Talk:Parallel motion linkage

Engineering High‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering 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.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
High	This article has been rated as High-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

untitled section

The reason why attaching the piston somewhere near the middle of the beam is not a good solution is obvious and needs no further explanation IMHO. Also the reason given is not well put. The beam is largely symmetrical in design and is the biggest part of the construction. Erecting it at the very top always was a huge enterprise anyway, making it much longer on one side would not have helped. Just citing the house gives only one tiny part of the problems. Axel Berger 16:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was following the discussion of the discovery in Dickenson, p 136 to 139. Watt claims as a result of the linkage that "about five feet in the height of the house may be saved in 8 feet strokes"... on p 137 Dickson says that the 3 bar linkage required the "radius bar to stand out beyond the beam, and this meant that the engine house must be enlarged to that extent to take it." So it appears that the size of the house was a concern and a motive for the 3 bar, though certainly not the only one. Where is the harm in citing it? DonSiano 17:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see now that on top of it I was wrong. The beam would of course not be longer, just the radius bar moved far out and the parallelogram become redundant. But still, I like short and trimmed down articles best and the main invention were the radius bar and the vertical link themselves - the parallelogram was just an addition to make things smaller just an addition. The main reason for me starting this talk was, that this a question of taste and not of fact anyway, so if you do not agree with me feel free to reinsert your addition, I'm no arbiter of anything. - Axel Berger 19:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename

the article name "parallel motion" is seems ambiguous. suggest "parallel motion (linkage)" or without brackets. Charlieb000 (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article's name might be improved but it is correct now.

Most of the probllem is because the "Principle of operation" section (poorly) describes the "Watt Linkage", {which this article is not about), but completely misses the inovation of the "Watt's Parallel Motion Likage". If one carefully views the annimation you will see that F does indeed move in a straight line (not approxamate), as long as the length EK equals AD; and K is properly placed!

(When I get a chance I'll register and come back and improve the article.)

98.245.8.139 (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed my comment about the "long" version.

98.245.8.139 (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Watt name change?

It is clear from the article that Watt drew the Watt Linkage and called it Parallel motion, even though they are now believed to be seperate. Likewise, I have a steam engine textbook which has a section on Parallel motion--it describes Watt's linkage! It is worth investigating this confusion, perhaps the distinction was added much later.

10:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)J1812 (talk)