Talk:Wedge

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 articles

Diagram Accuracy?

Moved from Wikipedia:Requested pictures:

Added diagram but not completely sure about accuracy. If know exactly which direction the force goes in please check it. Iain 03:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram is wrong, the two forces should be a normal force(i.e., perpendicular to the cutting surface), and hence should be slightly pointing downward. In fact, it is the decomposition of the force exerted into two normal forces, so in any case it won't be horizontal. --Lemontea 07:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost 3 years later, I've corrected the image. Wizard191 (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename page?

I'm trying to find consensus for renaming "(mechanics)" pages, where "mechanics" refers to machinery, mechanisms, mechanical devices or mechanical engineering, rather than (e.g. classical) mechanics in physics and applied math. I would like to rename this page to something like "Wedge (mechanical device)". Any comments or objections? Geometry guy 20:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical Wedge as it applies to "social constructs"

I think it would be interesting to compare (1) mechanical-type wedges, and (2)"wedge-like human dynamics" in group settings. I suspect there would be many parallel's and think this should be better understood. Peace. Ken Hausle.

KenH 15:00, 19 August 2007 (Charlotte, NC)

Mrs. Prakhya?

What is the "Mrs. Prakhya" reference in the discussion of mechanical advantage? This does not seem to bear any relationship to the formula MA=S/T. -- Touretzky 06:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that is minor vandalism that a student from Tecumseh did. However, you did the right thing to change that back. LostNecromancer 19:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical advantage

The resultant forces we're interested in when calculating the mechanical advantage of a wedge are perpendicular to the applied force and thus to the length of the wedge, not perpendicular to the sloped sides of the wedge. Therefore, mechanical advantage for a wedge equals length divided by width, not length of slope divided by width (or "thickness" ??), as the article states. I.e., MA = L/W, not MA = S/W (or S/T ??). (MA for an inclined plane equals length of slope divided by height of slope, or MA = S/H.)

However, "In other words, divide the length of the wedge by its width" is correct.

Corrections made.

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wedge: similar to an inclined plane; the force multiplier is length divided by width; distance is divided by the same factor." (Emphasis added.) Source: "Mechanical advantage - simple machines - MCAT", Mcat Exam, Eduturca, 2008-01-07, retrieved 2009-07-29.

"Distance" re the wedge is length, i.e., perpendicular to the blunt end; for inclined plane, distance is inclined side.

Corrections made again. Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you are wrong. I've added two refs to back it up. Also, the "ref" you supplied is definitely not a reliable source because it is merely a blog entry. Wizard191 (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rico, before you revert my edits please read the latest reference I've added. It has a proof of how to calculate the mechanical advantage of a wedge. Wizard191 (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Well, it's not a "proof", but rather a mathematical method applicable only to a specific case (a "splitting wedge"), rather than the general case, where the desired direction of motion is perpendicular to the slope. (In any event, I think we've shown that supposed "authoritative" sources, i.e. the references, can disagree.)

Your other ref, the "Wedges and screws" article, is a poor choice, and very poorly placed within the article. It's a collection of diagrams principally devoted to friction vectors. No where does it say the wedge "functions by converting a force applied to its blunt end into forces perpendicular (normal) to its inclined surfaces", as your citation suggests.

I would also like to point out that if you alter the first diagram in "Wedges and screws" such that the red block has a rectangular cross-section, then since its motion is limited to vertical displacement and dependent on the horizontal displacement of the "half-wedge", and discounting friction, the applied horizontal force is translated entirely into a vertical force; and thus MA=L/W. This is how a "lifting wedge" functions.

Neither of my refs were "blog entries", and were entirely in keeping with Wiki guidelines. But, what's really needed here is a "force vector diagram", but I haven't the software to generate one. It would be helpful in describing "splitting wedges" vs. "lifting wedges".

But I do have another sound reference:

Anderson, William Ballantyne, Physics for Technical Students: Mechanics and Heat, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1914, p. 118. Re a lifting wedge: "Theo. M. Adv. = d/D = length of wedge/thickness of wedge".

Others:

McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, Third Ed., Sybil P. Parker, ed., McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1992, p. 2041.

"Mechanical advantage - simple machines - MCAT", Mcat Exam, Eduturca, 2008-01-07, retrieved 2009-07-29.

Nave, C. R., "Simple Machines", HyperPhysics, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University, 2005, retrieved 2009-09-05.

That's four solid references. I may be incomplete, but I'm certainly not "wrong".

Btw, I've restored the image of the splitting wedge showing the resultant forces perpendicular to its inclined surfaces. (Shame on you for not doing so. ;) Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. I never realized there was a difference between single wedges (lifting wedges) and double wedges (splitting wedges). It does alter the FBD and MA. So neither of our sources are wrong, it just that they are for two different types of wedges. I want to note that while they are different theoretically, the same wedge can be used to lift or split and that the head can is usually "domed" to accept any directional deviations from the input force (i.e. you don't hit the wedge squarely on the head with the hammer), which would make most practical wedges a mixture of both types. We need to incorporate this into the article. Wizard191 (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point on lifting wedges vs splitting edges is important. I did some analysis of both types (complete derivations w/free-body diagrams and equations of static equilibrium), and it turns out that for a single/lifting wedge, the mechanical advantage = 1/tan(θ) = t/L, but for a double/splitting wedge, the mechanical advantage is 1/(2*tan(θ/2)) = L/t. In both examples, L is the length of the wedge (perpendicular to small side, which has length t). So, the statements about mechanical advantage are confusing as it stands, because although the overall L/t is correct in both cases, the rest of the results are not. 134.250.130.186 (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing wedges? "Folding Wedges"?

(1) In woodworking, esp. greenwood working, a pair of wooden wedges are sometimes used to fill a gap (to holdfast a workpiece). In use, they are placed hypothenuse to hypothenuse and tapped until the fit is firm. There is a special name for this, which unfortunately escapes me now - it might be "FOLDING WEDGES" or "PARALLEL WEDGES". I think there used to be a wiki webpage on this use of a pair of wedges but I am unable to find it now without the name (but perhaps it was this: http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Wedge ). It would be good to identify the correct name & link from here to that page (& vice versa).

Also, there is supposed to be an optimum angle for such wedges, which I am keen to discover. Suggestions I have come across so far are around: 4%/5-degrees/1:12/1:8/1:7/1:6 but I would be interested to see a definitive reference on this.

I also came across Quoin (printing), which is perhaps a special case of "folding wedges": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoin_(printing)

Requested move 4 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wedge (mechanical device) → Wedge
Wedge → Wedge (disambiguation)

– in general, wedges mean this 209.52.88.26 (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Took the liberty of fixing the move request to proper format. I support this, as the tool has more long term significance and pageviews than any of the other usages._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The simple machine is the primary topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Basic concept which is the origin/inspiration behind the others topics listed on the dab page. -- Netoholic @ 04:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What they said. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Basic concept and who would know that "mechanical device" referred to this item anyway? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.