess the SI derived unit of work is the joule (J)
1 joule = 1 N · 1 m = 1 newton · 1 metre = 1 kg · 1 m2 · 1 s-2
1 joule = 1 C · 1 V = 1 coulomb · 1 volt
1 joule = 1 W · 1 s = 1 watt · 1 second
Doug_Tipple wrote:The original question that was posed by the originator of this thread is whether eyeglasses are mechanical, not whether eyeglasses are machines. Yes, eyeglasses are mechanical, in part. However, I doubt whether they are machines, but that wasn't the question.
Not to mention simple machines.
"Be not deceived by the sweet words of proverbial philosophy. Sugar of lead is a poison."
Doug_Tipple wrote:The original question that was posed by the originator of this thread is whether eyeglasses are mechanical, not whether eyeglasses are machines. Yes, eyeglasses are mechanical, in part. However, I doubt whether they are machines, but that wasn't the question.
I disagree...his entire first couple of sentences in the original question discussed the definition of machines.
Jeff Stallard wrote:The definition of a machine is a device that transmits or modifies energy to perform or assist in the performance of tasks. The difference between a tool and a machine is that the machine is fairly independent.
What was that about light not having mass? There's the whole wave/particle duality thing to bear in mind, and light can and does exert *some* force on certain objects. There's a constant stream of particles coming from the sun called the Solar Wind. They are a part of the EM (that's electro-magnetic spectrum) just as visible light is yes?
And what about the rest of the band? There's a LOT more happening than just that little bit between 400 & 700nm. Very interestink!
