![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
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 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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
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 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)
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)