Talk:Wheel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] What this article 'should' be about
I think this article should be only about those things that we put on vehicles (and some other objects) to allow them to roll along. This is what people think of when the wheel is talked about as the quintessential invention. It is this improvement in the transport of goods and people that aided the spread of civilization and trade.
Other things that happen to be called wheels should not be on this page if they operate on different princinples and serve other purposes.
My intention is to move the article in the above direction. What do you think? Jimbowley 12:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
No comments? OK to summarise what I am trying to do: I aim to modify the pages wheel wheel and axle simple machine to make it clear that a wheel on an axle on a cart is not a wheel and axle in the simple machine sense.
This task is made more difficult because wheel and axle is not well defined and there are many wrong or poor examples in teaching materials on the web. But I will try.Jimbowley 14:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proto-Indo-European
It's been some time since I cracked a linguistics text book, so I could be wrong on this. Proto-Indo-European was never actually spoken by any culture. It is a theoretical language which has been contructed by linguistic typologists and historians by looking at groups of modern languages and then imagining what the common origin of them might have been. To say that the word 'wheel' (or any modern word) derives from it is inaccurate. This statement should probably be revised --Paul Cnudde
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.176.55.40 (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] a lot
I agree in that it may be likely that many ancient civilisations would used implements like wheels around the same general period but documented evidence may say otherwise.
I'm going to make some changes again based on my view that the page should be about the wheel as an aid to transport, and that other (different) things called wheels should be kept separate to avoid confusion.
Also I will change (my own) explanation of how the wheel works.
The wheel is often viewed as the quintessential invention, and was most likely invented in all ancient civilizations, although not always used.
How true is this? From what I know, wheels as means of transportation were invented around the middle east around 4000 BC and spread outward from there. The concept is neither as obvious as one might think, nor as useful (eg without roads slider bars do a better job moving heavy things around).
Where is the evidence of South American wheels?
- There are wheeled things we suppose to be TOYS - wheeled dogs in Mexican contexts, wheeled Llamas in Incan. The usual reason given for the failure ot use them on carts is that usable roads would have been too hard to build or too uncommon, which I for one buy for the Andes but not for Central Mexico. --MichaelTinkler
Also - I've added a bit about how wheels transform forces, and I think that when one talks about a wheel as a simple machine it is that that one is referring to, not the transformation between linear and rotary motion (which is really a special case of a friction gear when you think about it). Should this maybe be changed?
Yes it should! Apart from being gobbledygook it should be on a page called Wheel and Axle. I'm about to try and make this change. hope it works.
Aw, come ON people! Someone must have something to say of the history of the wheel! I had an exceedingly short go, but that was deemed inappropriate even though i framed it rather diffusely. A more fact filled history must be out there somewhere. Or are we inventing the wheel again? :-) --Anders Törlind
- I'm all for history and don't object to the circa 4000 BC part at all for 'earliest commonly recognized,' and then let other cultures invent it for themselves in a dependent clause. --MichaelTinkler
I got rid of the "third-most-important invention after language and fire clause," because language was never "invented" by humans. --Alex S 04:27, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Language not an invention? Are theories inventions? Are World Views inventions? Is a metaphor an invention? An analogy? What would you call them then? So far as I am concerned a metaphor or analogy is clearly an invention. Aren't they clearly based on the invention of language? -- Geo Swan 02:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Am I the only one that finds is strange that the only external links are to bacteria pages? (valid though that may be) Seems very unbalanced. The whole notion is a bit dodgy, the wheel in question is more like a cog which I suppose is type of wheel but... Also, did bacteria really invent the wheel, that's like saying an animal invented the brain, bacteria may have evolved the cog wheel but not invented it. I'd really like to take the whole reference out, it's cute but not appropriate --Bob Palin 02:39, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
"Recent" (april 2002) excavations in the Ljubljana (which lies in Slovenia) marsh have brought up a wheel with an axle that is dated somewhere around 3250-3150 a.Chr.n (=BC). --Matija Šuklje, 16 Oct 2004
[edit] Notice of intention to overhaul
I find this description of the wheel to be very lacking. The writer seems to think that dry equations actually impart a real knowledge of what is happening mechanically. Far from it. Also, the history section was much better about a year ago. I'm planning a total rewrite. If anyone has much to say for this version, please speak up in the next few days. JDG 05:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- JDG, I agree with you that the article could use a good overhaul. One thing which comes to mind for inclusion, is a counter to the view commonly expressed or implied that societies which lacked significant use of technology associated with the wheel are thereby deficient in some regard, and that the possession of wheel-based technologies necessarily confers some crucial advantage over those without it. Many (primarily non-academic) references overplay this distinction.
