Talk:Cantilever

message: The modal frequency or the first mode of frequency for a cantilever beam is given by the equation (B1l)^2(EI/rho.A.l^4)^1/2. Where B1l=1.875104 (which is the first mode frequency)  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.250.27.152 (talk) 15:11, August 22, 2007 (UTC) 
Someone should add info here about the use of cantilevers in AFMs and such.  If I ever get enough time and knowledge, I'll throw my two cents in.  -cgw
What is an "AFM"? Leonard G. 03:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Atomic_force_microscope --210.248.188.53 17:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: misc 2005 discussions

message: I added an image in hopes of clarifying what a cantilever is for those who process things visually.  Feel free to take the basic idea and spiff it up. Epolk 22:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the picture. - SCgatorFan 04:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying canteliver 

message: I think the In MEMS section of this page needs to be reviewed. I would dispute the claimed relation between resonant frequency and applied force. Largely because applied stress is force over an area, which means that in the spring constant equation force would seem to cancel with the stress that appears in the deflection equation, this makes sense because the spring constant should be... well constant. This would mean that the force does not appear in in the resonant frequency equation when the spring constant is substituted into the equation.
Looking on IEEExplore at articles on the subject, it would seem that measurements of resonant frequency and change in resonant frequency are usually used to determine a change in the overall mass of the cantilever arm, NOT in measuring change in applied force. These applications often involve detecting the other particles attaching to the cantilever arm and therefore changing its frequency. On the other hand, change in applied force detection is usually achieved by somehow measuring change in deflection, rather than a change in frequency.
I could be wrong in my understanding of all this, but I still think this section of the page needs some revision to clarify these points.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.181.52.93 (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IN MEMS 

message: Most MEMS applications and devices are based on macro-scale physical laws. What is good for the gander (regular cantilevers) is good for the goose (MEMS devices)I would like to question why have a MEMS cantilever description in a page describing cantilevers. I equate it to describing a guitar string in a page on oscillating strings, i.e. a specific model which really is no different from the original model. The whole MEMS section should be briefly described in two lines about applications of cantilevers, since MEMS does not require any different description for cantilevers than in civil engineering. For more references on MEMS, the Bharat Bhushan-Handbook of MEMS and NEMS can be consulted.
WRT the above comment, I agree that clarification is needed, but the description mentioned seems accurate by itself. A point of contention I have is that the description of simple geometric nonlinearities as super-linearities is quite misleading. The second and third order terms usually arise from a simple Taylor's series expansion of the trignometric terms. They are again, merely approximations, and should not be described as being something inherent to the system itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.59.250 (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, but do not know anything about MEMS to know where to move the information. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Don't the equations in the MEMS section hold for cantilevers more generally?  If not, what would the analogous equations be? Rick lightburn (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Of what use is a MEMS descrip. in a page on cantilevers?

message: I moved the entire section here for discussion, reverting the section to it's previous state.  Because the contributing editor has a conflict of interest with the site used as a reference, and because it is not a reliable source, we need to be sure that it is rewritten and sourced properly: --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: In warehouse storage applications

message: By looking at it, the equation in the MEMS section for cantilever deflection as a function of Young's Modulus, stress, and dimensions is confusing.  What are the units of the deflection, and how does that relate to tip displacement?  The displacement of the tip I guess should be units of length (meters or microns).  However, the right hand side of the equation is unitless, since L/t units cancel, as do stress and Young's Modulus (both Pascals).  129.110.242.6 (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of that material could probably be removed on the basis of WP is not a textbook. ¢Spender1983 (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cantilever deflection equation 

message: As far as I know or pretend to know... the Junkers J 1 example IS NOT a cantilever wing. The other photographe of the section, the Hurricane fighter plane IS a good example of cantilever wing. I'm I wrong? Kintaro (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, yes. A cantilever wing merely mean that it is supported at one end, i.e., at the fuselage end, with no additional supporting structure such as struts or bracing wires. So the Junkers J 1 does have a cantilevered wing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.17 (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion