Talk:Dog (engineering)

Revision of lede to say that [in general] "a dog is a tool"

This is problematic, because I don't think most English-speakers would consider a shutter dog or a clutch dog to be a "tool". I think "piece of material" is the best general definition, despite its level of abstraction. However, I can see why the word "tool" in its most abstract sense is being used. So I don't feel the need to change it, even though I feel that some je-ne-sais-quoi is lacking. Just 2¢. — ¾-10 22:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and I am an English speaker. While I may not call a shutter dog a tool in normal usage, when describing the function of a shutter dog, it is best to describe it is a tool and definitely not a material. Nil Einne (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say, not a 'tool' but a 'device' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.250.156 (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The dog metaphor

I guess we cannot be sure, but cannot the metaphor be a dog not biting, but used in that hunting technique where the prey (moose, boar, etc) stops running and faces the barking dog, so the prey can be shot? I cannot find the term on the english Wikipedia. "Standing dog"? See sv:Ståndhund. JöG (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

References

This article could really benefit from a reference or two to clear it up and make it verifiable, but I'll be damned if I know where to find one. I spent at least half an hour doing various Google books searches on the lines of dog subject:"machine tools" or dog subject:"engineering" and whatnot, but I find nothing that defines them, only mentions them as if assuming the reader already knows what it is. Sadly, I've seen similar trends in many different topics within the subjects of machinery and engineering. "This is a standard machine tool, so no description is needed here" or "This machine tool is described in numerous texts, so no description will be published here" but I'm never able to find those "numerous texts". —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 19:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

@Kierkkadon or anyone. Is it allowed to cite a site which has copied the definition from this article? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment on photos of USS Blue Ridge & R/V Knorr

If that's a sample of US Navy, it's quite surprising any of their vessels float! Is it more a case of spot the deliberate mistake?

1. Pulley-block anchor point not suitable for that pulley-block's hook (which is why the pulley block sticks out at a funny angle) - incorrectly stressing the anchor point.

2. Men not pulling in a straight line - note curved rope alignment along the men.

3. It's not clear if any of the men are standing correctly or grasping the rope correctly for efficient and safe pulling.

And with the R/V Knorr, one of the dogs shown has a nut missing and it's not surprising as there's insufficient 'bolt' thread to retain a nut securely!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.250.156 (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 

"Hatch dogs are clearly visible" in the photo

I'm sure they're visible, but it's hard for a layman to tell which things in the picture are the hatch dogs. Could someone who knows clarify the photo description thanks. 118.93.228.196 (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)