MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124126656 · doi:10.1117/12.857395

Primary mirror dynamic disturbance models for TMT: vibration and wind

2010· article· en· W2124126656 on OpenAlex
Douglas G. MacMynowski, M. M. Colavita, Warren Skidmore, Konstantinos Vogiatzis

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationBritish Columbia Knowledge Development FundJet Propulsion LaboratoryAssociation of Canadian Universities for Research in AstronomyCalifornia Institute of TechnologyGordon and Betty Moore FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDisturbance (geology)Computer scienceVibrationControl theory (sociology)AcousticsPhysicsArtificial intelligenceGeologyControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The principal dynamic disturbances acting on a telescope segmented primary mirror are unsteady wind pressure (turbulence) and narrowband vibration from rotating equipment. Understanding these disturbances is essential for the design of the segment support assembly (SSA), segment actuators, and primary mirror control system (M1CS). The wind disturbance is relatively low frequency, and is partially compensated by M1CS; the response depends on the control bandwidth and the quasi-static stiffness of the actuator and SSA. Equipment vibration is at frequencies higher than the M1CS bandwidth; the response depends on segment damping, and the proximity of segment support resonances to dominant vibration tones. We present here both disturbance models and parametric response. Wind modeling is informed by CFD and based on propagation of a von Karman pressure screen. The vibration model is informed by analysis of accelerometer and adaptive optics data from Keck. This information is extrapolated to TMT and applied to the telescope structural model to understand the response dependence on actuator design parameters in particular. Whether the vibration response or the wind response is larger depends on these design choices; "soft" (e.g. voice-coil) actuators provide better vibration reduction but require high servo bandwidth for wind rejection, while "hard" (e.g. piezo-electric) actuators provide good wind rejection but require damping to avoid excessive vibration transmission to the primary mirror segments. The results for both nominal and worst-case disturbances and design parameters are incorporated into the TMT actuator performance assessment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it