Talk:Tuned mass damper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What makes it tuned?

The section where it talks about large ocean going vessels containing a mass damper is incorrect. To reduce harmonics and vibrations the transverse frames are adjusted in the stern framing to cancel out any signifigant vibrations. Maybe there is mass dampers in a cruise ship, but I know for a fact that commercial ships do not have mass dampers. The only damper system I have seen was a series of tanks that would flood against the rolling of the ship and serve to dampen the rolling of the ship.

I deleted the Taipei 101 picture becasue it is not a tunned mass damper as tuned means that it is actively moved. it is just a mass damper that moves in relation to a buildings movment

No, you can have a passive tund damper, that relies on an elastic element to give the tunig. You can also have an untuned mass damper, as you describe. I don't know what the Taipei one is.Greglocock 02:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'How they work' section expansion

The explanation should be the longest section, yet it is the shortest. There should be a more thorough explanation, especially for the different types of dampers: Active, passive, pendulum active/passive, inverted pendulum, and liquid (all mentioned in the first external link [1]). Kreachure 22:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Aye, there's a lot of hand-wavers on Wiki. If I can generate some good plots I'll try and explain it. Greglocock 08:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that any good? is it too complex or too simple? or too confusing? Greglocock 09:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mess

This article is a mess. All those graphs and stuff without any caption or anything. What does this mean, and why are there no units? --Ysangkok 16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

well I guess I asked for criticism. I've added captions. There is an explanation. There are no units becuase units are irrelevant, and there are no labels on the axes because that graphing package doesn't do them.. Greglocock 01:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] consider pulling material until citations are given

It's unacceptably bad form to present information gleaned from other sources without attribution. Moreover, it sets the poorest possible example for student users regarding what consitutes good scholarly work.

Hence, I would suggest the author and Wikipedia staff **pull this article** (until all information is cited that is not common knowledge to an educated laymen familiar with the field). The fact that plagiarism is not taken seriously enough by Wikipedia—its decree that "content must be verifiable" is demonstrably, historically toothless—and is one reason why faculty cannot allow its use by their students for serious work.)

For the critical nature in academia of proper training with regard to these issues, as well as for broader discussion and perhaps another view of the informational "threshhold" for citation, see the work of The Univ of Chicago's Ch. Lipson, "Doing Honest Work...", U of C Press, 2004 (ISBN 0226484734, available inexpensively from Amazon.com).

Meduban 03:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Which bits are you concerned about? The maths? The graphs? Neither were 'gleaned', they are standard results. Check the atrribution of the images if you like. OH and add curly bracket curly bracket fact curly bracket curly bracket to the bits you want cited.Greglocock 05:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)