Motion - Science topic

“…There is a structure in meaning space that contains time and another structure for dimension. The axes by which we access such structures are language, but language is often inadequate. Wittgenstein pointed out in his Blue and Brown books that common language is not specific enough for philosophy: so, also, science….”

- that is indeed relates to that mainstream philosophy, and so really doesn’t answer rationally scientifically enough to any really philosophical problem – while really mainstream philosophy is a huge set of different and often opposite doctrines, schools, etc., which fiercely struggle with each other, attempting to prove each other that just this doctrine , etc., is true, while other are false,

- and this battle continues at least a couple of thousands of years, while last hundred of years the mainstream doctrines, etc., and philosophers , including “Great Thinkers”, are innumerous.

However what Wittgenstein points, i.e. that this strange and really unscientific situation in this philosophy exists because some “inadequate language”, is, of course rather strange claim – any language is composed from words, which are some notions, i.e. defame some concrete objects/events/processes in Matter and living beings societies, and any language is adequate to the reality completely depending on – what knowledge humans, including philosophers, have about objects/events/processes.

If a knowledge is adequate to the objective reality, then it is applicable be written using any language, if knowledge is transcendent, it is transcendent being written using any language.

That’s all, there cannot be principally any other criteria of “specificity” of any language for any society, including of scientific languages.

Really the existent - and indeed strange - specificity of language for mainstream philosophy is determined by two factors:

- first one is in that philosophy, as it was established ~ 2500 years ago has its subjects for study just fundamental phenomena – and so the philosophical language contains corresponding fundamental notions, first of all “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, unlike to other “ordinary” sciences that study concrete observable and measurable objects/events/processes in Matter, tec.,

- and, what follows from the first, since in mainstream philosophy all really fundamental phenomena/notions till now remain be completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational, so in the mainstream principally any really scientific language isn’t possible;

- whereas, if such language would exist, this language would be understandable not only for philosophers, but for any people, who is able to think logically, objectively, and rationally.

Real solutions of just philosophical problems – and really now of ordinary sciences, which are developed up to the level when the philosophical problems have became, though Meta-scientific, nonetheless already concrete scientific problems,

- can be, and in a number of cases are, solved/clarified only in framework of the 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

- where all traditional philosophical phenomena/notions above are really rigorously scientifically defined; and, besides, a number of other really fundamental phenomena/notions, which practically aren’t specific mainstream philosophical subjects for study now, first of all “Information” and “Energy” are scientifically defined as well,

- while all definitions, since aren’t transcendent uncertain assertions, are well understandable on any language for any science.

Note also, that all fundamental phenomena/notions can be scientifically defined only if are defined together, first of all at any definition it is necessary to have the definition of “Consciousness”, since just concrete consciousnesses study the world and define what they study, so say that

“…..But the structures do form in our minds and the formation of such structures is performed by qualities of mind-as-a-whole after which our consciousness is informed: aHa! …. I would like satisfying structures for "time" and "dimension" to form in my mind. Can you help?……”

- really cannot be answering till it isn’t clarified what is “mind” , and for what non-transcendent, not only instinctive reason and by what non-transcendent and non-instinctive way in some “mind” some “structures” appears?

The answers, including what really are "time" and "dimension" , which exist absolutely fundamentally objectively including when no any “minds” exist, and what is “mind” as well, see on at least first dozen of pages in the link above. In concrete application to Matter , including why Matter’s utmost universal spacetime is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), see .

Cheers

There’s no discontinuity in the Lagrangian for the free relativistic particle, when taking the non-relativistic limit.

Thanks for your thoughts and wishes

Ok thanks very much Mr Guynn. You touched a lot of related topics which have social, civil and pedagogical aspectswhich render a separate discussion to be outlibed properly.

However my question aimed mostly at a different issue, that is,

the reconstruction of some physics branches without the aim of reductionism epistemology which was introduced by Gallileo. That is to develop principles and tools of predictions or realist description without reducung the systems to be described.

