Talk:Damping (disambiguation)

message: Can someone explain to me how a critically damped system would converge faster when in fact it is multiplied by t in part of the solution? Since the over-damped system is a decaying exponential times a constant it would decay faster than the exponential time a positivally growing constant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.196.167 (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critically Damped 

message: So an underdamped door-closer will "bounce" on the way to being closed?  Should mention this to complete the analogy. jyavner 21:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider a door with no spring force. Open it, release it from rest... and watch as nothing happens. This is just a regular door. (CHF (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underdamped 

message: I think it's probably a good idea to alter the current gif-file a bit, in a way that the system stays in 'rest' a little bit longer'. Just add a frame or 2, 3 with the end of the simulation I purpose. Right now, the thing doesn't seem to stop at the end of the simulation. 
Anyone able to alter this? --Flekkie (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gif: Underdamped 

message: Is it worth including that over-damping is 'aperiodic' motion? Given the necessary initial conditions the motion can pass through the equilibrium position once (but only once), i.e. start off with a positive displacement, pass through zero, then converge to zero from the negative side. It doesn't always look like exponential decay as in the diagram. (source: 'Vibrations and Waves in Physics', Third Edition, Iain G. Main)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.123.249 (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over damped 

message: I've replaced :Image:Springdampermass.png with :Image:Mass-Spring-Damper.png, which I originally drew for Nondimensionalization.  I also changed the symbol used for the damping constant in the article from R to B to match the image.  Of course, it would be easy to create a variant of the image with a different symbol and without the external force arrow, but I feel it looks good enough as it is.  If you disagree, please say so (or just revert me, it's no big deal).  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image change 

message: I dont think these pics are particularly helpful (sorry) . There are some better ones you could use over at tuned circuit I think! 8-)--Light current 00:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: In answer to jyavner, who inquired regarding a possible bounce for an underdamped closer: yes, an underdamped closer would "want to" bounce, because it would reach the closed position with nonzero velocity.  It is also worth noting that a critically damped closer might suffer a bounce as well, if the person gave the door a sufficiently large initial shove (i.e., a sufficiently large initial velocity in the "closing" direction).  Critical damping does not imply that there is no crossing through the equilibrium state; whether the static equilibrium position is passed or not depends on the initial conditions.  Furthermore, though I do not design these devices, I strongly suspect that that they are designed to be (highly) overdamped rather than critically damped for precisely this reason - a sufficiently large amount of damping makes it impossible for a person to slam the door.  All closers in my experience appear to exhibit this behavior.  (I am not including those two-way swinging doors between restaurant dining rooms and kitchens, which are clearly underdamped, and have little or no intentionally included damping.)
In response to Dkraemer1, who brought up the subject of springs and the order of the ODE involved, the door closer itself must contain a spring element.  If there were no spring, the door would never move on its own, and it would never "seek" the closed position.  The closer+door system is indeed, therefore, a second-order mass-spring-damper system.  It may also be worth noting that the spring is not at its equilibrium position when the door is closed; rather, it is somewhat deflected, so that the door is held in its closed position with some (nonzero) force.
The most important thing that needs to be said (and currently isn't) regarding the critical damping case is that it gives the fastest possible return to a state of equilibrium.
For all of these reasons, I propose removing all mention of door closers in connection with critical damping and inserting language making clear that critical damping produces a system with the fastest possible return to a state of equilibrium.
Tpower27 21:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Door-closer Analogy 

message: I made a full revision to this article, added some more formulation and a picture comparing the different system behaviors.
I feel that there is no need for a separate article for Damping ratio, as there are duplicate explanations and the understanding of the damping ratio should be favored by including it in the [[Damping] article. So, I propose to merge Damping ratio to Damping. - Nmnogueira 11:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: re: "An automobile suspension has a damping near critical damping (slightly higher for "hard" suspensions and slightly less for "soft" ones)"
This statement is a touch misleading.  Automobile suspension damping ranges from approximately 0.25 for passenger vehicles (ride softness) to 0.7 and higher for racecars (all-out handling).  The relationship between ride quality (low damping ratio) vs. handling (high damping ratio) is relatively well studied.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.18.94 (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  automobile suspension damping 

message: As far as I can tell, the Q factor and the damping ratio are 2 ways to measure basically the same thing (see Q factor for the simple equation between them).
I think they should be merged into the same article.
Since it looks like "damping ratio" is going to be merged into this "damping" article (see above), I guess Q factor should (sooner or later) be merged in as well.
--75.19.73.101 (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge Q factor with damping 

message: The "Dampening" article was exclusively describing musical damping, even though it used the term "dampening".  It seems the more common usage is to call that damping too, dampening seeming to be a much less common way to refer to it, if Google hits on musical terms mean anything.  I could see this stuff belonging in a "Damping (music)" article possibly, but the concept is pretty much the same as it is in physics and control systems, and the other article was pretty short, so I just merged.  The material is not well integrated right now.  It occurs to me that you might use the musical concept to help explain the physics concept, killing two birds with one stone. Gigs (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 04:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article would be improved if the musical damping section were moved back to a separate page.  All the musical examples are basically cases where the musician wants to totally suppress the sound/vibration and therefore is not a particularly interesting example of the physical damping phenemona.  Similarly, if you are mainly interested in these musical techniques, examining the formula for harmonic oscillation is not going to be very interesting either and is likely to be confusing.  So while musical damping is related to the physical/mathematical damping described on this page, it really doesn't fit.  It is like having Poaching An Egg section in a Phase Changes of Matter page because both involve boiling.  71.234.28.244 (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I think we should undo the merge, and put the musical stuff back at Dampening, or possibly move it to a better name like Damping (music).  As discussed above, these terms are not synonyms, at least in the context of the definition used in this article, which is the more technical meaning.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged Musical Damping 

