Semi-automatic calibration technique using six inertial frames of reference

Author(s):  
Alan Lai ◽  
Daniel A. James ◽  
Jason P. Hayes ◽  
Erol C. Harvey
Entropy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (11) ◽  
pp. 1515
Author(s):  
Robert K. Niven

This study examines the invariance properties of the thermodynamic entropy production in its global (integral), local (differential), bilinear, and macroscopic formulations, including dimensional scaling, invariance to fixed displacements, rotations or reflections of the coordinates, time antisymmetry, Galilean invariance, and Lie point symmetry. The Lie invariance is shown to be the most general, encompassing the other invariances. In a shear-flow system involving fluid flow relative to a solid boundary at steady state, the Galilean invariance property is then shown to preference a unique pair of inertial frames of reference—here termed an entropic pair—respectively moving with the solid or the mean fluid flow. This challenges the Newtonian viewpoint that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent. Furthermore, the existence of a shear flow subsystem with an entropic pair different to that of the surrounding system, or a subsystem with one or more changing entropic pair(s), requires a source of negentropy—a power source scaled by an absolute temperature—to drive the subsystem. Through the analysis of different shear flow subsystems, we present a series of governing principles to describe their entropic pairing properties and sources of negentropy. These are unaffected by Galilean transformations, and so can be understood to “lie above” the Galilean inertial framework of Newtonian mechanics. The analyses provide a new perspective into the field of entropic mechanics, the study of the relative motions of objects with friction.


Author(s):  
David M. Wittman

This chapter develops crucial distinctions between constant‐velocity (also called inertial) frames of reference and accelerating ones. Inertial frames respect Newton’s first law—objects maintain constant velocity unless acted upon by a net force—while accelerating frames violate this law. Therefore, much of our thinking about whether the laws of physics are the same in all frames will really concern *inertial* frames. Newton’s first law gives us a foolproof test for distinguishing accelerating frames from inertial frames; this testworks even if velocitymeasurements are not directly available. We sometimes invent fictitious forces (such as “centrifugal force”) to explain the acceleration of free objects in accelerating frames, but we know how to determine that these are indeed fictitious.We also examine relationships between acceleration, force, andmass (Newton’s second law).We *define*mass as the ratio of force to acceleration, so mass represents a resistance to acceleration, or inertia.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Brent Burns ◽  
Kathryn Daniel ◽  
Manfred Huber ◽  
Gergely Zaruba

2011 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 1347-1356
Author(s):  
Andrew E Chubykalo ◽  
Augusto Espinoza ◽  
B P Kosyakov

Author(s):  
S. Küchemann ◽  
P. Klein ◽  
H. Fouckhardt ◽  
S. Gröber ◽  
J. Kuhn

Author(s):  
Andrew Chubykalo ◽  
Augusto Espinoza ◽  
Victor Kuligin ◽  
Maria Korneva

The paper discusses the problem of equality of Inertial frames of reference IFR. The hypothesis of a physical ether, whose properties do not depend on the choice of an inertial reference frame, is proposed. Based on the concept of the physical ether, it turns out the features of instantaneous action at a distance. It is shown that there is a class of transformations that preserves Maxwell’s equations unchanged. The problem of choosing a transformation is posed. This choice should be based on experimental research.


2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (32) ◽  
pp. 60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe Briere ◽  
Alessio Giardino ◽  
Jebbe Van der Werf

The modeling of bar dynamics is crucial for understanding coastal dynamics and shoreface nourishment evolution. Due to the complexity and variability of the physical processes involved, the formulations developed within the process-based numerical modelling system Delft3D for representing the forcing of the morphodynamic processes (waves, currents, sand transport) contain a high number of calibration parameters. Therefore, the setting up of any Delft3D computation requires a tedious calibration work, usually carried out manually and therefore by definition subjective. The aim of this work is the setting up of an automated and objective calibration procedure for Delft3D morphodynamic computations. A number of calibration parameters have been identified based on a careful sensitivity analysis. The calibration method named DUD (Does not Use Derivatives) is selected and coupled to a alongshore uniform Delft3D model. The validity of the implementation is shown based on synthetic tests (twin experiments). The validation test is carried out using field data collected at Egmond-aan-Zee (The Netherlands). This paper shows that the tool can be successfully used to calibrate Delft3D. However, further research is especially required to understand whether the computed parameters settings only simulate the best morphodynamic evolution of the bars or also describe properly the underlying physical processes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document