Morris G. Anderson :

[Long after Newton’s law of universal gravitation was generally accepted as the basis of the planetary motion in the solar system, the French astronomer Le Verrier in 1859 announced (based on many years of careful observations and calculations) that the perihelion of the planet Mercury evidently undergoes precession, at a slightly faster rate than can presumably be accounted for by Newtonian mechanics, given the known distribution of the planets and the other objects in the solar system. Since Newton’s laws allows only a unitary and centrally directed force, an explanation for Le Verrier’s finding was arbitrarily attributed to a perturbation caused by the secondary effect of the gravitational forces from other planets; but did not explain why the precession rate varied with different planets, especially the high precession rate of Mercury. The perihelion precession of Mercury is 5,600 arcseconds (1.5556°) per century relative to the Earth. Newtonian mechanics, presumably taking into account all the effects from the other planets, predicts (without strong basis, since it is a very complex many-body problem)a precession of 5,557 arcseconds (1.5436°) per century, but the rest 43 arcseconds (a mere0.076%!) remained un-explained.

Einstein’s claim of Mercury’s perihelion advance was contested by so-called “100 authors against Einstein” led by Philipp Lenard, Gehrcke, Silverstein, Reuterdahl et all, who opposed Einstein’s theories accusing him of many things, such as incorrect formulation, plagiarism etc.,and questioned his priority. Ironically, W.W. Engelhardt in his recent publication [18] uses similar reasoning like Einstein and raised the controversial issue that Gerber’s expression cannot be derived from Einstein’s GR. Engelhardt claimed that instead of GR Einstein used a modified Newtonian theory to derive Gerber’s expression and not from his theory of general relativity; hence contest the justification of the claim by Einstein of the proof of his theory of relativity. Engelhardt using purported Einstein’s modified Newtonian mechanics derived an expression for the Gerber’s equation, which is one-third of Gerber’s formula.]

This is a copy of a section, extracted from an article, For the references please see the following article:

Thank you very much for your kind invitation to answer this question. My gratitude.

The principle of light speed invariance is obtained by solving Maxwell's equations simultaneously, and is confirmed by Michelson Morey experiment.

And Special Relativity Theory take the principle of light speed invariance as one of its basic postulates and deduced many valuable conclusions.

In my humble opinion inside this article:

A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NATURE OF TIME

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7079721 Light propagation in medium, such as water, crystal, vacuum, etc, but not in the void(Vacuum is not void, vacuum are filled with gravitational fields and gravitational fields are physical existence. Thus vacuum is full but not empty).

Therefore, the speed of light depends on the medium, but irrespective of the motion of the torch issuing the light ray.(if light travels in water, it is multiple medium, water plus gravitational field, so it might be more complicated?)

inside this article, I wrote, light does travel in ether,

"ether should be gravitational fields. This is logical because it is known to all that vacuum gravitational fields, in which light can travel, can interact with electromagnetic wave and can bend light, as transparent crystal, in which light can also travel, can also interact with electromagnetic wave. That’s why, when we measure light speed on the surface of the earth, the light speeds are the same in every direction, because light travels at the same speed in the same gravitational fields"

Just for your kind reference.

BR

Are the categories in the study potentially problematic to the study question and study design in any way? How will the new theory be validated? The goal stated above is to consider the reduction of these categories to a theory. This sounds like a top-down approach that would be difficult to methodologically validate. Since the research question is stated to be epistemological as well as experiential in nature, then we may be solving a phenomenological problem with qualitative research. We could consider testing hypotheses. The goal then would be to validate a method that distinguishes justified belief from opinion. Hence, we could maybe look at a workable study design that can do this. How about incorporating thematic analysis? First, investigate what other researchers have done, i.e. where they have utilized sampling for thematic analysis. Then, do the groundwork by working from the bottom up. Design your data collection so that it is comprehensive and interdisciplinary. A working hypothesis will likely emerge from the data that you have categorized and coded. Therefore, instead of reducing categorical data to form a theory, the researcher can find the emergent patterns of meaning via the analysis of the surveillance data that he has collected. The study design comes into play. In other words, design the surveillance to allow for the gathering of data that adequately informs the research question. Rework your hypothesis and rework your surveillance methods as needed. Cycle back as many times as you need to modify and refine the working hypothesis. Now you can work from the ground up and develop a minimum working hypothesis that can be tested through statistical analyses, e.g. an independent-samples t-test using SPSS. Initially, the intended approach seemed to go from top down, via reduction, using categories (presumed to be independent variables) that the researcher did not formulate and code himself. However, a researcher could alternatively investigate a novel solution that comes at the problem from another direction, possibly going from bottom-up instead of top-down. This alternative is grounded in reality and can also be validated. In this way the researcher could possibly develop a novel theory of knowledge (an original epistemological theory) since the expressed intention is to work with experiential data. Otherwise, the researcher might be basing a theory on opinion, which is not useful in regard to an epistemological aim. Going from bottom up to develop a minimum working hypothesis (instead of going from top down to develop a reductionist theory) seems like a possible approach. To answer this question better, we really need to know what the dependent variable is, and we need to categorize the independent variables so that they align with the study aim instead of potentially confounding it. Of course whenever we generalize statistics to parameters we must consider the probabilities of type I and type II errors. So, if possible, increase the sample size, increase the alpha-level of statistical significance, and thereby increase the statistical power of the testing. At least, at the outset of the study, we should be clear on what the research question is, for knowing this will be helpful in informing the study design. There are multiple considerations, as suggested in the following studies:

