Why damping is so complicated -- WARNING: Physics!!!!!!!
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:48 pm
There is a ton of confusion on this site as to what damping actually is and what it does. It's a complicated topic. Lind and Sanders describe it as something that lowers the frequencies of vibrations of skis, lowers the amplitudes and causes the amplitudes to decrease with time.
To understand it, it helps if you've taken intro physics and remember your damped harmonic oscillator/RLC circuit stuff (remember the "dashpot," or the impedance concept, and how they changed the natural frequency and made the amplitude of the oscillations decrease logarithmically with time?).
Skis are even more complicated because, unlike those simple cases, they can support standing waves, so there are many modes (n = 1, 2, 3...). Each of these modes has its own wavelength with nodes/antinodes in different places. (It's similar to the case of a string vibrating under tension.) However, it's probably not easy to predict the natural frequencies and where the nodes/antinodes occur.
But, wait, it gets worse! A ski is not one-dimensional, it's three-dimensional! It therefore supports at least two types of vibration, longitudinal and torsional, each with many modes. This is starting to get into elasticity theory, which I know little about. However, it might be possible to model single modes as simple harmonic oscillators, if you assumed that the modes were decoupled and that amplitudes were small.
And for the final fork in the gears, the boundary conditions for ski vibrations are completely non-trivial. They vary with snow conditions, load, and who knows what else. The vibrations themselves probably even change the boundary conditions, when the skis bounce off the snow. The best solution here is probably FEM/FEA.
But then, even if we could model vibrations, how would we know how to use the information? Lind and Sanders describe damping skis as more of an art than a science, because different skiers will want skis with different damping characteristics.
For my two cents on that, I've been riding K2 (which are known for dampness) for a long time. The only time I've ever noticed a reduction of control is at super high speeds on choppy spring snow. They rip up everything else super-well. In fact, when people talk about a loss of "sensitivity" in damp skis, I have no idea what they're talking about. So I'm inclined to think that we should just damp the crap out of everything, unless we want a particularly poppy ride.
To understand it, it helps if you've taken intro physics and remember your damped harmonic oscillator/RLC circuit stuff (remember the "dashpot," or the impedance concept, and how they changed the natural frequency and made the amplitude of the oscillations decrease logarithmically with time?).
Skis are even more complicated because, unlike those simple cases, they can support standing waves, so there are many modes (n = 1, 2, 3...). Each of these modes has its own wavelength with nodes/antinodes in different places. (It's similar to the case of a string vibrating under tension.) However, it's probably not easy to predict the natural frequencies and where the nodes/antinodes occur.
But, wait, it gets worse! A ski is not one-dimensional, it's three-dimensional! It therefore supports at least two types of vibration, longitudinal and torsional, each with many modes. This is starting to get into elasticity theory, which I know little about. However, it might be possible to model single modes as simple harmonic oscillators, if you assumed that the modes were decoupled and that amplitudes were small.
And for the final fork in the gears, the boundary conditions for ski vibrations are completely non-trivial. They vary with snow conditions, load, and who knows what else. The vibrations themselves probably even change the boundary conditions, when the skis bounce off the snow. The best solution here is probably FEM/FEA.
But then, even if we could model vibrations, how would we know how to use the information? Lind and Sanders describe damping skis as more of an art than a science, because different skiers will want skis with different damping characteristics.
For my two cents on that, I've been riding K2 (which are known for dampness) for a long time. The only time I've ever noticed a reduction of control is at super high speeds on choppy spring snow. They rip up everything else super-well. In fact, when people talk about a loss of "sensitivity" in damp skis, I have no idea what they're talking about. So I'm inclined to think that we should just damp the crap out of everything, unless we want a particularly poppy ride.