In the universe of hand tools , the keys occupy a very large space due not only to the utility they provide, but also to the great diversity of different types that exist. However, when we speak of keys crique , ratchet wrenches or ratchet wrenches variety multiplies, like user confusion when apart.
Firstly, we must be clear that what we call a cricket , rattle , rattle, ratchet or ratchet is actually a mechanism , provided with a cogwheel and a wedge or finger attached to a spring (shown in the following figure) that can work in one direction only.
When the wheel rotates in the allowed direction, the tip of the fingernail slides on a curved surface of the wheel and falls into a slot producing a typical click ("rattle") that gives the name to the mechanism. If the wheel rotates in the opposite direction, the tip of the wedge enters the slot and prevents the wheel from moving.
The first manual key that introduced this mechanism was a revolving tool for a keyhole patented in the United States about 150 years ago, which soon showed advantages over its peers, such as the berbiquí , which made it extremely popular. The advantages of this new ratchet or ratchet were mainly that each time the limit of the arc of rotation was reached, the user did not need to remove them from the nut or screw and relocate them, as in the case of adjustable keys or keys of fixed mouth used at the time. On the contrary, although theRatchets were repeatedly rotated in both directions, the nut or screw rotated in one direction, which was less complicated, saved time and was particularly applicable in confined spaces.Buying a best ratcheting wrench set is a good option for you.
By allowing the movement in only one direction, it could be thought that the ratchet keys only serve to tighten (or loosen) a nut or screw. But no. Thanks to the incorporation of two fingers and a selector lever of the direction of rotation , the active slot can be changed by another that acts in the opposite direction, and in this way the tool can tighten in one direction and loosen in the other direction by just moving the lever that shows this figure.
Why Are we Driving?
So, the clever industrialists realized that they had to let go of some of the ballast and they called it multimodality. As a system based entirely on the car does not work, they sought to promote alternatives to the car without, of course, penalizing the use of the car. On the contrary, the very idea of multimodality is to maintain the illusion that the automobile remains an acceptable concept in our society. The real objective of multimodality, from the point of view of the malignant industrialists, is therefore to relieve enough of the roads and streets so that a minimum of automobile fluidity can continue to exist, guaranteeing the long-term maintenance of the automobile system.
First, they have timidly reintroduced trams in cities, and revived the car-buses. Train lines benefited from new investments, which had not happened in years. Then, they touted the benefits of walking and cycling, including creating paid self-service bike rental systems through auto advertising.
These few measures helped to reduce slightly the number of cars, and the pollution began to fall. Many people realized that in the end, you could do without a car. At the same time, even the slight improvement in air quality, accidentology and, simply, the quality of life in the city, has led more and more people to be concerned about the environmental issue. . Suddenly, people realized that by reducing the number of cars in circulation, we could continue to move while enjoying a better environment.
But, as the question of their profits remains decisive, the clever manufacturers have made up for the significant reduction in car sales in Western countries in structural overcapacity by an aggressive policy of automobile growth in developing countries. In that, they fulfilled the prophecy of Walter Chrysler, the founder of Chrysler, the automaker, who said, " We are manufacturing the first big machine in world history, of which every human being represents a potential customer ."
In addition, new concerns were appearing on the front of the scene, such as the depletion of raw materials, especially oil, and climate change caused by CO2 emissions, especially from the automotive sector. The clever industrialists quickly realized that a great danger threatened them. The fundamentally precarious and mortifying aspect of the car risked calling into question the whole system they had taken decades to develop. Already, people were starting to buy less cars, because the car appeared less as a great tool of freedom than as a costly and polluting constraint.
So the clever industrialists thought it was time to reinvent their concept once again. To do this, they have sought to develop ever cleaner, greener, more environmentally friendly cars, even reinventing the concept of the electric car. Their purpose was not, of course, to save the planet or protect the environment, otherwise they would never have set up the automobile system as we know it, but rather to keep it going at all costs in order to maintain their profits over time.
Moreover, these hybrid and electric cars, always cleaner and more environmentally friendly, remain, after all, cars weighing more than a ton, always incorporating more expensive and polluting technology. These cars supposed to be clean are actually just as dirty as the previous ones, but the dressing is more acceptable from a societal point of view. Nevertheless, as electric cars occupy almost the same space as other cars, this does not solve the structural problems of congestion related to the need to always sell more cars to earn more and more money.
And above all, a new risk appeared: once everyone has their own car and everyone will find themselves stuck in traffic jams clean cars, people could possibly realize that they were abused by the clever industrialists .
Over the course of ideas, the malignant industrialists began to panic. Thus, even Ford President Ford Ford's great-grandson, Bill Ford, has said aloud what all the clever industrialists think: " The number of vehicles in the world today is 800 million, could grow to account for between two and four billion cars and trucks in circulation by the middle of this century. Where will all these people go? Where will all these cars go? (...) The answer will not be to build roads, because there will not be enough space. How will we be able to allow food to circulate when all traffic is permanently blocked? How can ambulances fulfill their mission? "
Their only paradoxical goal being to both sell more cars to earn money while limiting the number of cars in circulation so as not to permanently block the system, the clever industrialists have once again to find a new concept. That is why they have not only extolled the merits of multimodality more than ever, but they have also developed increasingly complex systems, such as the concept of the service car. By replacing the individual ownership of a car by sharing it, through self-service cars, car pooling or car-sharing systems, all dressed in high-tech in real time to give a youthful touch to In their aging industry, the malignant industrialists are desperately trying to save what can still be.
The main thing is that we continue to drive, without questioning the inefficiency and inefficiency intrinsic automotive system. Except that all these new concepts do not allow to consider a massive production of cars. Fortunately for the malignant industrialists, the developing countries are far from having filled all their car routes. At the same time, there are still a few remaining materials available to continue massively producing one-tonne machines on a global scale.
They still have some good years left, but their days are numbered. An hour and a half…