Talk:Parallel motion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

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)

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)