Offhand: a free electron, of course, interacts with atoms, but interactions of this kind are chaotically differently directed and mutually compensate in a macroscopic sample. On the scale of nanotechnology, the situation may be different.

hello Utpal Dhar

To calculate the ROM you have to use moment load by dividing the upper (top) surface into four quadrants.

after that, you have to add a remote point on that particular quadrat (or particular location) and measure the flexible rotation.

Hi Ariadna,

I recently met similar questions and found this post. I was wondering if your questions have been solved.

Thank you!

Best,

Yidian

Hi Jose Gaxiola,

I want to determine the relative motion of nodes of two surfaces that are in surface-to-surface contact. I use the probe value to determine near nodes. Is there any reference for this formula that you present?

This is pure mechanics. Any rotating body that is not a sphere has such a free nutation. It is not caused by external forces but simply by the form of the body. However, there are variations in the Chandler wobble due to changes in the atmosphere and the oceans. See, e.g., this paper:

it is the cell width perpendicular to flow direction. Hope it will help!

Dear Laszlo Attila Horvath.

Your remark is too concise and categorical for a scientist. There is such wisdom: "never say never".

You gave links to the articles "Gravity is a paradym shift in reasoning" and "The real cause of gravity can be proven by facts" which do not consider the physics of the Rayleigh wave and cannot be used as an argument. I can advise you and other participants in the discussion to familiarize yourself with the information on the possibility of the distribution of Rayleigh waves propagating at the boundary of the solid and liquid phases, that is, in the ocean. Simplified quote: “If at the boundary of the solid and liquid phases the speed of sound in the liquid is less than the speed in the solid phase, and this is true for almost all real media (and for the ocean), then a Rayleigh-type wave is generated at the interface. This wave continuously transfers vibrational energy from bottom to top into the liquid phase, forming a wave in it.

Source: Surface acoustic waves - Physical Encyclopedia (femto.com.ua).

It is also well known that seismic Rayleigh waves have much in common with sea surface waves, as well as tsunamis. For example, seismic Rayleigh waves, like tsunamis, begin with depression, and after half the period of the wave, a crest occurs.

Sincerely, Natalia Kucherenko.

Уважаемый Ласло Аттила Хорват.

Ваше замечание слишком лаконично и категорично для ученого. Есть такая мудрость: «никогда не говори никогда».

Вы дали ссылки на статьи "Гравитация парадигмный сдвиг в рассуждениях" и "Настоящая причина гравитации может быть доказана фактами", которые не рассматривают физику волны Рэлея и не могут быть использованы в качестве аргумента. Могу посоветовать Вам и другим участникам дискуссии ознакомиться с информацией о возможности распространения волн Рэлея на границе твердой и жидкой фаз, то есть в океане. Упрощенная цитата: «Если на границе твердой и жидкой фаз скорость звука в жидкости меньше скорости в твердой фазе, а это верно почти для всех реальных сред (и для океан), то волна релеевского типа генерируется на границе раздела фаз. Эта волна непрерывно передает колебательную энергию снизу вверх в жидкую фазу, образуя в ней волну».

Источник: Поверхностные акустические волны - Физическая энциклопедия (femto.com.ua).

Общеизвестно также, что сейсмические волны Рэлея имеют много общего с морскими поверхностными волнами, а также цунами. Например, сейсмические волны Рэлея, как и цунами, начинаются с впадины, а через половину периода волны наступает гребень.

