Jump to content

Talk:Pantograph

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disambiguating pantograph and pantograph (rail)

[edit]

I changed the links on almost a dozen transit related pages to link to pantograph (rail) instead of plain pantograph... [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8],

It probably should have been the other way around, with the original meaning having the secondary page, and the transit usage getting the primary page. -- Geo Swan 21:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Every couple of months I return to the "what links here" button for pantograph, and scan for articles that are reallyabout rail, tram or subway rolling stock. I always find several to fix. Today I disambiguated these two: [9], [10].
Here are earlier efforts:
February 28 2005 [11], [12] May 20 2005 [13], [14], [15] July 12 2005 [16] July 26 2005 [17], [18], [19], [20] August 30 2005 [21] September 30 2005 [22], [23], [24] October 13 2005 [25] 2006 January 13 [26], [27], [28] 2006 February 10 [29], [30], [31] 2006 March 3 [32], [33], [34], [35] 2006 March 29 [36], [37] 2006 June 2 [38], [39] 2006 July 21 [40], [41], [42] 2006 July 28 [43], [44], [45] 2007 June 16 [46], [47], [48] 2007 September 20 [49], [50] 2007 November 30 [51], [52], [53] 2008 January 6 [54] 2008 March 4 [55] 2008 June 28 [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that pantograph (rail) page should be here and the pantograph (drawing instrument) "put in a siding". The transit use of pantograph is the main and present day use to which the concept is put most frequently and importantly; not an antiquated drawing tool in this computer age. I was suprised to come here when following a link from a search engine. Is it a major job to swap them over? Mu2 (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wording including "mimic"

[edit]

There is an error in the first paragraph:

"...is a mechanical linkage connected in a special manner based on parallelograms so that the movement of one specified point accurately mimicks [sic] the movement of another point. If a line drawing is traced by the first point, an identical, enlarged or miniaturized copy will be drawn by a pen fixed to the other."

It is not correct to say that one "point" mimics another "point," as if A were watching B and imitating B's movements; it is the movements of the first pen, tracing a drawing, which produces the movements of the second pen, so that the second pen can reproduce, on a larger scale, the image which the first pen traces. That first paragraph should be changed. --Wordwright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordwright (talk • contribs) 18:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your change is fine. But I don't think many readers would have a problem with taking it so literally. Sometimes a figurative usage is just as easy, or easier, to grasp than a literal one. For example when people talk about, say, an autonomous vehicle that "knows where it is" via GPS. Of course the "knows" is figurative. But people get that, so it's not a problem. But your point is well taken though. Regards, — ¾-10 05:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pantograph Miling Machines

[edit]

This article has pictures of pantograph milling machines but no info on them is included in the body of the article. I think at least some info on them should be included in the article. --Cab88 (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and done! Happy to oblige. — ¾-10 19:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector Gadget et al.

[edit]

Can anyone more search savvy than I dig up anything surrounding the popular usage of this mechanism in the Inspector Gadget universe? I was able to dig up this, but it doesn't directly mention the pantograph, as much as the notion of it being an "extendo" something-or-other. Speaking of which, the other more common use of this device that I've seen also draws on the use of the term 'extendo-' which is the 'extendo-arm boxing glove' of sorts, a common animation trope used for comedic effect.[63][64] 67.171.222.203 (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is a pantograph set up to change ratios, for example arm lengths for 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 2:3, etc

[edit]

I would like to construct a simple four leg pantograph and looked at the examples, but I don't understand at what point on the device the measurements are taken from that will determine the amplification ratios that determine if the device will draw a 1 to 1 copy of original size, a 2 to 1 copy where the copy is twice the size of the original pattern, 2 to 3 copy where the copy of the original is 1.5 times the size of the original, or other ratios. Is it possible to set the device up to draw a mirror image? Can it have multiple ratios, for example the height be twice the original but the width be 1? How about the width be 2 times the original while the height be three times the original? It seems that the potential of this mechanical device is not fully explored in the article and it would be nice if it could be expanded a bit. I like to build things and this seems like a suitable project with many practical real world applications. Thanks Linstrum (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It would be good to explain the calculations that allow the ratio be designed from the start (rather than determined empirically during use of the prototype). I am not the trigonometry ninja to do it, but hopefully someone will come along. Regarding your DIY build, one suggestion is to use arms that have a series of holes. You can then experiment by putting the pins in different holes and measuring the scaling ratio of each result. Although this is not the professional way (because a CAD and math wizard can do it all up front), it's a layperson's way to get the job done if a working pantograph with a certain ratio is needed ASAP. And it could be fun if experimenting with the holes leads one to deduce what the formula is. — ¾-10 17:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Thanks for the suggestions, there is nothing wrong with doing things by what the mathematicians call "THE GARDNER'S METHOD". Linstrum (talk) 09:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magnification is the ratio of (distance of drawing point to pivot)/(distance of tracing point to pivot), lets call this D/T. Intuitive proof:imagine keeping the arms fixed, and rotate the device around the anchor point: the 'drawing' point will circumscibe a circle of radius "D"; the trace point circumscribes a circle of radius "T". Ratio of sizes for this shape is hence D/T. Now, if only we could find a nice citable source. Klbrain (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pantograph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pantograph&oldid=1194453606"