Buckingham PI Theorem proof - Dimensional Analysis

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the search for a clear proof of the Buckingham PI theorem in dimensional analysis. Users express frustration over the lack of detailed explanations in most textbooks, which often overlook the proof's intricacies. A reference to Barenblatt's "Scaling, self similarity, and intermediate asymptotics" is noted as the closest formal proof available. Additionally, Buckingham's original paper is suggested as a primary source for understanding the theorem. Overall, there is a demand for more comprehensive resources on this topic.
Grand
Messages
74
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I am looking for a proof of Buckingham PI theorem in dimensional analysis, but can't really find one anywhere. I saw a proof involving posing the problem as a question in linear algebra, but it was quite unclear.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Most books I have found gloss over the proof and fail to incorporate the relevant details.

The closest I have found to a formal proof (in a book) is in Barenblatt's "Scaling, self similarity, and intermediate asymptotics" chapter 0. Otherwise you'll have to look at Buckingham's original paper, "On physically similar systems; illustrations of the use of dimensional equations".
 

Thread 'Errors and significant figures'

I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
View full post »
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'

Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'

In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
View full post »
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'

Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'

Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
View full post »

Similar threads

Dimensional Analysis: Solving Confusing Steps
Replies
4
Views
1K
How to Use Buckingham's PI-Theorem for Rolling Cylinders?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Deriving Discharge Expression for Broad Crested Weir Model
Replies
1
Views
1K
Dimension Analysis and buckingham pi
Replies
1
Views
1K
Insights Learn the Basics of Dimensional Analysis
Replies
7
Views
3K
Dimensional Analysis for Multi-Layer Flow Equations
Replies
24
Views
2K
Buckingham-Pi for "algorithmic" non-dimensionalization
Replies
2
Views
1K
A Question about proof of Great Picard Theorem
Replies
3
Views
2K
Proving well ordering principle from Peano Axioms
Replies
9
Views
2K
Dimension Analysis Homework: Buckingham Theorem
Replies
4
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top