message: The graph [] doesn't look right to me.  Surely the green line and the blue line should not cross as x decreases to zero.  And the 3 lines should all have the same gradient at t = 0, because the motion there (when the velocity is small) depends only on the mass and the spring constant, not the damping coefficient.  --Occultations (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the figure comes with matlab code, and he plotted the wrong functions.  Maybe I'll work on it...  Dicklyon (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Here is a source with the correct equations.  Note that that curves start out cosine-like (zero velocity) and all have the same curvature (acceleration) at time 0.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

text: OK, it's fixed.  Dicklyon (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's much better.  Could I suggest that the units along the the time axis be cycle times rather than seconds.  I would do it myself if I knew how. Occultations (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually units of time constants, or radians of natural frequency, or t*omega_0.  What would you like me to label it?  Perhaps the latter?  Dicklyon (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you've labelled it omega_0*t.  I had to think about that before I convinced myself it's correct.  And of course it's dimensionless.  So that's a lot better.Occultations (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in graph? 

message: I would like to move this to Damped harmonic oscillator, since that is really what this page is about.  It might help avoid the merging problem with Q, for instance.  It also fits in as a 'subpage' of harmonic oscillator.  TStein (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving to Damped harmonic oscillator 

message: I think there should be an example of a damped oscillator with forced motion. Namely the damped simple pendulum as it is the most easiest example ever. Also, I think that this will add a new dimension to the article as this aspect is not discussed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustav Ulsh Iler (talk • contribs) 22:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely a good idea; the classical diff eq. for a spring/mass/damper, leading to driven solutions, resonance plots, Q factor, etc., would be good to see done out well.  Does it exist in some other article already?  Here are some good sources to work from.   Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damped simple pendulum with forced motion.  

message: Around January, someone deleted quite a bit of the article, making much of it confusing. Unfortunately, there is a lot of intervening edits, so I am unable to revert it.67.170.103.34 (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The text deleted on 27 January 2010 was restored on 14 March 2010. --UncleDouggie (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnoticed Vandalism 

message: I am not sure this article should have a picture of a mass on a spring, and it be called a 'damped' system. Dampening is proportional to the velocity the mass would be travelling at, and a spring does not produce damping. A dampener produces damping. A spring produces a force proportional to the distance it is stretched. Someone want to change this  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.28.168 (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The diagram does not show a damping component. The motion of the block indicates that one is present. Air is a damper. It would be an improvement if a damper component was explicitly illustrated as we have in :File:Mass-Spring-Damper.png. --Kvng (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Diagram 

message: Dampener should be Damper. Dampener is something that makes an object damp, i.e. wet. In academic literature we just call something that restraints movement a damper. I agree with the diagram could be made better with a visible damper element. Though a non-ideal spring would have some form of energy loss. That diagram can be considered an exagerated case of frictional damping --MobiusPizza (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dampener

message: The word "guitar" does not even appear in this article, so (without reading it) I assume this is an incorrect redirect, and this article doesn't cover the guitar technique of scratching dampened (palm-muted) strings. Damn, I could really use an article on that right now!
Thanks for your attention. If you can fix this, please do!
:--Ben Culture (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does "Scratching (guitar)" redirect to this article? 

message: Why is the effect of buoyancy force not considered in case of fluids? Shouldn't we notify that mass in this case is the apparent mass?--82.114.171.82 (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buoyancy force 

message: This article covers essentially the same material as Harmonic oscillator. While the concept of damping may well apply to other types of systems, this article focuses solely on damped harmonic oscillators, and that topic is already completely covered elsewhere. Had I noticed this article at its creation, I would have nominated it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A10 but as it has existed for some length of time and been edited by several editors, I believe the best course now is to find any material in this article that is unique and not already covered at the other article and move it there, leaving this as a redirect. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that there is no objection, I have redirected to Harmonic oscillator. There was no significant information contained in this article that was not already contained in that article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aside: A10 would have been inappropriate because one of the necessary criteria for A10 is . --Izno (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal (November 2016) 

message: Too many incoming links to the redirect were for distinctly difference specific aspects of damping, so I made it a disambig page.  Now the incoming links need to be sorted for what was intended.  Could be harmonic oscillator or damping ratio or damping factor or some of those other forms of damping.  Alternatively, we could go back to the broad topic article as suggested above in 2018; but we'd still want to review incoming links and get some of them to better places.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much agree with Kvng's suggestion to . The Damping ratio article actually already does so at this point, so all that's left is to rename. In fact, I proposed this yesterday at Talk:Damping ratio#Damping vs Damping ratio as I'm only now finding out that this option has already been discussed. If you both still agree this is a good idea and/or have any other input, please let me know over there. Lennart97 (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made it a disambig page