С уважением, Наталия Кучеренко.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Is it a contradiction of Euclidean geometry that the length of one side of a triangle is less than the length of the other two sides?

The twin "paradox" is just an analogue of the triangle inequality.

Hello Serge,

Thanks for your response.

It will be nice to have an extensometer, but I do not have one or can get one for the model I have. You are right; since the strength values match well with the other lab and the load cell is highly accurate at the lower and higher ends, the error must be related to displacement measurement (% strain) or dimensions (thickness and span).

I find 17 to 23% lower modulus values for unfilled PP (168 Kpsi vs. 200 Kpsi) and Nylon 66 (360 psi vs. 403 psi).

I also plotted displacement (mm) vs. time, which is consistent. i.e., no non-linearity and slope match to input test speed. If there was a slip anywhere, I should see some change in the slope. Also, I pre-load samples to make sure there is no slip. I am also using the same tension-compression load cell for both tensile and flexural tests, and the tensile and flex modulus are not the same but close.

What do you mean by machine displacement? Please explain. How can I check if that is the reason for lower values?

Thanks,

Amit

Maybe you can find the shear wave velocity by running a small analysis on a simple single material with a very fine mesh. You may be able to keep the reduced problem small enough that you can do lots of runs with different mesh to see if the shear wave velocity has converged.

As we know, Einstein stated that aether is no longer absolute and used geodesic, it depends on the presence of matter and changes.Empty space has nothing physical and the basis of mechanics is not compatible with it For a system that floats freely in space, its relative position, relative velocity, and rotation are considered And physically it can be considered a feature in itself that is not related to the system The theory of relativity solved this problem by creating a neutral electrical behavior. The point of mass is governed by the law of geodesy, according to which the effects of inertia and gravity are no longer considered separately.In doing so, it attached characteristics to the aether which vary from point to point, determining the metric and the dynamic behaviour of material points, and determined, in their turn, by physical factors, namely the distribution of mass/energy. Thus the aether of general relativity differs from those of classical mechanics and special relativity in that it is not ‘absolute’ but determined, in its locally variable characteristics, by ponderable matter.

Stellan Gustafsson

I said: a small amount is missing. Described.

John-Erik

Ok, I've found how,

In case of someone else has the same issue,

Use the macro :

Compute_force_and_moment

Within the 6dof code

You are most welcome.

Thank you. And thanks for adding that English should be the only mother tongue.

measure :)

Manivannan Muniyandi Passive optical motion capture is the most precise, versatile, and widely used sort of motion capture, and it is a key technology for Vicon.

Dear Thamasha, I understand what you mean, but I am confused. As in Sussan paper, we non-dimensionalized the density, viscosity, and the conservations all. Now to characterize the viscosity we used Reynolds number, for surface tension, Weber number, and gravity by Froude number. I can understand these all. But tell me that viscosity is non-dimensionalized separatly and it should be determined from the Reynolds number. How can I use them simultaneously to define viscosity. Also how for density. I do not how to define the viscosity and density of two fluids. Please can you make a simple mph model to show this. I shall be very thankful.@ Thamasha Samarasinghe.

Saurabh Singh Thank you sir.

I suggest you visit https://aeroptimal.com/mesh (you must create an account to use this module), where you can create a full structured airfoil mesh - https://youtu.be/4Opu0zk7gFk . You can export .su2 .msh .foam .vtk

The application of jerk in physics have many instances and one of the example I can shot is simple that the jerk is nothing but it is all about the rate at which any objects acceleration changes with the time or with respect to time.

In MD simulations, atoms of the macromolecules and of the surrounding solvent undergo a relaxation that usually lasts for tens or hundreds of picoseconds before the system reaches a stationary state. This stage of the MD simulation is called equilibration stage.

Hi Jose Gaxiola,

Suppose that there is a file of nodal relative motions composed of lines with format X, Y, Z, value. I suggest:

1. Create nodeset from nodes of contact surface.

2. In Initial step create temperature predefined field with type Mapped field using created nodeset.

3. Import XYZ Point data from the mentioned file.

4. Request nodal temperature output.

5. Visualize initial nodal temperatures.

Hello dear honorable colleague Larissa Borissova.

Thank you very much for your explanations.

