Talk:Tuned mass damper

message: What makes it tuned?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.123.78.206 (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you can have a passive tuned 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)
replies: text: Hmm, 'mass damper' redirects here anyway...  yamaplos— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.138.150 (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The tuned mass dampers in Taipei 101 are used to reduce oscillations under wind loading. The main tuned mass damper in Taipei 101 is designed for human comfort under wind loads. There are also two additional tuned mass dampers in the pinnacle to reduce fatigue loading. None are specifically designed to reduce earthquake loads. In event of an earthquake the pinnacle TMDs will be locked down, while the main mass is designed to be restrained by a snubber ring (see this paper by the designers). The problem with relying on tuned mass dampers for seismic response is that the frequency of most buildings under high-level seismic loading will vary due to non-linear effects. As a result, the formerly "tuned mass damper" becomes a dangerous lump of mass that is out of tune with the motion of the structure. If no-one has any objections, I shall add a paragraph to this effect to the article. I could also reinsert the Taipei 101 picture, since it is fully relevant.  Muchado (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are saying doesn't sound right at all, mass dampers damp some better than others, but all frequencies pretty well. Do you have a reference?Rememberway (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at the image in the article. The response changes from a single peak to a double peak. The response reduction relies on the system being in the trough between the two peaks. Otherwise the response is still high (this image) - note that the words under this image in the article say the same thing. Muchado (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's still basically a low pass filter. I suppose if the earthquake was driving the building below the cut-off frequency then those frequencies would go straight through, and the mass could hit the stops, and you would prefer it not to.Rememberway (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: " it's still basically a low pass filter." Sort of, but it can (and in the case of small m/M ratios probably will) have resonances in the frequency range of interest. Greglocock (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Tuned

message: 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 ). Kreachure 22:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is that any good? is it too complex or too simple? or too confusing? Greglocock 09:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'How they work' section expansion 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Mess 

message: 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 (, available inexpensively from Amazon.com).
Meduban 03:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  consider pulling material until citations are given 

message: Some have something that would be like a damper, in the case of the one I repaired it was a block of concrete, attached with steel cables to parts of the mechanism.  
When going through the spinning cycle, they tend to shake a lot until whatever it is that happens does happen, and the resonant shacking calms down.  yamaplos  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.138.150 (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No... you misunderstand. The concrete block adds inertia, there is no deliberate damping added. Muchado (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  what about laundry washer machines?   

message: This is a picture of part of the (3-phase?) power cables feeding the facilities at the end of South Gare at the mouth of the River Tees in the north east of England.  Of particular interest are the devices attached to the cables.  Are these a type of vibration damper?  There is typically one of these devices per wire on each span between posts. Stuffed cat (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an expert, but I've always assumed those orange balls are to help aircraft pilots notice power lines. - Blueguy 72.150.217.91 (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stockbridge dampers are added to cables to damp out oscillations. What you are showing appears to be a visibility aid, although by connecting the cables together, it may perform another purpose as well. Muchado (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are these anti-vibration dampers? 

message: In order for an article to be useful, it has to actually explain the subject and provide information about it. An article along the lines of "A superdeluxe is a type of widget. Superdeluxe cars are cars with a superdeluxe, here's a list. Superdeluxe cameras are cameras with a superdeluxe. Here's a few examples", etc, does not provide information. There's no point in having the article.
There was an in depth explanation here of what a Tuned mass damper is. It needed cleaning up, but it was unquestionably the part of the article that actually answered the question people come to this wikipedia page to ask. This was deleted, three times!, by one editor who had technical objections to it.
So what's the point in the article now? Why have it? I proposed a deletion, but that was reverted. I'm proposing it again. The article needs to actually describe the subject, it can't tiptoe around it, otherwise there's no good reason to have it in Wikipedia.
The other alternative is to do what the editor who deleted the content should have done in the first place and clean it up a little, but given the complaints seem to be more than just WP:OR and going into the substantive ("this is basically teaching the math directly to the reader which isn't the purpose of Wikipedia") - meaning the editor would have removed it even if the content had been easier to read and contained more references - I don't see that as worthwhile. What's the point in cleaning something up if it'll be deleted again?
Bite the bullet: if you're going to erase enough content from an article that it no longer describes the subject, at least have the honesty to propose the article's deletion. --66.149.58.8 (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not understanding an article is not a  reason for part or entire deletion .Wdl1961 (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think 66.149 is exaggerating to make a point. I'd point out to the editor who is tring to delete that section that there is mathematical terminology in the article, but no actual difficult maths. if the explanation is confusing, thentag it that way, and dsicuss why it is confusing here. I am not a mind reader. Greglocock (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete this article? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tuned mass damper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080505055908/http://www.newscientist.com/backpage.ns?id=mg19626273.000 to https://www.newscientist.com/backpage.ns?id=mg19626273.000
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040118151133/http://nisee.berkeley.edu/prosys/tuned.html to http://nisee.berkeley.edu/prosys/tuned.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Tuned-mass dampers get a lot of the credit  ~Kvng (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quiet dishwashers