- As an efficient transport technology, the wheel requires not only the axle and vehicle chassis, but a suitable domesticated draught animal for propulsion, not to mention suitable terrain. Such animals were completely lacking in the pre-Columbian Americas, pre-colonised Australia, etc., and failure to explore this technology further should hardly be surprising. Even so, many impressive civilisations and edifaces were constructed without its substantive aid, such as the Egyptian pyramids, Mayan, Aztec, Zapotec and Inca cities, Great Zimbabwe, the Easter Island statues, etc etc.
- A case could be made that applications of the technology, such as for chariots in warfare, provided an advantage to the possessors (eg, Hittites v. Egyptians). However, whilst undeniably a substantial and largely beneficial technology, the extent to which it has aided the development of those who employed it will need to be mapped out with some care. --cjllw | TALK 02:22, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
[edit] Authentication for The Iranian wheel picture
In reply to Dab's objection that the spoked Iranian wheel dated in the 2nd Millenium BCE may not be authentic, to his request, I visited National Museum of Iran, and took the 3 pictures below.
The curator of the museum verified that the spoked wheel's date had been determined by Carbon dating among other techniques, and that it had been excavated in Susa. The wooden parts of course were added for display. But the rest is made of an alloy of Copper and Tin.--Zereshk 14:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
- Zereshk, I asked because you had labelled the wheel "2000 BC". Now of course you realize that "late 2nd millennium" means "just before 1000 BC", i.e. almost 1000 years younger. That date is completely unproblematic and I accept it without batting an eyelid. It isn't even particularly early, chariots were around in Mesopotamia since 1600 BC or so. But thanks for checking + taking the picture! dab (ᛏ) 14:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Always happy to verify. Can you please see to it that Wheel Iran.jpg is updated? It's still displying the old picture I put up.--Zereshk 15:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- it's a cache issue. It will appear. But why did you overwrite the old image? This one will have to be cropped. Where did you get the one without background? Incidentially, I am surprised that were wheels with metal rim in 1000 BC. But surely, parts of the wood must be preserved (otherwise, how would they have Carbon dated it?) Maybe just the central spokes are replacement, and the rim is the original wood? dab (ᛏ) 15:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- hey, and if they let you walk around with your camera in the museum like that, I am sure you can do a whole lot of other GFDL'd images of notable artefacts for Wikipedia, hint hint, ;o) dab (ᛏ) 15:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed. Is it too late to visit there again and snap some more photos? I hope not. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 21:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Pictures are allowed at close range, provided no flashes are used. I'll visit the museum again on my next trip to Iran. I'll see if I can get special permission to visit their non-exhibit collection (as I have done before).--Zereshk 10:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Some linguistic evidence
JP Mallory writes:
Tomas Gamkrelidze and Vyachislav Ivanov, interestingly enough, have noted that one of our words associated with wheeled vehicles, Proto-Indo-European *kwekwlo bears striking similarity to the words for vehicles in Sumerian gigir, Semitic *galgal, and Kartvelian *grgar. With the putative origin of wheeled vehicles set variously in the Pontic-Caspian, Transcaucasia or to Sumer, we may be witnessing the original word for a wheeled vehicle in four different language families. Furthermore, as the Proto-Indo-European form is built on an Indo-European verbal root *kwel—'to turn, to twist', it is unlikely that the Indo-Europeans borrowed their word from one of the other languages. This need not, of course, indicate that Indo-Europeans invented wheeled vehicles, but it might suggest that they were in some for of contact relation with those Near Eastern languages in the fourth millennium B.C. —James P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth, Thames and Hudson, 1989, p. 163.
