Talk:Archimedes' screw

Untitled

The drawing on this page is not correct. It suggests that the screw is completely filled with water. The water is, however, transported in individual packages. Ellywa 04:10, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mathematics behind the screw

I do not understand why someone recently removed the mathematics behind the screw section from this article. Can someone suggest why or reinstate it as to me it is invaluable information that is definitely relevant to the article. 86.27.12.206 (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Archimedes's vs. Archimedes'

I completely disagree about the supposed "elegance" of the "Archimedes' " spelling. It looks wrong and silly because it implies something conceptually inelegant (and wrong), i.e. many Archimedeses. Tyranny Sue (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The ill-considered practice of using a plural possessive for "historical" names (and who now decides what names are "historical" anyway?) is too confusing and has given rise to this very annoying situation in which most contemporary English-users have no idea of the difference between singular and plural possessives. "Archimedes's" is better simply because it makes sense. It is much more important for orthography to convey sense than for it to avoid occasionally not looking right to some people. (And although I am generally a fan of Strunk & White, on this one they weren't dealing with the situation that we have now, where most English-users are totally confused about - and/or probably uninterested in - this issue.)

Answer to the -citation needed- in Literature. I was salesman at the two largest screwpump manufacturer in the world for together 12 years. They (and our competitors) calculate with the Mysken method.

Ellywa: which drawing should be wrong? The drawing with the main dimensions is correct, the picture with the old wooden screw shows your -packages-. Al —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.187.180.14 (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect use of apostrophes of possession after singular nouns ending in "s" is near universal in Wikipedia. However, I think it should be "Archimedes screw". "Archimedes" is a type, or descriptor in this case, not someone to whom the screw belongs. Compare with edison screw light bulbs, or an otto cycle engine, or one's achilles tendon.At least I try (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC) At least I try (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed

I was a sales engineer specialised at screws for 12 years and I can confirm, that J. Muysken's writings are still in use. I also read both books of Radlik and Nagel and will confirm that both books discuss the topic very theoretically.

Vandalism

Someone Vandalized this (talk) page; I tried correct it, as there were other mistakes in formatting that caused the text to appear wrong. The sigs were messed up, and the section heading. Hopefully I didn't screw it up too horribly. Delduþling♦talk 01:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This was invented by the Ancient Egyptians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.135.231 (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to get confirmation of this, do you or anyone have a citation on this? Qed (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

~I provided a reliable source for my remarks, but for some reason somebody insists on deleting it~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrish Smith (talk • contribs) 03:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You must be talking about me, however I only reverted you once... Can you please give the page and passage from the source provided so it is capable of being verified? Thank you. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"Encyclopedia of water science" - Bobby Alton Stewart, Terry A. Howell; pg 759. As the source points out, there's simply no evidence the screw was invented by Archimedes. The belief that he invented the device is based solely on hearsay. And even Archimedes himself takes no credit for it.

Power generation using Archimedes's Screw

Can anyone produce a section on power generation using Archimedes'(s) Screw by putting it into reverse. I mention this because proposed changes to the tidal Teesside White Water Course (an artificial whitewater course fed by the adjacent Tees Barrage) involve the addition of three(?) Archimedes's Screws to lift the water back up to the start of the 'U' shaped course when they want to use the course but the tide is at high water, and to generate electric power at low tide when the course is not in use, in the hope of becoming energy neutral at worst. This is going to be an interesting engineering solution when it happens. Has anything along these lines been created elsewhere? What would be the efficiency of generating electric power in this way compared to alternative methods? --Stuffed cat (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The possessive – why is it even used?

Is there a historical reason why the possessive is used? If not, it should be "the Archimedes screw", treating "Archimedes" as a noun-cum-adjective. Writing "the Archimedes' screw" is akin to saying "the Saffir and Simpson's Hurricane Scale", "the Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity" or "the Murphy's Law". Yes, you can certainly write "Archimedes' screw" (possessive) without an article, but you can't write "the Archimedes' screw" without it meaning something different:

• "Archimedes' screw" in the possessive sans article denotes a concept. For example, the statement "Archimedes' screw consists of a spiral inside a hollow tube", treats the invention as a generalized plan for the machine.

• "An/the Archimedes screw" (non-possessive) can denote either a concept or a physical device. For example, "The Archimedes screw consists of a spiral inside a hollow tube" can refer to either; while something like "An Archimedes screw is used to irrigate the farm" refers to a physical device.

