Talk:Transmissibility (vibration)

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

can anyone tell what is transmissibility exactly ?

I think it's like a transfer function, but specifically for mechanical vibrations and how they propagate between two connected structures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chancwj (talk • contribs) 18:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

its nothing but isolation of vibrations.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.95.164 (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transmissibility is exactly what it means it is. The degree to which what goes in musty come out! It is a dimensionless quantity. You are correct in one sense - since it is a ration of input to output, it is a bit like transfer function. But the real distinction is that it does not change the input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rameshdk (talk • contribs) 04:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's slightly confusing to call it the ratio of input to output, that is just a standard Frequency response function(FRF). So, for a output signal on a structure Y, and an input/ excitation signal, X, the FRF is calculated as Y/X. As the input signal is generally force, and the input is acceleration, velocity, or displacement. This is not dimensionless. Transmissibility is a different because it does not use the excitation signal, rather it uses two different output signal. e.g you have two accelerometers attached to a wind turbine at different location. The transmissibility will tell you how much energy propagate from one point to another. At least this is my current understanding.Chintam (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's what seems to be confusing about it. It is not a transfer function. It is a ratio of to signals (in the time domain!). Simple example: You take a sample of some material, put in a vibration (an alternating acceleration or force) on one side and measure the vibration of the sample on the opposite side. If it was a transfer function, you could put in say 100Hz and get a whole spectrum as output. The transmissibility only gives you the vibration as time signal. So, if your input is a sweep, the output you get is a signal of vibration that changes over time. That time can be transformed to a frequency (because of the sweep), but it is not a spectrum. It is like putting in a sweep, making a short time fft and plotting the entire energy of every fft block over time and translating the time to the frequency of the sweep. One really has to bear in mind that there is no spectrum to be seen in the entire process. --178.15.162.190 (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]