Or better avoid both. Absorb is simply misleading, dissipate only applies to a conventional damper.Jersey Tom wrote:Think we need to be more careful about the word "absorb" vs "dissipate" in these discussions.
Well, call it damper or not that's not the point.ringo wrote:You seem to be as confused as me.
Are you sure that mercury is in use? I would have imagined that its use would be banned due to its high toxicity.dren wrote:It stores and releases energy to smooth out vibrations.
The J-damper stores and releases energy through a mass spinning. This new version stores and releases energy through a flowing/moving mass of mercury (heavy as a fluid).
There are no springs necessary in the inerter itself. The key is literally the inertia of the mass.DaveW wrote:My guess would be that mercury is mentioned in the Lotus Renault patent only as a "catch all".
I believe there is a difference between "mechanical" & "fluid" inerters. The "mass" is logically connected directly between the end fittings in the former case, but via springs (representing fluid compliance) in the latter. The patent maintains that the fluid is "incompressible", but my experience would suggest otherwise. I would need to test an example to determine if the difference is significant, & whether it is a benefit or otherwise.