The anisosphere as a new tool for interpreting Foucault pendulum experiments. Part I: harmonic oscillators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an attempt to explain the tendency of Foucault pendula to develop elliptical orbits, Kamerlingh Onnes derived equations of motion that suggest the use of great circles on a spherical surface as a graphical illustration for an anisotropic bi-dimensional harmonic oscillator, although he did not himself exploit the idea any further. The concept of anisosphere is introduced in this work as a new means of interpreting pendulum motion. It can be generalized to the case of any two-dimensional (2-D) oscillating system, linear or nonlinear, including the case where coupling between the 2 degrees of freedom is present. Earlier pendulum experiments in the literature are revisited and reanalyzed as a test for the anisosphere approach. While that graphical method can be applied to strongly nonlinear cases with great simplicity, this part I is illustrated through a revisit of Kamerlingh Onnes’ dissertation, where a high performance pendulum skillfully emulates a 2-D harmonic oscillator. Anisotropy due to damping is also described. A novel experiment strategy based on the anisosphere approach is proposed. Finally, recent original results with a long pendulum using an electronic recording alidade are presented. A gain in precision over traditional methods by 2–3 orders of magnitude is achieved.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".