We are not so much speaking of the invention of the wheel as we are of wheeled vehicles. Toys supporting very little weight are one thing; a practical vehicle that can support its own weight as well as cargo is something entirely different. --FourthAve 21:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Cart vs wagon
Any discussion of wheeled vehicles has to carefully distinguish between carts (one axle, two wheels) and wagons (two axles, four wheels). The distinction is recorded in the Proto-Indo-European language, and descends into all branches of the language family. American English has mucked things up by terming automobiles and railway carriages (either passenger or freight) as 'cars'; 'car' originally referred to a cart-like vehicle, and in artistic contexts (painting, sculpture), often a chariot. --FourthAve 10:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Archaeology
There does seem to be evidence that wheeled vehicles were invented in Europe first, and just maybe, in Northern Europe:
- The GrN dates and the Flintbek age seem to suggest that wheeled vehicles were invented in Europe together with the ard, ox-team and yoke, not in the Near East. But the data are still scarce and the BR III DIC-dates raise interesting questions. (For complete article see: The earliest evidence of wheeled vehicles in Europe and the Near East. Antiquity 73, 1999:778-790) [1]
- See also the picture of the spectacular pot excavated at Bronocice, Poland, which shows apparently the very first depiction of a wheeled vehicle (here, a wagon) anywhere.
I find this as shocking as I imagine you are. --FourthAve 21:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Axles
D.Q. Adams and JP Mallory do the article "Axle" in EIEC. They note there were two types of axles. The more common was a fixed axle where the wheel rotated on it; this is found in Mesopotamia, the Pontic-Caspian steppe, NE Europe. The second type had the axle rotate with the wheel; this attested in Switzerland and southern Germany, and seems to have once been more widespread, to have been replaced by the first type.
The most "abundant evidence" for early wheeled vehicles is from the steppe at the foot of the Caucasus; see Kura-Araxes culture and the Maykop culture, both of which most likely had Indo-European speaking components.--FourthAve 15:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Symbol
We may need Wheel (symbol) for those winged wheels and chakras. Weren't wheels taboo in Tibet before the Maoist invasion?
[edit] reason for not using wheels
from above
Where is the evidence of South American wheels?
There are wheeled things we suppose to be TOYS - wheeled dogs in Mexican contexts, wheeled Llamas in Incan. The usual reason given for the failure ot use them on carts is that usable roads would have been too hard to build or too uncommon, which I for one buy for the Andes but not for Central Mexico. --MichaelTinkler
you all so need a central empire of some sort to pay and mantane for the roads,it wasn't the case in central mexico at the time 1 to use wheels you need a flat surface(rare to existe by it self) in generaly a road 2 a central empire is needed to bealt them and maintain them 3 the empire must have sufichient resources and technology to build them(the incas didn't have buldosers on ther mountens,the romans at my nolge did not buld roads on mountens)
so in general at historic times it was easyer to not use wheels.
that good unaf?do somebody wants to add this whith corect english --Ruber chiken 21:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Bronocice pot - Waza z Bronocic
www.neolit.prv.pl
[edit] The Bronocice pot
The vase from Bronocice - a ceramic pot with incised carts, discovered in 1974 during the archaeological excavation of a large Neolothic settlement in Bronicice by the Nidzica River, ca. 50 km to north east of Krakow (the Pinczow, Land District). The excavations were carried out between 1974 and 1980 by the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences and the State University of New York at Buffalo (USA). The ornament on the pot shows a symbolic depiction of trees, fields, roads and a river. The most important component of the decoration are five rudimentary representations of a four-wheeled cart. The pot from Bronocice has been dated by a physical chemistry method (radiocarbon dating) to 3520 B.C. It is the oldest representation of a cart (or a wheeled vehicle) in the world.
The Institute of Archeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences, Kraków Branch, ul. Slawkowska 17, phone +48(12) 4222905,
www.archeo.pan.krakow.pl
[edit] Merging "Wheel and axle" and "Wheel", discuss.
I do not believe these two articles should be merged as they discuss two totally different things that use the same word.
Wheel and axle: The simple machine of a a wheel and an axle turning (at this stage it is unimportant which is making which turn) which leads to another connected wheel and axle to also turn.