I would like to ask you , to kindly give me your opinion on the attached article, if possible

Your opinion is very important for me.

Cordial greetings

Hi Saurabh Chauhan,

Set nlgeom=yes.

please visit https://bzonemy101.wixsite.com/mysite

I am sorry. I don't have it.

Philip Burchell , in regards to how the vibration affects cell density, it is basic wave interference patterns. I've had problems in the past with an incubator that wasn't properly isolated from environmental vibrations (was tight against a counter that conducted vibrations from somewhere in the building) that would create distinct rings of low and high cellular density in 10 and 15 cm plates.

I don't think that is what Hannah Smid is seeing in her flasks, but definitely something to keep in mind when doing cell culture.

Hadi Jabbar Alagealy has the answer.

I concur with Jan

Also, mass is both a property of a physical body and a measure of its resistance to acceleration (rate of change of velocity with respect to time) when a net force is applied. An object's mass also determines the strength of its gravitational attraction to other bodies. The SI base unit of mass is the kilogram (kg). See the link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

Dear Kamlesh Chaudhari

These links might be helpful, have a look:

1. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marian-Blejan/publication/349476146_S-curve_motion_profiles_generator_for_hydraulic_actuators/inline/jsViewer/6031ec2ea6fdcc37a83f5139?inViewer=1&pdfJsDownload=1&origin=publication_detail&previewAsPdf=false

2. http://docplayer.net/storage/62/48040680/48040680.pdf

3. https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/electronics/electronics-08-00652/article_deploy/electronics-08-00652.pdf

4. https://www.parkermotion.com/manuals/6k/6K_PG_RevB_Chp5_CustomProfiling.pdf

5. https://www.plctalk.net/qanda/showthread.php?t=128789

6. https://www.pmdcorp.com/resources/type/articles/get/mathematics-of-motion-control-profiles-article

7. http://docplayer.net/48040680-Application-note-simple-plc-based-motion-control-for-the-ultra1500.html

Kind Regards

to me is very clear. Right before at the exit is no friction force due to the wall of the pipe. The fluid sences that even before its exit. Imagine a bullet with constant force behind it moving in tube. Now imagine a friction less section of the tube before it exits. Will it not the bullet move faster for this interval?

Thank you Robert. Your reply is very informative. So "the relative speed of earth with respect to ether" is not even a valid question, because the earth drags ether with it. In other words, the Michelson-Morley experiments could be pointless. I cannot help but thinking the rippling effect of this conclusion -- taking off this cornerstone of modern physics.

I guess you are probably right about sound boom effect of a spinning object, but I'm still optimistic about options that make this happen. You might wonder why I'm looking into this. I vaguely feel that this might provides a mechanism to generate lifting forces for flying disks.

Hi Calvin Wolfgramm ,

What is the equation of the LV motion? Do you have the speed or coordinates of the LV wall over time? The CG_MOTION is used for rigid body motion, which means all nodes of the LV wall move with the same velocity, so I think you should use GRID_MOTION.

I would recommend to watch the differences emerging between ideal modelling and dynamic (dialectical modelling). Ideal modelling is abstract, theoretical, only having main decisive elements, while dynamic (dialectical) modelling shows the motion of the structures with all the elements in time and space, and is a "real life" model. On observing the differences occurring between ideal and dynamic (dialectical) models You can notice and define the motions.

Hi

Just one suggestion, be always sure where exactly you define the sources before compile.

Hi Stacy,

There are some works connecting rocking motion, vestibular stimulation and sleep.

One is: Kompotis et al., 2019, Current Biology 29, 392–401

Rocking Promotes Sleep in Mice through Rhythmic

Stimulation of the Vestibular System

Regards,

Enrique

Sounds analogous to an inverted pendulum. Here is one way to construct something with closely similar dynamics. Take a knee (90° angle) connector for sewage pipe, cut it nicely and mount it on a toy car such that the knee is pointing straight upwards. Place a small ball (i.e. from a roll-on bottle) on top of the knee and try to keep it there stably by moving the toy car back, forth, and sideways (hard to do manually without automated feedback control loop). I guess many feedback control schemes would keep the ball at the top of this curve subject to micromotion.

