Modal Analysis, Metrology, and Error Budgeting of a Precision Motion Stage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a precision motion stage, whose design utilizes a single shaft supported from the bottom by an air bearing and voice coil actuators in complementary double configuration, is evaluated for its dynamic properties, motion accuracy, and potential machining force response, through modal testing, laser interferometric metrology, and spectral analysis, respectively. Modal testing is carried out using two independent methods, which are both based on impact hammer testing. Results are compared with each other and with the predicted natural frequencies based on design calculations. Laser interferometry has been used with varying optics to measure the geometric errors of motion. Laser interferometry results are merged with measured servo errors, estimated thermal errors, and the predicted dynamic response to machining forces, to compile the error budget. Overall accuracy of the stage is calculated as peak-to-valley 5.7 μm with a 2.3 μm non-repeatable part. The accuracy measured is in line with design calculations which incorporated the accuracy grade of the encoder scale and the dimensional tolerances of structural components. The source of the non-repeatable errors remains mostly equivocal, as they fall in the range of random errors of measurement in laser interferometry like alterations of the laser wavelength due to air turbulence.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".