Talk:Mathematical Bridge

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels 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.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

East Anglia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia 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.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

University of Cambridge

This article is within the scope of the University of Cambridge Wikiproject, an attempt to improve articles relating to the University of Cambridge, and to standardize and extend the coverage of the University in the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, you can help us by editing the article attached to this notice, or you could visit the project page, where you can join the project, learn more about it, see what needs to be done, or contribute to the discussion.University of CambridgeWikipedia:WikiProject University of CambridgeTemplate:WikiProject University of CambridgeUniversity of Cambridge articles

Name[edit]

So how did it get the name Mathematical Bridge? Ryanluck 06:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The very end of http://www.queens.cam.ac.uk/Queens/Images/WinBridg.html suggests that it stems from the 18th century term for similar designs, 'geometrical construction'. topynate 00:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the word 'spurious' apt? I would prefer 'unhistorical'. Richard Pinch 21:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - I agree. spurious means false - and this isn't a false name for the bridge. That's really what it's called - it doesn't have any other name. Dunno about unhistorical either. It's been there for a long time - and it's been called the mathematical bridge for quite a while. I guess it's more of a misnomer because it has nothing to do with mathematics. I'll just remove 'spurious' and let the remainder of the article speak for itself. If you read on, you can understand why the name might be considered inappropriate...but it's not spurious. Thanks for spotting that. SteveBaker 22:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newton[edit]

Whilst I'm prepared to believe that the bridge was not designed by Newton, the argument that because it was constructed after his death he could not possibly have designed it - is clearly false. We have many examples of things that (for example) Archimedes designed that people only just got around to building. So we can't say it's "patent nonsense". SteveBaker 21:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly there's better reason to believe that Newton designed the sundial Richard Pinch 19:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tour guides[edit]

Cambridge tour guides need some serious straightening out. If they are telling people that the bridge was built by students (like *that* is likely) and was so amazingly sophisticated that it couldn't be understood by those dumb old professors...geez. They are also telling an incorrect version of the truth about the Bridge of Sighs (Cambridge) in which a car was suspended under the bridge by students...in fact, this stunt was performed on two separate occasions - but as presented by the tour guides, the dates and the type of car and the method by which it was moved there are wildly incorrect. (They said it was an Austin Mini and it happened in 1956 - when the Mini didn't even start production until 1959!)...so if they can't get the story right on these two bridges - what are the odds that they have ANY of their facts right?! SteveBaker 15:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bolts[edit]

The most plausible story about the bolts I've heard is that if they were removed the bridge would indeed stay up under the purely downwards loading of its own weight and that of people walking across. However, lateral forces (wind, people leaning on the railings) could cause the joints to become separated and the bridge to thus collapse. Ie the bolts don't experience any shear forces. Is this correct? It should be easy enough to check by examining the bridge and doing the relevant calculations, but that would probably count as original research.M0ffx 12:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've been able to discover, all of the stories about the bridge are basically nonsense - it's JUST a bridge held together the usual way...with bolts. Clearly, if you removed all of the bolts/nails/screws/whatever then the vertical pieces holding up the handrail would fall off - and then there is nothing holding the handrail in place except gravity - so they aren't exerting any forces on the long diagonal pieces. Now there is nothing to stop the outermost of those from rotating outwards and falling off - I don't see how it could do anything other than instantly collapse. SteveBaker 12:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the original did not pass fully through the bridge, so were invisible to people walking over the bridge. Some time later, the bolts were replaced with metal ones, which do pass fully through the bridge. See this page on the college website for details. Bluap 14:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a nice old photo of the bridge here: http://www.queens.cam.ac.uk/queens/images/Bridge1865.html - I presume that's out of copyright - so I wonder if we could use it here. SteveBaker 16:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. EKR (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mathematical Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140812030814/http://thames.me.uk/s01620.htm to http://thames.me.uk/s01620.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mathematical Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921135000/http://www.queens.cam.ac.uk/page-1684 to http://www.queens.cam.ac.uk/page-1684

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]