• "An/the Archimedes' screw" (possessive with article) means "a screw associated with a/the person or entity known as 'Archimedes', not necessarily Archimedes of Syracuse". This is because an article preceding a possessive + noun is associated with the possessive, not the noun. The following examples illustrate the difference:
  • "Einstein's theory": A theory put forth by (Albert) Einstein, treated as a unique person
  • "The Einstein's theory": A theory put forth by somebody nicknamed "Einstein", treated as a member of a class of people (so labeled for their genius) whose archetype is (Albert) Einstein

Based on this logic, the article must be either:

• Moved to Archimedes screw with Archimedes' screw being the redirect (makes more sense)
• Edited so that "the" does not appear before any occurrence of "Archimedes' screw"; also requiring that other articles referring to "the Archimedes' screw" be so edited (makes less sense)

—Tonyle (talk • contribs) 09:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• The name to use is Archimedean screw 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would support a move to either Archimedes screw or Archimedean screw. —Tonyle (talk • contribs) 19:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose proposed move. Tonyle is attempting to rewrite normal English to fit his sense of logic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not tried to contort normal English to fit my logic; rather, I have used logic to explain normal English. I'll try to explain this another way, using common rather than proper nouns to avoid confusion. The basic question is: How do we parse the combination "the + possessor's + noun"? Consider the following sentence:

That may be the girl's doll.

This can mean either:

That may be a doll belonging to the girl.

That may be the doll belonging to the girl.

Note that, in the expanded version, either "a" or "the" may be attributed to "doll". It follows, then, that "the" in "the girl's doll" cannot be associated with "doll" and must belong to "girl". In mathematical terms, we parse the phrase as "(the girl)'s doll". To understand this more clearly, consider:

My girl's doll

which can only mean "a/the doll belonging to my girl" and not "my doll belonging to a/the girl" (which is non-sensical).

We can now see that "the + possessor's + noun" = "(the + possessor)'s + noun". It follows that "the" can only precede "possessor's + noun" if "the" is normally associated with the possessor, not the possessed noun. Thus "the Archimedes' screw" would be parsed as "(the Archimedes)' screw", meaning that it can only be valid if we normally say "the Archimedes" in and of itself. This is why I strongly support renaming this article. (I would even entertain a move to Archimedean screw as mentioned above, but definitely do not support the title as it stands.)

(By the way: There is one exception I can think of. We can say "a Rubik's Cube" even though we don't normally say "a Rubik". This exception exists because "Rubik's Cube" is a trademark, set phrase that forces us to parse "a Rubik's Cube" as "a (Rubik's Cube)". This is why I asked in my original post if there was a historical reason for saying "the Archimedes' screw".)

—Tonyle (talk • contribs) 19:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Archimedes' screw seems to be a "set phrase" in exactly the same way Rubik's cube is. It's how I've always heard the device named. Parsecboy (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral – I have decided to change my stance on this issue, and have deleted the move-request boxes from the top of this page. My reasons are thus:
  • I never actually opposed the use of the apostrophe in "Archimedes' screw" for all cases, only its use with a grammatical article.
  • As the primary purpose of the article is to explain the concept first and its practical application second, the possessive for the title is appropriate. Compare with Murphy's law or Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Instead, I will edit this and other articles to reflect proper grammatical usage of "Archimedes screw" vs. "Archimedes' screw" (the alternative I proposed initially). This actually makes much more sense to me than it did at the onset. (The external link The Turn of the Screw: Optimal Design of an Archimedes Screw indeed uses "Archimedes screw" but of course in the context of a practical application.)

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this discussion. —Tonyle (talk • contribs) 22:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Tonyle - I think your suggestion for proper use of the English language and its grammar was a good idea. I think the problem was/is, "Archimedes' screw" is in the vernacular. Even dictionaries like Miriam-Webster present it like "Archimedes' screw". There's a lot of momentum from history to overcome.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Importance scale

I don't know who decides what articles rate on the importance scale, but I've seen this in actual encyclopedias, so this should be rated "top" as opposed to not rated at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.132.151 (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the top of the page, this "importance" is because this is assigned by WikiProject Greece. This an article about a mechanical device or principle. Assigning these to Greece, because the supposed inventor is Greek, is a bit weird. Jimwelch (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Pescalator

I'm no latin/greek scholar but surely it would be piscalator, wouldn't it? Stuffed cat (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

on the name in books, over time, via Google n-gram viewer

Some interesting data to fuel usage arguments: [1]. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Important information is missing from this article

There are two types of Archimedes screws. One is a screw within a cylinder. The other is a tube, wrapped in a helix, around a shaft. This article is entirely about the one and neglects the other entirely.--ghh 12:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what George is referring to, however I came here after learning about another variant, the Olds Elevator, where only the tube rotates. This patented variant is used commercially and it is a bit surprising that it works at all! Also worth a mention I think. Rmn30 (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Commercial references

Reference "PVC archimedean screw pump, how to build a functioning Archimedes screw pump from modern materials" is a site that sells plans for constructing the screw (among other things). I don't think it backs up anything in the text nor gives additional information, but represents a commercial link in which only people who pay can obtain information regarding the article in question, which I think goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. I think it should be removed.