Wheel: The wheel as we know it used for motion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GBobly (talk • contribs) 14:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Inconsistency
"History of the wheel and axle" says first The wheel reached India and Pakistan with the Indus Valley Civilization in the 3rd millennium BC then The wheel reached Europe and India (the Indus Valley civilization) in the 4th millennium BC. Which is right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.7.20.133 (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
"The wheel was invented in 44 b.c. by Ruben Rehr a well known American from Accent, Alabama." I don't think this is true. o_o
[edit] Africa
ha! so it didn't appear in Africa until colonialism! not even the egyptians had it --89.181.17.93 15:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- The Egyptians had chariots. Admittedly I don't know whether nor when they invented it by themselves or adopted it from others. --217.233.202.164 22:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Diagram out of place?
The wheel on a ramp diagram at the top of the article seems out of place. It is somewhat related to the article, but such an important position should be occupied by a simple picture of a wheel -- shouldn't it? ThreeE 02:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree there should be a picture of a simple wheel at the top of the article.
I removed the diagram you refer to for that reason, and because it does not explain the function of a wheel. The diagram showed why a round object rolls downhill, it did not explain why a wheel is useful for transporting things along the surface of the planet which is the major function of the wheel.
I have added this explanation because the author of the picture has reverted it back in, and it may become a point of contention if the author continues to do so. Jimbowley 14:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes, it may well become a point of contention.. We may have an image at the top of the article as you suggest, but then we should move the diagram to the section on Mechanics of wheels. It may seem trivial that the diagram explains why wheels ar so facinating. Bear in mind that many scholars may not quite comprehend why wheels tend to rotate spontaneously..We also need a gallery for a variety of different wheels. That is why I did not delete your cartwheel..but shifted it down instead..Gregorydavid 14:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hi Gregorydavid, I appreciate you not reverting. Wheels do not tend to rotate spontaneously. Things such as wheels and eggs and footballs do tend to roll downhill but that is not anything to do with being wheel-like it is to do with being roundish and to do with gravity.Jimbowley 13:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I beg to differ, we all know wheels tend to rotate spontaneously, given the correct conditions.. why the need for brakes and the hand brake? On sloping surfaces gravity alone creates the impetus for wheels to rotate spontaneously, while an external impetus is required in other situations. The eccentricity of the force bearing on the axle, with the point of contact with the sloping surface creates a moment that is not counteracted by any forces excepting the rolling resistance on the surface and any rolling resistance at the axle.. the same reason why stones with virtual axles roll downhill as you pointed out..Gregorydavid 20:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- We have a different understanding of what spontaneously means, and yours is wrong. Regards Jimbowley 12:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please explain, do you mean spontaneously like in Spontaneous combustion, ie without an external ignition source, or external force in the case of the wheel? Gregorydavid 14:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- This definition matches my own understanding/use of the word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous "Spontaneous means a self-generated event, typically requiring no outside influence or help."
- So saying that something (eg gravity) causes a spontaneous action makes no sense at all. Regards, Jimbowley 13:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please explain, do you mean spontaneously like in Spontaneous combustion, ie without an external ignition source, or external force in the case of the wheel? Gregorydavid 14:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- We have a different understanding of what spontaneously means, and yours is wrong. Regards Jimbowley 12:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I beg to differ, we all know wheels tend to rotate spontaneously, given the correct conditions.. why the need for brakes and the hand brake? On sloping surfaces gravity alone creates the impetus for wheels to rotate spontaneously, while an external impetus is required in other situations. The eccentricity of the force bearing on the axle, with the point of contact with the sloping surface creates a moment that is not counteracted by any forces excepting the rolling resistance on the surface and any rolling resistance at the axle.. the same reason why stones with virtual axles roll downhill as you pointed out..Gregorydavid 20:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Gregorydavid, I appreciate you not reverting. Wheels do not tend to rotate spontaneously. Things such as wheels and eggs and footballs do tend to roll downhill but that is not anything to do with being wheel-like it is to do with being roundish and to do with gravity.Jimbowley 13:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes, it may well become a point of contention.. We may have an image at the top of the article as you suggest, but then we should move the diagram to the section on Mechanics of wheels. It may seem trivial