Talk:Belleville washer

Series-stacked Bellevilles
The article currently says:


 * Stacking in an alternating direction is the same as adding springs in series, resulting in a lower spring constant and greater deflection.

Shouldn't that read "the same spring constant but allowing greater total deflection"?

(And series-parallel stackings also can be utilized.)

Atlant 19:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In a series stack, the spring constant will slightly decrease but it is usually negligible.

Gkumar

In a series stack, the spring constant of the stack as a whole will decrease by n-times. N being the number of springs in series in the stack. Example: If a single spring has a stiffness of 5,000N. Two springs in series will now give you a stiffness of 2,500 N because you are doubling the travel while keeping the same maximum force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.160.59 (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Washer?

 * Probably oppose -- Unless people are planning a big expansion of washer, I'd oppose the merger. A Belleville is a pretty-specialized kind of washer, not really used for the same purposes as many other washers. Atlant 21:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I oppose this as well. In application it is as much a spring as a washer. Tom Harrison Talk 21:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Also weak oppose the function of a Belleville washer is more spring than washer. Megapixie 23:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I oppose it as well. The only time a belleville spring acts as a washer is when it is compressed to flat. It is not distributing the load like a washer but is applying a load to the contact surface. Gkumar


 * Oppose. I wanted to find information about Bellevill washers myclob 23:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I oppose as well, washer is too general and serves a different purpose. Iepeulas 18:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty settled, at least for now ;-).

Atlant 18:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Landmine comment
The last line of the first paragraph reads "Belleville springs are also used in a number of landmines eg the American M14 mine." This seems irrelevant to the general discussion and definition of a belleville washer.

This is in contrast to where it is discussed specifically how they function on racing cars.

My suggestion is either delete it or expand it, but as it is, it is a triviality. Neo1973 17:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neo1973 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Yeah. Someone with a weapon obsession seems to have been at work. In a quick drive-by edit I have cut out what I consider excessive detail related to landmines, but more pruning is needed, and more generic images of applications would be better. Globbet (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It should stay on landmines, with detail similar to what was there before.
 * The reason is that for landmines, unlike suspension springs, they don't just act as a spring. They also act as an over-centre mechanism or toggle. The centre of the spring is pressed down until a point is reached when the conical spring inverts itself. This causes the spring to then hit the striker pin, detonating the mine. This mechanism is particularly unusual, because it's cocked by a force acting downwards and then releases the spring energy in the same direction. Most other toggle mechanisms would release the energy in the reverse of how they were tensioned.
 * One of the few other similar mechanisms I can think of are the cheap dome switches used in laminated keypads. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Image needs replacement
Hello all...

An image used in the article, specifically Image:Bellevillewasherforcediagram.JPG, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

DIN 2093 - Disc Spring Quality Spec's
Hello, I would like to discuss the reference currently being used as the DIN 2093 reference. It is a link to a McMaster-Carr catalog page which includes almost nothing about DIN 2093. I have tried to link to a website which actually includes the tables of DIN 2093 tolerancing, and it keeps getting changed back. The reason being, that the tables are on the website of a 'manufacturer'. I would submit to everyone here, that no one would be able to buy from a manufacturer due to the quantities required. They would be far more likely to purchase from a McMaster-Carr catalog. So that would be more inclind to this 'advertising' that is spoken of. Further more the info is much weaker than the other page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.160.59 (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The original link you added we no different than the McMaster reference because it just mentioned the standard. The new link is far better because it does have the table. As such, I'm letting it stand. Wizard191 (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)