Dynamics of Mechanical Systems and the Generalized Free-Body Diagram—Part I: General Formulation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we generalize the idea of the free-body diagram for analytical mechanics for representations of mechanical systems in configuration space. The configuration space is characterized locally by an Euclidean tangent space. A key element in this work relies on the relaxation of constraint conditions. A new set of steps is proposed to treat constrained systems. According to this, the analysis should be broken down to two levels: (1) the specification of a transformation via the relaxation of the constraints; this defines a subspace, the space of constrained motion; and (2) specification of conditions on the motion in the space of constrained motion. The formulation and analysis associated with the first step can be seen as the generalization of the idea of the free-body diagram. This formulation is worked out in detail in this paper. The complement of the space of constrained motion is the space of admissible motion. The parametrization of this second subspace is generally the task of the analyst. If the two subspaces are orthogonal then useful decoupling can be achieved in the dynamics formulation. Conditions are developed for this orthogonality. Based on this, the dynamic equations are developed for constrained and admissible motions. These are the dynamic equilibrium equations associated with the generalized free-body diagram. They are valid for a broad range of constrained systems, which can include, for example, bilaterally constrained systems, redundantly constrained systems, unilaterally constrained systems, and nonideal constraint realization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it