Talk:Vibration

Physics: Acoustics C‑class High‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Acoustics Taskforce.

Definition

Is this really the definition of vibration? I think that a vibration is a mechanical oscillation, characterised by the interaction between inertia and some restoring force. Thus pendulum, rigid body and elastic body all vibrate. Can anyone justify the current (unhelpful in my view) definition? Some vibrations propagate and are waves. Part of the reason for getting involved here is that I have just written Rossby wave and would like there to be a general reference somewhere to restoring force. We could then get all waves articles in uniform layout. Vibration would be a good place to put the general principle of restoring force but not with the current definition. Cutler 22:24, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree.

The use of vibration in enhancing sports performance must surely be a sphere of very limited interest relative to the importance of vibration in mechanical engineering. Mr. Bosco - could you move the references to your fine work to a sub-section of vibration ?

I created a new page for that. Greglocock 22:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

which has now been deleted because the whole thing was a copyvio. No good deed goes unpunished. Greglocock 23:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cars on rough roads

Lzyvtl why do you keep removing them, they are a classic example that most people have experienced, unlike earthquakes? Greglocock 22:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damping

Shouldn't other damping models be adressed? Structural damping (linear hysteretic) is so common that a section might be included to explain it. And maybe a short reference to Coulomb's and viscoelastic models wouldn't be bad... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.128.14 (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious meaning

This is a perfect article on vibration as a physical concept. But in English, the word is also used with metaphysical meanings, and the article is somewhat incomplete with an explanation of that - or at least a disambiguation page. Natha 67.52.81.242 (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could have a disambiguation page pointing at pseudoscience for those spiritual vibration freaks? 81.151.13.18 (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speed

Is there any specific paragraph on anything related to "speed" of vibration. New Babylon 2 (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sound is when cat's eat corndogs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.129.79 (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New image

I was thinking that Image:Simple harmonic oscillator.gif would be great for somewhere in the article about non-damping vibration? I'm no expert on this, so I figured that someone would know where to put this. Thanks!

--pbroks13^talk? 02:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I put the gif in the undamped section.

Lzyvzl (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple degrees of freedom systems and mode shapes

Can someone re-work the equation on that page "describing" the OEM with the 2 masses, 3 dampeners and 3 springs? Why is there an x3? There should not be an x3 unless x3 is some kind of combination of x1 and x2. Can anyone clear this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.152.193.133 (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fine as it is. x3 = 0 in the example given, and the 'wise' editor eliminated it from the matrix form of the system equation. Greg Locock (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

who is we?

the article talks about "we" a lot, i think that looks odd in an encyclopedia, sounds more like someone borrowing an explanation from a text book. Mikachu42 (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but it is just a style thing. You could try and recast it into an impersonal passive voice, something 'we' were discouraged from at university, even for formal reports. MOS recommends against we/you but not for the reason you give, and to my mind this article does not fall afoul of that stricture. Greglocock (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia ready?

This page does not sound like wikipedia. Numerous points, "To start" "What is resonance?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.72.16 (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing reference

I think the following statement should be removed from this article until a reference can be provided:

Generally, one or more "input" or "control" points on the DUT are kept at a specified vibration level.

Wayne Tustin authored the article Where to place the control accelerometer: one of the most critical decisions in developing random vibration tests also is the most neglected

In that article Mr. Tustin states "Most lab personnel mount the control accelerometer at some location on the DUT side of the fixture." This contradicts what the Wikipedia article is saying.

12.188.106.66 (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]