Failure and fail, the difference?

failure is to the bolt (breaks- strips etc)- The.. was a failure.

fail is the purpose (of the tightening) - fail to do...

That's a distinction without a difference. There is no difference except in very specific documents and/or specs. Where did you hear this?

another guy posted it . he seeks the explanation to this sentence. Normally, we do not make so fine a distinction between failure and fail like you say.

I don't know why no one previous has said it:

Fail is a verb, failure is a noun. A failure is the result of the action of failing.

If others before you had taken the time to ask these questions ( and get good answers), we would have a lot fewer unreadable operation manuals! Keep up the good work!

thanks anyway. coz i am a translator dealing with mechanical manuals and i ALWAYS come across this kind of language and i try to present the information as clearly as possible in the source language so that workers can know does and doesn't.

Regards.

You are correct in "Language & Grammer", but the question is about tightening of a bolt in Mechanical Engg.

I add an OFF-TOPIC for your answer.

Sorry, but I totally disagree! Wingman is a professional translator. His job is to use English correctly, in a manner appropriate for the target audience. Unfortunately, far too many of the people who write technical stuff (here I'm not only referring to translators) do not appear to have any significant formal training in English! This leads to misunderstandings...

I found I got a much greater appreciation for and understanding of English when I became fluent in another language.

Sorry !

But the translaters are not auhority on Technical Terms even the PURISTS.

well,thanks for your understanding. Being a translator, sometimes it takes many years of reading and digesting to FULLY understand what some tech guys are talking about. Well, this is a curse for those who are terrified of "Machinery terms" , or it is maybe a boon to those who are eager to learn. Well, fortunately i fall into the latter category.

Slangs has become the language of today and old English is being diminishing;

when I was a student an English poem in our book started with the stanza:

Do you want to be happy and GAY little man!

Today "GAY" has changed its meanings and we old people cannot sing those popular poems .

And a University in UK [I forgot its name ] has initiated the move not to care of spellings ?

What shape English takes .....

well, mispelling leads to confusion and confusion leads to more confusion~~

The critical word is can not should. And on that your logic reverses. Because the bolt can be tightened to failure as well as to fail, s per your explanation.

My version of "a bolt can be tightened to failure ,but it can not be tightened to fail."

Means a bolt if overtightened leads to the failure of the joint. So proper tighting torque is a must. and Bolt itself generally does not fail as it has higher strength than the materials it is holding together.

Venkat

"Bolt itself generally does not fail as it has higher strength than the materials it is holding together."

I'll argue that one! It is probably true, if you are building stuff out of wood or plastic, but I work mostly in metal. I've seen quite a few failed bolts and studs over the years, and far fewer parts crushed by those bolts.

Remember that the bolt is under tension, and all that tensile force must be withstood by the bolt. The parts bolted together are under compression, and the compressive forces can distribute themselves over a much larger area.

I think this is just playing with the language like most of these 'pithy' sayings. That doesn't stop it being true though. It hinges on the truth that a failed bolt cannot be tight whilst one that is tightened to the point of failing will be tight. It cannot then take any extra load though, or it will fail. So you can tighten a bolt up to the point of failure, more than that and it will fail. We are not looking at a difference between fail and failure but between sound and broke.

Indeed, a bolt that is tightened to the point of failure might better be failed because at least we will see it's no use!

If we assume we want to use engineering language, failure means a deviation from system specs or performance. Fail means the same thing as a fault (in plain language, that means "OH, crap, run for the hills!). So, if a bolt is rated at 110 ksi tensile, the designer might spec the torque preload at 20 ksi. You would now consider loads in excess of 90 ksi to cause that bolt to fail (even if it doesn't actually). If the installer torques to a 30 ksi preload, that is a failure. The bolt has not failed....yet. [NOTE: This is way, way simplified, and I've left out some important stuff, but it's Thanksgiving and I'm high on Trytophan ].

So, if you get an installer with a bad torque wrench, he can tighten the bolt to failure. If you get an installer with a cheater pipe, he can tighten the bolt to fail.

A failure does not necessarily lead to a fail, but it can. A fail pretty much implies a failure.

And, quit with the grammar lady. "To fail" is an infinitive.

And you quit Trytophan, only verbs can be infinitive.

Knock it off, or I'll split the infinitive.

What i understand is, a bolt which can be tightened to failure is tightened to hold or do the job properly with intention not to fail under load,however it may disappoint and cause failure when it is done,haven thought all was okay.

But it can not be tightened to fail means that when tightening the bolt,there is never or should never be the intention of doing it purposely for it to fail or it is never or should never be tightened purposely for it to fail.

Patrick Whowha

Why does anyone "tighten a bolt to failure?'

Bolts are tightened to a specified torque, dependent on a number of different given parameters...........if you overtighten a bolt beyond those given parameters it will, (or, there is every chance it will) fail in service.

The failure may have been caused by by overtightening........or any number of other reasons.

It is my feeling that one should not generalise on bolt failure...........because of the possibility of catastrophic failure of a machine that could result in serious injury or death to personnel.

Effort should be made to discuss all the whys and wherefores of correct torque loadings of bolts and nuts from a practical point of view, e.g. correct use of torque wrenches, application of forces on a torque wrench, why in larger items of machinery, stretch of bolts is measured for greater accuracy, etc, etc...............this is of greater importance than playing semantics.

Hi wingman 1975, You know the difference between action & reaction. Action here is the choice of the Designer of the equipment to select the Bolt size, bolt grade, nut type, nut grade, washer size etc. so that the equipment performs the designed function without causing a failure. Take an example of a typical con- rod bolt failure in an automoble engine.Let us say that due to vibration the bolt becomes loose & the bolt fails to withstand shockload, the con-rod fails, piston fails etc. Thus the bolt failure caused the engine failure, the vehicle failure etc. You know the reaction. Rangasamy

The statement in the original post is correct ("a bolt can be tightened to failure ,but it can not be tightened to fail.") because failure is a verb and fail is a noun.

The question (what is the difference between failure and fail?) in the original post was correctly answered by dkWarner in post 4.

Post 5 has 5 GA's so far for a convoluted attempt to justify a nonsensical use of language.

Some of the comments in between are awesome, the best is the use of "a fail".

Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits.