The Fastener Industry

A few will be aware I have been known to speak on various subjects over the years. Fundamentally these all revolve around my favourite subject of etymology. Have always enjoyed bringing this fascinating subject to others. It’s not for me to say whether the audiences have, although many have asked me to return.

Thought it might be worthwhile sharing a snippet or two from these etymological presentations, continuing with The Fastener Industry, this an engineer's non-technical look at nuts, bolts, screws and washers. Not simply an engineering lesson but an examination of just how early these technologies were first created and named, how they developed, and why successive improvements were made and by whom. There is a PowerPoint presentation to accompany this talk if required.

The first mention of a ‘screw’ has nothing to do with fastenings. This was the Archimedes screw, a means of raising water, with the water trapped in gaps in the screw thread and raised as the screw was turned endlessly (never tightening as it had no mating part) by an oxen or other draught animal. It is almost certain the screw had nothing to do with Archimedes, nor did it resemble a screw as we would understand it today but appears more like an enlarged corkscrew in a tube. And if you want to see one in action, get yourself a chocolate fountain, it’s the same thing.

The whitworth thread, possibly still the best known thread form, named after Joseph Whitworth who defined the world’s first standard for threads in 1841 and remained popular until the metric system took over in the late 1970s.

Ever wondered why a ‘washer’ when it clearly has nothing in common with ‘washing’? For the engineer it has three practical applications: to prevent damage to a surface from a nut or bolt, as a spacer, and as a locking device. A simple item and a versatile one but nothing compared to the etymology of this six-letter noun. It is easy to find this coming to English from the Old French vis. However, this was not used to mean ‘washer’ but either ‘vice’ or ‘screw’. Both of these should be seen in the sense of ‘tighten’ or ‘wind up’ and related to the root of ‘winch’. Hence this terminology is all interlinked, with the whole assembly speaking about ‘tightening’ both as a whole and individually. Even more intriguing is where the trail leads if we trace this further back through linguistic generations. Ultimately this has the same root as Latin vinis or ‘vine’, itself from viere meaning ‘to bind, twist’. Thus, the climbing vine, which had evolved to wind itself around and climb, eventually gave its name to the fastenings used today to hold the framework up which modern vines are trained.

If you think you know someone who would like to hear me speak on this subject, drop me a line.

Trees

Normally I post observations on words and language, etymology being my fascination. Yet occasionally I add something a little different, invariably these snippets are uncovered while researching - many will tell you how often you find more interesting stuff when looking for something specific than you ever find for the subject in hand - and one example came when I was looking through old copies of the Derby Mercury. One copy of the Mercury from October 1837, claimed that beech trees are never struck by lightning and how Native Americans have always known this.

It nagged at me and so I chose to find out whether this was factual or not. I discovered the tree most likely to be hit by lightning is the oak. But this is not saying that oak trees will attract lightning more than any other, we also have to take into consideration the vast number of oaks and that oaks are likely the tallest of trees and contain more moisture than surrounding trees.

And the beech? Another sizable tree, but one which has a higher fat content than most woods, and therefore is a better conductor of electricity. This means the bolt of lightning is more likely to run to the ground. But does this make it safer? Absolutely not, leaning against any tree as it is hit by lightning is likely to mean you get a rather nasty shock (at best).

If any tree could be said to be less likely to be hit than any other, that might just be the birch. It has a high oil content and is a poor conductor of electricity. But any discussion regarding conductivity of the wood and its content is largely pointless, for lightning and thunder is invariably associated with something else - RAIN. Water is an excellent conductor, hence why you should not mix electrical appliances and the bath. If the tree is wet during the storm, any electrical discharge is likely going to run through the moisture rather than the wood. Furthermore, the person underneath the tree is likely wet through, too. Immaterial of the tree you're under, the likelihood of being hit is the same.