Aside: If the knee was facing down, mounted on a motor, and the ball is placed inside the 90° curve while the motor is rotated at some angular frequency, the resulting dynamics would resemble Mathieu equations whose stability analysis could be checked from Floquet theory. Incidentally, these are the same dynamics exhibited by a single ion trapped in a linear Paul trap.

Hi Fouad,

I remember to try this in my M.Sc. so here is a tip: there are scale factors suggested by Iai 1989 for 1 g soil-structure-fluid models in 1g gravitational field. These factors have been updated as well. There are scales for length, density, the porosity of the soil, stress, and... Here I have a sample paper for you to have a look:

Best of luck,

Ali

Do you actually want the 3-dimensional position in space? Because (1) if you don't, you only need the proper motions, and (2) parallaxes are, in general, so poorly known (even for GAIA data they're among the least accurate numbers) that any change in parallax is far smaller than the original uncertainty in the distance (The reason being that the motions of stars are many orders of magnitude smaller than the speed of light, so any change in their distance in light-years is negligible in time periods small compared to thousands of years. As an example, most stars in our neighborhood had motions of 100 km/sec or less relative to the Sun. Since that's 3 thousand times less than the speed of light, it would take such stars 3 millennia to change their distances by 1 light-year. For an extremely close star, like Proxima Centauri, there might be a measurable change in a century; but for anything more than 100 light-years away, even 3 millennia might be too short a time to get any measurable change -- though in 3000 years, improved technology might change that statement!).

Therefore, presuming you just want to change the position in some earlier coordinates to current coordinates, calculate the number of years involved by subtracting the date of the original position (for most catalogs, the positions are calculated for the equinox involved, so a B1950 or J2000 coordinate would represent the position in 1950 in 1950 coordinates, or the position in 2000 in 2000 coordinates) from the date you want (e.g., right now, it's about 2021.515 (keep in mind that 2021.000 is midnight on Dec 30/31 of 2020, since Dec 31 = Jan 00)). Look up the proper motion in milliarcseconds per year (I usually use SIMBAD, but GAIA is more accurate for stars in its database), multiply that by the number of years involved (21.515 for J2000 coordinates, 71.515 for B1950 coordinates), divide the resulting proper motion in declination by a thousand to get arcseconds (the position is usually given in degrees, arcminutes, and arcseconds), and the resulting proper motion in right ascension by 15 thousand to get seconds of time (since right ascension is measured in hours, minutes and seconds of time), and add or subtract to/from the original positions as needed (keep in mind that if the sign of the declination is the same as the sign of the proper motion, then you add the numbers, but if the signs are opposite, you subtract the proper motion from the declination, and use the sign of the declination).

This gives you the "current" position of the star, but in B1950 or J2000 coordinates. To alter that, use a precession calculator (I like the one on the NED site, at https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/forms/calculator.html ). Enter the epoch of the original catalog, and its equinox, the "current" right ascension and declination as just calculated, insert the equinox you want (in this example, 2021.515), then hit Calculate. One thing I like about the NED calculator is that, although the original coordinates are probably going to be Equatorial, and the proper motions certainly will be, you can choose your output as Equatorial, Ecliptic, Galactic, or Supergalactic coordinates.

I will note that as someone interested in historical astronomy, in which "old" positions are given for the epoch of observation (e.g., if William Herschel observed an object on Dec 31, 1783, then his original position was for that equinox; though his sister Caroline did update all the coordinates to the equinox of 1800 later on), there are cases where the epoch and equinox may not be "standardized"; but other than for such "historical" cases, any catalog you refer to should, as stated above, give positions for the same epoch as the equinox involved.

Interesting

Hi,

the first question (not answered by the text of your question) is, whether the motion of this rotational spherical body is caused and only determined by the action of fluid forces or whether this body motion is prescribed in some way.

If the motion is prescribed or can be described by formula, than the approach could be:

1) no FSI simulation needed

2) for purely the rotational motion it would be sufficient to assign the calculated surface velocity as a boundary condition to the walls of the rotational spherical body.

3) For the additional axial displacement, the body real needs to be displaced with regard to the originally generated mesh and this could be accomplished by mesh morphing (in CFX) or the so-called "moving-deforming mesh" algorithm in Fluent.

