Talk:Load cell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Technology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

External links to[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has asked that a set of links to be considered for inclusion. It is my opinion that they do not meet the criteria for appropriate external links. Please discuss the issue here and allow for consensus to be reached before relinking.

Problems with the links:

1) The links lead to diagrams of applications of load sensors. This, in my mind, is a level of detail not necessary for the article - especially since the potential number of applications of load sensors is virtually unlimited. This is made more problematic by the fact that the page is turning into a list - one the things Wikipedia is not WP:NOT. Furthermore, the additional applications (which were linked to futek) were added by the above IP address: see [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. That is to say, these items were not a part of the article until the above IP listed them and then linked them. There is also an external link to a company page about types of load cells. This information could be beneficial to the article, but it is likely that we can find a non-commercial source for the information.

2) Conflict of interest WP:COI. The IP address above resolves to As mentioned above, the editor added both items to the list as well as links. The additions follow exactly a page from the company website: [6]. Basically, someone from the company is copying the titles and links from the website and posting it to Wikipedia - almost turing the page into a copy of the company catalog. While not a direct copyright infrigement, the addition of so many links from one commercial website seems to me to fit the definition of spam WP:SPAM, even if the intention is good.

3) The addition of these links is part of a larger pattern of external link spam from both this company and other similar companies. I believe this type of external linking should be discouraged - even if the editors have good intentions. Nposs 19:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to Nposs[edit]

Dear Nposs,

Thank you for putting this subject on a forum.

1) You commented that the applications that I have llisted were not originally part of the article. I thought the idea was to continuously update and improve the amount of information for users. Meaning, who's to say that one of the applications listed originally is more legitimate than the one's I have highlighted. I've been in the Load Cell industry for over 10 years and one of the questions I'm constantly faced with is the visualization of how a load cell is utilized. I don't believe the diagrams I have listed are a senseless spam act but to further educate the user on the various industries and applications where the product can be used. I have also not seen any other website provide such illustrations and if it was available I would link their information as well. Also, if it was possible to add these diagrams to the wikipedia page I would do so, but they're copyrighted.

2) Once again, the articles I have posted were items with the intention of providing information to the user. the listed website, is a commercial site but it also does provide useful material. Does this mean that wikipedia will remove all links going to any commercial website?

3) I found it odd that only the links that I had posted were removed and other commercial sites were allowed to be posted.

Again, I welcome any suggestions you may have but I'm not seeing the point of removing all the links. My goal was simple: to provide further information for the user. The definitions of spam that you have mentioned seem broad in interpretation and I welcome other editors to review the content. If such a broad interpretation is to be used, then it should be applied fairly. 5 February 2007

Thanks for your response. I hope other editors will contribute to the discussion, as well. Your intentions are good, but I stand by my argument above: it is a level of detail not needed in the article and since the material can only be added through external links to commercial website, it is best not included. On your point about not removing other commercial links: Under WP:EL it is suggested that the inclusion of other inappropriate links should not be used as justification for the inclusion of other inappropriate links. I encourage you (or other editors who review the links and find them to be inappropriate) to remove them as you see fit. Nposs 17:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I might have found a potential compromise. In reviewing your website, I found that the page about load cell applications has the most diagrams of any sensor type on your website. This one page leads to all the relevant diagrams. Maybe this page could be included in the external link section with the title "Diagrams of applications". This would avoid the problem of multiple links to one website and reduce the potentially endless list of applications in the article. Nposs 17:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad that we can reach an agreement on this. I will update the page with one link to avoid any spamming concerns. However, I'm also curious why 2 other links were deleted. One of them had to do with the application of load cells in the medical industry and another was a detailed explanation of the types of load cells. I believe you had commented that they were useful but still removed them? 5 February 2007

Sections for technologies / conflict with main description[edit]

Dear fellow Editors,

I have two points, where I'd like your help: 1) adding a description of a not yet described technology 2) clear up the cohesion problem within the article

1) I am working for a company (OptoForce), where we produce load cells with a technology, which is not yet described here. I'd like to have a few words about the technology mentioned here as well, but I would like to avoid any Conflict of Interest WP:COI issues. If you could help me to edit the page, I would very much appreciate it. The description of the technology is available here: - - - and of course with a coloured picture on our website

In plain English, the load cell is built of 3 layers of silicone: an inner transparent layer, a reflective layer and an outer blocking layer. In the middle of the sensor there is an LED emitting infra-red light and around it there are at least 3 pieces of photo-diodes. As an external force deforms the silicone shape, the amount of light measured on the photo-diodes changes. By comparing the signals of the photo-diodes, the deformation can be measured, and all 3 axis of the acting force can be precisely reconstructed. This technology is mostly used when a compliant (highly deformable) force measurement is needed, such as in gripping objects with varying shapes or when an extreme overload protection is needed.

2) The main description defines a load cell as a transducer converting forces into electric signals. In the next sentences it states that a load cell is built with strain gauges - but then in later sections hydraulic, pneumatic and piezzoresistive load cells are also described. I think we should remove the references to strain gauges from the main description and move it under the description of the Strain gauge technology. Naturally it would make sense to move the Strain gauge technology to the first place among the others, as that is the most common. Also under the Strain gauge heading, other technologies are also described.

I would not like to edit the page due to the reasons outlined above, but if you would like, I would be glad to create a proposal for the page. Please let me know.

Akos.domotor (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I've edited to try to address your point 2. - Rod57 (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent addition[edit]

@Shaddack:, I noticed your significant contribution to this page, and appreciate it but it seems to be missing any sources to help someone verify it. Are you able to cite the source or sources where you got the information?McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The bulk is referenced from what is currently [4], . Validated against a myriad of other sources I do not remember but went through them while preparing knowledge for a soon-to-be project. Todo, add some more details here and there, with appropriate sources. Shaddack (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)