Optical interferometry implementation considerations for sinusoidal low frequency accelerometer measurements and calibrations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vibration metrology utilizing sine excitation stimulus, based either on fringe counting or minimum point methods, employs Michelson interferometers for the calibration of accelerometers. The former method combines the optical reference and measurements arms from a static mirror and reflected by the accelerometer respectively which are then directed to a suitable photodiode for processing. The stroking motion due to the oscillation of the accelerometer will contribute to the misalignment of the two optical paths and there are three methods to compensate for this. The first requires the mounting of a mirror on the accelerometer itself and the effect of the added mass from the mirror can be accounted for and corrected. The second requires the mounting of three mirrors on the mounting surface of the accelerometer but this requires the alignment of the Michelson interferometer for each mirror. The third is to use two retro reflectors so that the returning measurement beams are always along the same path with the reference; however, this requires the alignment of the interferometer for each retro-reflector. This paper will discuss such considerations on the optical systems, their components and associated instrumentation and discuss the design of an alternative approach that can overcome certain limitations.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".