You're right, I've removed it Richerman (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Is intro too focused on water?

I followed a link from another article to Archimedes' screw. The other article was talking about an experimental continuous-flow heart that uses Archimedes' screw to pump blood through the body. I'm guessing the screw also moves other fluids, too. I don't believe the screw is limited to just water. I think the introduction would benefit from a more general description that is less focused on water in particular.

Here's the first sentence of the intro:

The water screw, popularly known as the Archimedes' screw and also known as the screw pump, Archimedean screw, or Egyptian screw,[1] is a machine used for transferring water from a low-lying body of water into irrigation ditches.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Grammar

According to ‘The Oxford Guide to Pronunciation’, as well as several websites I've checked, the apostrophe comes before the s in singulars and after the s in plurals. The Oxford Guide goes further and states that the apostrophe should follow the s exclusively in the case of plurals. However, for words ending in s this appears to be a contentious and confusing issue. Some advise that you should be guided by pronunciation, in which case the title is correct, but most sick to the plurals rule, in which case it should be ‘Archimedes's screw’. Whether ‘Archimedes's’ is pronounced ‘Archimedes’ or ‘Archimedeses’ is debatable, but I would argue for the former: we don't pronounce the missing letters in contractions. As for the apostrophe, I've always stuck with the plurals only rule, so I would go with ‘Archimedes's screw’. 2.99.27.217 (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Somewhat incorrect claim about air being required

Under the heading "design" the second paragraph makes the following claim: "...the screw volume must not be completely filled with water; there must be a fair amount of air 'scooped up' together with each scoop of water. For this reason, the pump ceases to function if the bottom of the pipe is completely submerged, so that no air can be sucked in. This is because the individual pockets of water need to be separated from each other by pockets of air, or else there would be no difference between an Archimedean screw and a (curled up) pipe, which would let the water back-flow from the top basin to the bottom basin, just like a siphon."
I believe this is incorrect in theory, although it may be mostly true in practice. There is a significant difference "...between an Archimedean screw and a (curled up) pipe..." since the former is rotating and that rotation continuously "scoops" the fluid into the "curled-up pipe", forcing it upward. While water will tend to flow back down, this can be overcome if the augur is turning at a sufficient speed, since like all fluids, water has inertia which can be exploited. Here is an example: [2]https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rutaa1TCXxg . Perhaps the original assertion should be somewhat modified to reflect this. Bricology (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) asilvering (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Archimedes' screw → Archimedes screw – 1) "Archimedes' screw" is incorrect per MOS:POSS. 2) Most of the cited sources use "Archimedes screw", some use "Archimedean screw", very few use "Archimedes' screw." 3) Even if we ignore the incorrect possessive, it's awkward; we don't talk about "Diesel's engine". GA-RT-22 (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Jessintime (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: you're misreading MOS:POSS. It would only apply here if the usual pronunciation of this collocation were "Archimedesses screw", which it's not. You made the same incorrect argument at "Epicurus' paradox" yesterday, and while I haven't checked, I imagine you might be crusading against what you mistakenly believe to be misplaced apostrophes... could we please find a better way of contributing to the encyclopedia than warring over apostrophes, which you must know are a perennial battleground on Wikipedia, and were contentious for over a century before that?

I don't have very strong feelings about this article's title or the other one, but "Archimedes screw" just looks wrong, and I've rarely—if ever—heard of an "Archimedean screw". If a significant number of people want to treat it as a possessive—which is perfectly logical, since many more people have heard of Archimedes than of his screw—unlike the example provided, Diesel, for which the reverse is true, the name "Diesel" having been transformed into an adjective referring to a type of fuel, not the inventor of the engine—then I don't see anything to be gained by telling them that they're wrong, and they have to do it some other way. That's as pedantic as insisting that they must use an apostrophe would be, or that "Diesel" shouldn't be capitalized anymore, as in general use it's no longer associated with a person or brand. P Aculeius (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Physics has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Engineering has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Classical and classicising names conventionally take single apostrophe without suffix s. See eg quote from Oxford guide to style on my user page. Ifly6 (talk) 15:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.