Talk:Inclined plane

message: I've started cleaning up the example physics problem. I don't have time to do it all now, but I think it needs to be tightened up significantly. flowersofnight (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Example problem

message: (edited)I changed my mind, re-reading this it seems like it needs some more work...It looks like the inclined plane and the wedge have been confused (not that they are all that different anyway).
--Freeflight 08:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio Recording 

message: before I changed it, the article read that the IMA of an inclined plane can also be expressed as the sine of the angle between the slope and horizontal plane. This is wrong, because the IMA is the hypoteneuse over the height, not the other way around.
I have changed it to read the ratio of 1 to the sine of that angle described above to make it correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.23.37 (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [incorrect mechanical advantage statement] 

message: "Many devices based on the principle of the inclined plane allow expending less individual energy to achieve a task."
:I believe this is incorrect. At best, an inclinded plane requires expending exactly the same amount of energy when used to increase the elevation of a weight, hence the expression \,\Delta PE = mg \Delta h. In reality, where loss due to some sort of friction is unavoidable, an inclinded plane may actually require more energy to raise a weight than simply lifting it outright. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy expenditure 

message: This entire article needs to be merged with the Wedge article. An inclined plane is nothing but a stationary wedge. Calling the same machine element by two separate names leaves a distinctly confusing impression on readers. Brittanica drops any references to inclined planes in all of its articles, so should Wiki. WittyMan1986. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.158.60 (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Wedge

message: The example photo from Masada is almost entirely useless.  Unless you're familiar with Masada it is impossible to recognize what is being portrayed.
Surely there is a better photo that can be used??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.148.148.187 (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, please provide a replacement. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Picture really needs a replacement 207.163.165.5 (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo from Masada 

message: This article is linked to the article on simple machines which is used by elementary school teachers to introduce technology.  I would like to make some revisions that maintain its historical foundation but streamline the presentation consistent with modern machine theory. Prof McCarthy (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions to inclined plane 

message: I rewrote and expanded the article.  Here are reasons for some changes I made to the existing content:
*The existing introduction didn't comply with WP:LEAD as an overview of the contents of the article.  It needed more description of the mechanics, particularly the notable fact that the inclined plane doesn't change the amount of work done in raising an object
*The "Mechanical advantage" section used power and velocity, rather than the usual force and distance, to derive the mechanical advantage. While this might have some advantages for advanced readers, this is a general purpose encyclopedia, so I changed it to the more familiar approach.    The power,velocity approach is less visual, and the usual vocabulary of force, distance, and work concepts is more familiar to less technically-educated readers, and demonstrates the analogy with other simple machines.     I've looked at dozens of expositions of the inclined plane in textbooks and websites, and none of them use the power approach, probably for the above reasons.  There will be a lot of kids coming to this article for their homework; and I feel we need to use the clearest, most understandable derivations. 
--ChetvornoTALK 08:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the section using power to compute mechanical advantage at the end for more advanced readers who recognize that the computation of work is path dependent.  These readers will find that the calculation of work requires assumptions that can get in the way of understanding the relatively simple property of mechanical advantage.  I recognize that most presentations at a elementary level focus on work, but this requires the assumption of constant force maintained over the length of the ramp which is contrary to the experience of anyone who uses a ramp.  While velocity may not be a familiar concept, it is my opinion that those who are aware of this contradiction will appreciate and value the central role of power and velocity. Prof McCarthy (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand; also that approach allows curved ramps to be treated.  I have no objection as long as the work/distance derivation is also included for nontechnical readers.  Perhaps the advantages and wider applications of the power method could be mentioned in the section lead, to give a rationale for the separate derivation?   And the section should be sourced. --ChetvornoTALK 09:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It would also be nice to unify the variable names throughout the article.  The weight of the load, W in the power section, I called Fw in the force/distance derivation,  because W is used for work.  And the applied force, F in the power section, is Fi in the other derivation.  Would you be willing to change those variables in the power derivation?  --ChetvornoTALK 10:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Yes. Prof McCarthy (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Do you have another source besides the (inaccessible) Dijksterhuis reference?  I haven't seen these criticisms before in any other sources. --ChetvornoTALK 17:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try again.  I don't see what the shape of the two inclined planes (isosceles or not) has to do with the forces exerted on the ends of the chain by the catenary portion of the chain hanging entirely below the planes.  As long as the beads are located symmetrically, the two forces exerted on the ends of the chain by the free hanging portion will be equal. --ChetvornoTALK 21:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions to Stevin's proof 

message: I find this section to be unsatisfactory. "Applied force" (Fi) is poorly defined. Is it a component of gravity or an external force? Then we have the graphic on the right which does not show Fi, and does not explicitly mention "Applied force".  Please clean this up, somebody. Asgrrr (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote this section.  The forces are defined in the bullet points to the left:  "The applied force, Fi exerted on the load to move it, which acts parallel to the inclined plane."  In other words, the external force.  I agree, it's not as clear as it should be.  About the diagram, I couldn't find one that uses fi and I didn't want to change the terminology used throughout the article.  The definitions of the variables in the diagram are given in the caption. --ChetvornoTALK 08:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclined plane with friction 

message: This source by Tiner is published by New Leaf Publishing of the Institute for Creation Research that publishes miscellaneous topic books incorporating evolution-denial and pseudoscience about the age of the Earth, etc.  These should be considered unreliable sources, with exceptions depending on circumstances.  This particular source is not the worst I've seen and is still a basic textbook authored by a teacher.  Considering this and that it's being used more than once in the article, is not refspam, I'll leave it for this article.  I still wanted to let interested editors know that sources on the topic by more reputable publishers are easy to find and could potentially replace it.  While I only have access to what Google Books allows, a few basic searches did turn out various Bible reading encouragements, then a bogus foreknowledge claim at p. 4, but no apparent evolution denial.  Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the Tiner citations.  I might have been the one that added that source; thank you very much for catching that!  As you say, there are plenty of reliable sources for these subjects.  Cheers --ChetvornoTALK 23:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, it's a reminder of how easy it is to mistake these for reliable sources (still, this one seems exceptional in quality compared to some others I've recently evaluated and removed from articles).  Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 01:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exploring the World of Physics 

message: In the "Uses" section, it is stated that "Inclined planes are widely used in the form of loading ramps to load and unload goods on trucks, ships and planes." with a citation to Math and science activity center. Edinformatics. 1999. A readthrough and search of the source fails to find a statement that backs up this claim, however. Is it appropriate to remove the citation for this statement? — Fredrick Campbell (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote most of that section.  You’re right, it doesn’t support that statement and should be removed.  Good catch. --ChetvornoTALK 20:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation doesn't back up claim