What is the single most greatest machine mankind has ever built?

[gadget_lover]

CERN particle accelerator; also the largest single machine ever built.

Not to be contrary, but are we talking cubic feet, or are we talking about square miles? The CERN installation is big, but a 15 story, 600 foot long cruise ship is a lot of cubic feet. So are constructions like the Hoover Dam.

How much concrete is in the Hoover dam?

Three and one-quarter million cubic yards. There are 4,360,000 cubic yards of concrete in the dam, powerplant and appurtenant works. This much concrete would build a monument 100 feet square and 2-1/2 miles high; would rise higher than the 1,250-foot-tall Empire State Building if placed on an ordinary city block; or would pave a standard highway 16 feet wide, from San Francisco to New York City.​

Daniel

 

[bbb74]

This is an interesting picture from the standpoint that you can just barely see the exhaust from the shuttle's liquid-fueled engines (the reason for the large fuel tank between the shuttle and the solid rocket boosters). Almost all of the fire and smoke is from the boosters, and it generally obscures the liquid-fueled exhaust. Based on the geometry of the shuttle, it seems that the main purpose of the solid boosters is just to lift the fuel tank, while the shuttle's internal engines use that fuel to lift the shuttle proper.

Not quite the right way of looking at it. Yes, the shuttle definitely could not get off the pad without the SRB's. But after booster separation not that long into the flight, the shuttle & tank continue on together for the rest of the launch, which is a relatively longer period of time. Initially after SRB separation, the SSME's do not have enough thrust to continue accelerating the shuttle, and it is actually decelerating for a period, until more fuel is burnt off and SSME thrust becomes larger than the vehicle weight again.

 

[StarHalo]

It's still not in my top three, but I must say, when you're standing under it, from some angles it's like artwork..

 

[Shooter21]

Of course the airplane.

 

[mesa232323]

The wheel.

Agreed. The wheel

 

[Steve K]

I would have sworn the answer was this:

Link removed as per the banner at the top of the page - Norm

 

[orbital]

+

How is the wheel a machine?

the airplane is a great vote though.


_________

 

[melty]

Agreed. The wheel

The wheel itself can't be considered a machine since a wheel is useless without an axle. The wheel-and-axle would certainly be a good contender though.

Then we have to get into the definition of "greatest". We use basic machines to build more complex machines. Are the tools and building blocks considered "greater" than the machine they build/are a part of? Is the wheel greater than the automobile? Is the transistor greater than the computer?

 

[EZO]

+

How is the wheel a machine?

_________

melty's answer is technically correct; a wheel isn't really considered a machine unless it has an axle. On the other hand the concept of a wheel as a machine predates the axle....and the wheel! Before the first true wheel and axle came into general use logs were used as "wheels and axles" to move large heavy objects. Several logs were placed under an object and the one in the rear would be moved to the front as the object rolled forward. For example, it is believed that the stones that were used to create Stonehenge were moved in this manner. The wheel and axle were really just a logical extension of the rolling log as the first primitive machine, defined as a mechanical device that can do work.

 

[orbital]

melty's answer is technically correct; a wheel isn't really considered a machine unless it has an axle. On the other hand the concept of a wheel as a machine predates the axle....and the wheel! Before the first true wheel and axle came into general use logs were used as "wheels and axles" to move large heavy objects. Several logs were placed under an object and the one in the rear would be moved to the front as the object rolled forward. For example, it is believed that the stones that were used to create Stonehenge were moved in this manner. The wheel and axle were really just a logical extension of the rolling log as the first primitive machine, defined as a mechanical device that can do work.

+

I'll consider this setup a machine, just barely..

 

[EZO]

+

I'll consider this setup a machine, just barely..

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion but you are leaving out a huge swath of human technological development. The first wheel vehicles date back to the 4th millennium BC (which also marked the beginning of the Bronze Age and of writing.) There are actually six basic machines that precede all other machines that came after. They are the lever, the wheel and axle, the pulley, the incline plane, the wedge and the screw. The wheel dates back to the late Neolithic era.

 

[mesa232323]

I was aiming towards how Egyptian would have used logs to move very large blocks

 

[orbital]

... the lever, the wheel and axle, the pulley, the incline plane, the wedge and the screw. The wheel dates back to the late Neolithic era.

__________^

when any of these parts are used in a system to complete a task, then you have a machine.


________________________

 

[EZO]

__________^

when any of these parts are used in a system to complete a task, then you have a machine.


________________________

Not so. These ARE basic machines.

 

[EZO]

I was aiming towards how Egyptian would have used logs to move very large blocks

Yes, of course. Whether Stonehenge or building the pyramids the concept would have been the same.

 

[orbital]

+

gears alone, are not machines either.

Really, if I have three gears sitting alone on my garage floor, that's not a machine.

 

[EZO]

orbital, I believe you are failing to make a distinction between a simple machine and a complex machine. You seem to be saying that if a machine is not complex. (ie: has many parts) that it is not a machine. This just isn't so. The machines I listed, the lever, the wheel and axle, the pulley, the incline plane, the wedge and the screw are considered simple machines and these were the first machines devised by man.

I would respectfully suggest that you do some research into the actual definition of a "machine". In fact, I will provide it. "A Machine is apparatus using or applying mechanical power to perform a particular task." You do not need multiple "parts" to have a machine. Thus, it can be as simple as a lever to be considered a "machine". Umm....this is really the stuff of elementary and middle school science class. (see also)

 

[orbital]

.. "A Machine is apparatus using or applying mechanical power to perform a particular task."

+

my definition in post #173, which I did not copy/paste, is basically saying the same thing.

I believe you'll have a hard time convincing people that a screw in you hand is a machine.
Now if you take that screw and combine it with mechanical power to then move/lift something,, I'll recognize that as a machine.

It's all the other factors applied to that part, that complete the machine

 

[EZO]

+

my definition in post #173, which I did not copy/paste, is basically saying the same thing.

__________________________

Definition of Apparatus = a set of materials or equipment designed for a particular use ... (that sounds plural to me)

The Apparatus definition I did copy/paste though

Orbital, to quote your definition in post #173, "when any of these parts are used in a system to complete a task, then you have a machine."
So once again, you are stating that you must have a complex device in order to define a machine and to repeat myself once again, this is not so.

Orbital, as I said several posts ago, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I have no desire to get into some sort of snit with you over a subject like this and I've made my case as clear as I am able. I'll have nothing further to say on this subject and everyone reading this thread should reach their own conclusions and definitions of what constitutes a "machine", whether the greatest, the simplest and the most significant.

edit: try clicking on those links in post #177.

 

[orbital]

+

I never used the word 'complex'
The system aspect would be the use of the part/parts


btw, you see I edited my post #178 before you quoted me

______________________