A A discord in analysis of a closed vs. open system model

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the complexities of analyzing the kinetics of rotating flexible bodies, particularly turbine rotors in bearings, under the influence of gravity and eccentric masses. The author emphasizes the inadequacy of closed system models in accurately representing the dynamics of these systems, advocating for an open system approach that accounts for continuous power input. They highlight the ongoing debate between different balancing methods for eccentric rotors, specifically the N+2 method, and the lack of clear explanations in existing literature regarding phase lag and its implications. The author argues that current mathematical models oversimplify real-world phenomena, which hinders effective diagnosis of rotor behavior. Feedback on their findings and proposed explanations is sought to further the discussion.
Zlatan Racic
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Is there anywhere in physics textbooks , or anywhere else, a section on KINETICS OF ROTATING FLEXIBLE, CONSTRAINED BODY BY GRAVITY ( TURBINE ROTOR IN BEARINGS), NON-INVARIANT (Time -translation invariance by Noether’s theorem), WITH ECCENTRIC MASSES, TORQUE DRIVEN AT NON-CENTROIDAL AXIS, treating the system model as an OPEN SYSTEM, (Systems Model Theory by Bertanlaffy), using the inertial mechanics theory?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
looks like pseudoscience
 
Here is a more detailed post from another thread:
Zlatan Racic said:
I am so glad that I stumbled across this forum. I am dealing with rotordynamics and balancing of large turbines and generators in power plants for over forty years. Last five years I am working hard to resolve the long outstanding quarrel between Bishop and Kellenberger of whether for a proper balancing of eccentric rotors it is necessary to consider "rigid modes" and resolve developed forces in bearings first, in a rotor speed range below the first system "critical", with so called N+2 planes, or not. As a proponent of N+2 methods I have developed an advanced 2N+1 balancing method, but, although I found in literature ample of similar methods, no one so far had explained why that method is more successful, specially when rotors with significant eccentricities are involved. I am finding out that the culprit is in simplified mathematical explanation of some true physical events, and which also exclude some of of those events, which occur in real life on real life flexible rotor constrained in bearings.

The problem with properly interpreting the "phase lag" observed and measured with non-contact sensors, is the result of developed equations of motions based on rotors modeling as a closed systems. A true presentation of physics events of rotating flexible bowed or eccentric rotor can only be done by considering a rotor -bearings system as an open system model, with continuous power input. This does not claim that mathematical approach is wrong, because it derives the solutions applicable in design of rotors and rotating machines, and is valid for rotors with minimum allowable eccentricities, but it acts as a handicap when diagnosing root causes of rotors responses in real life.

How a phase angle is created between reactive centrifugal force developed from torque input "spin" in a "rigid" body mode of the rotor, and elastic deflection (reaction force of rotor "spring") as a "precession in space" of the rotor constrained in bearings, is nowhere explained in literature. I have attempted to explain just that in my paper "Behavior of eccentric rotor passing through the critical speed". I would be grateful to get some feedback on the topic.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top