In contrary, if the rotational spherical body can freely move in the fluid under the influence of acting hydrodynamic forces, then a description of the body motion is not possible by simple formula. In this case not a FSI, but a 6DOF (6-degree-of-freedom) simulation would be required. The body itself is not deformable, I assume. So its motion can be described as the motion of a rigid body under the influence of the acting hydrodynamical force and moment on its center of mass. Combining 6DOF with moving-deforming mesh would then do the trick.

Only if the body could deform its shape under the influence of acting hydrodynamical forces, then a FSI would be required.

With best regards,

Dr. Th. Frank.

I have found some of the existing solutions so far:

1) Blind Deblurring with a Coupled Adaptive Sparse Prior:

2) Deblurring with no PSF information

@mohammad abdoli,

Thank you for your kind information.

I managed to solve this with the steel bellows of reduced thickness.

Dear Ravindra Singh Bisht,

I suggest you to see links and attached files on topic.

http://www.umb.no/statisk/roboticsandcontrol/publications/2011ASME.pdf

Best regards

I suggest to review below links (I hope to help you get your answer)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjbjf3Pk4DwAhVyu3EKHcCzD2cQwqsBMAF6BAgEEAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DkypswO4RLkk&usg=AOvVaw1PyCFKmylHgy59yLAG459L

very interesting

Many thanks for your replay, actually in the MPM panel I could display injection, it is looking very fine, and I could visualize the location and motion of particle during running the simulation, the problem is how to rely on Fluent Post-Processing the dedicated MPM display functions, could you please suggest me a way how to save animation in MPM for postprocessing?

Best regards!

It depends on what kind of deblurring techniques you use. Conventional deblurring techniques are hard to recover the information that is lost. There are some deep learning-based deblurring techniques that can certainly improve your image quality.

mr Khoder

Better to read the Feynman lectures first. Hasn't been beaten by anyone since its publication over 50 years ago. The bible for physicists

if you can start a stopwatch and include that in the frame of the slomo video you can get a pretty decent approximation of the time.

Good Evening Mr Shahin Sharafi

I am not much aware of Stewart Platform but definitely, I worked with ODE45 optimization tool. I can share my experience here if it's convenient for you.

ODE45 is an inbuilt matlab function to solve nonstiff differential equations to optimize a system where the inputs and outputs are continuous. As an example, we can say a continuous flow reactor is such a system.

For such a system, we can obtain a system of differential equations, and then we can create a custom function containing those equations as a steady model. After that, if we call the "ode45" function, that will show us the steady-state or the simulated values over time as a set of vectors.

Now, how to use it. That's really simple:

function myFunc = ssmodel(t, X)

Fa=1.5;

Fb=0.5;

Fd=2;

Ta=300;

Tb=Ta;

H=10.^6;

c=5000;

h=500;

k=0.2*(1-exp(1-(X(3)/173)));

myFunc = [Fa+Fb-Fd;...

(1 - X(2)) / X(1) * Fa - X(2) / X(1) * Fb - X(2) * k;

(Ta - X(3)) / X(1) * Fa + (Tb - X(3)) / X(1) * Fb + H / (c * X(1)) - h / c * X(2) * k];

end

As you see in myFunc() there are three right-hand sides of the equations.

T0=300;

Ca0=1;

W0=500;

These are the initial conditions and

[t,X] = ode45(@ssmodel, [0 1000], [W0;Ca0;T0]);

That is the function call by ode45. [t, X] contains the W, Ca and T values after simulation [0, 1000] is the simulation time limit. And that's it. Now to plot them you can use : plot(t,X(:,1));

The first vector set which contains W value will be plotted over [0, 1000] seconds timestamp and so on.

I think that information will help you, if not you can write me back, I can try to help you with some advanced information. Good Luck!

Empatica is very expensive for studies that require multipe users

The explanation is given by Kepler laws:

”Kepler's three laws describe how planetary bodies orbit about the Sun. They describe how (1) planets move in elliptical orbits with the Sun as a focus, (2) a planet covers the same area of space in the same amount of time no matter where it is in its orbit, and (3) a planet’s orbital period is proportional to the size of its orbit (its semi-major axis)”.

discovered

Usually a UDF does not need to be pre-compiled.

If the UDF is properly hooked-up in the setup of your case and if the required C-compiler is available in the system and properly setup, then ANSYS Fluent will compile the UDF automatically when the CAS is read into Fluent or if the Fluent simulation is run in batch mode.

Regards,

Dr. Th. Frank.