that the diagram explains why wheels ar so facinating. Bear in mind that many scholars may not quite comprehend why wheels tend to rotate spontaneously..We also need a gallery for a variety of different wheels. That is why I did not delete your cartwheel..but shifted it down instead..Gregorydavid 14:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Most spontaneous events depend on the correct conditions to be present for them to occur. The fact that gravity is not visible may account for the misconception that objects appear to move spontaneoulsly under the influence of gravity. The diagram together with its caption indicates why roundish objects including wheels tend to roll down sloping surfaces. Is the analysis so trivial that it is not deserving of being included in an article which many editors, including yourself have been grappling with for years?Gregorydavid 13:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that your imagined readership exists (people who want to know why things roll downhill). But if they do exist, this article is not the place to cater to them.Jimbowley 14:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Origin of wheels
There is conflicting text in the history section. Origin of wheels says "The wheel reached India and Pakistan with the Indus Valley Civilization in the 3rd millennium BCE", only lines later to state "The wheel reached Europe and India (the Indus Valley civilization) in the 4th millennium BCE". ??? so which one is it? Twthmoses 07:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- There is actually more conflicting text. On one hand it is claimed that potters wheels were probably the earliest of wheels and on the other hand that driven wheels only developed sometime later. Surely all potters wheels are, per definition, driven? Gregorydavid 09:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I have found an authoritative reference for the origin of the wheel : written in the Pulitzer Prize-winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel. The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond ( 1997 ). In the last page of chapter 10, entitled Big spaces, big axes, he writes that the wheel appeared around 3000 B.C. in the Near East, and the invention was spread to a large part of Eurasia within a few centuries, while the same invention, independently born in Mexico, never reached the Andes. Please, check the original quotation, since I have translated from my Italian translated edition of Diamond's book. Carlodn6 21:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Most appropriate introduction picture?
It would be nice to avoid the constant implemetation of users personal favorite wheel pictures at the head of the article.
I think:
1) Given that the wheel is often thought of as the quintessential invention the main picture should be suitably antique.
2) It should also not obscure the basic function, which is that it turns on an axle, or the axle turns in the vehicle.
A picture of a modern driven wheel, eg on a bicycle or train or car, does not meet the above criteria.
Thoughts please? Jimbowley 13:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Since when do we plug new sections on talk pages in at the top?Gregorydavid 14:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't realise there was a protocol. It just seemed the sensible place to put it as it was discussing the first thing on the page.
- While you are here, perhaps you could give a reason why you replaced the picture of the cart with a (rather poor) picture of a tricycle? Jimbowley 13:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I thought the picture of the cart did not compare well with the one I replaced it with because the back of the cart is dragging on the ground and the horse is missing. On the other hand the ticycle is properly balanced and shows the mechanism which applies the moment to the rear wheels. It is not really my favourite picture. Maybe an animated picture of a wheel would be better.Gregorydavid 19:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Since when do we plug new sections on talk pages in at the top?Gregorydavid 14:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Expert(s) needed
This article is in need of an expert and some serious fact checking. I slapped the expert tag on the history section, but as a read though the whole article everything needs trimming, facts checking, expanding, etc. It is with some sadness I must note, that such a fundamental issue in the history of mankind is in such a bad shape on wiki.Twthmoses (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] As a fictional weapon
Two games, Mega Man X2 and Mega Man X7 have weapons based on wheels, should we mention them?82.3.49.212 (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wheels in nature and life
As far as I know, there are no implementations of the wheel in living forms. Wheel seems to be a unique man made invention. andrewvecsey@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.43.17 (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Contradictory dates for wheel reaching India
The History section begins:
- The wheel most likely originated in ancient Mesopotamia in the 4th millennium BC. The wheel reached ancient India with the Indus Valley Civilization in the 3rd millennium BC[citation needed]. Near the northern side of the Caucasus several graves were found, in which since 3700 BC people had been buried on wagons or carts (both types). The earliest depiction of what may be a wheeled vehicle (here a wagon—four wheels, two axles), is on the Bronocice pot, a ca. 3500 BC clay pot excavated in southern Poland.[4]
- The wheel reached Europe and India (the Indus Valley civilization) in the 4th millennium BC...
Well, did the wheel reach India in the 3rd or 4th millenium? Herostratus (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)