MHB Solving Geometry Problem in Sediment Bed Research

  • Thread starter Thread starter Twan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geometry
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a master's project focused on measuring sediment bed changes under oscillating fluid flow using a pattern matching technique. The researcher employs a beamer and camera setup to analyze projected patterns on a sediment layer, aiming to reconstruct the sediment profile based on changes in dot coordinates. A challenge arises due to a small offset in calculated bed profiles caused by varying projection angles. The researcher seeks an analytical solution for the relationship between sediment height and the difference in projection positions, but struggles with the complexity of the equations involved. Clarification and more specific questions are requested to facilitate assistance from the forum community.
Twan
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
View attachment 8174View attachment 8175

Hi, this is my first post with a problem that I have during my Msc Project.

I will briefly discuss my project and the reason why I would like to solve this problem, if you do not want to read this part you can skip it.

I am doing experimental research on the scaled laboratory setup where I measure the changes in bottom profiles of a sediment layer under a oscillating fluid flow. Via a pattern matching technique I am able to reconstruct the bottom profile (morphodynamics) of the sediment bed.
The working principle is a beamer that projects a set of projections where white dots are being projected on top op the sediment layer ( trough the water surface ( so refraction will also be part of this problem )). The beamer is positioned under an angle and projects the pattern within my region of interest. Above this region there is a camera that makes pictures of the patterns projected by the beamer.
If the sediment profile in my region of interest changes in height, the projected image will gets distorted. The changes within the projected patterns are then used to reconstruct the ''real'' vertical change in the sediment layer.
- i have 15 pattern images ( within each pattern there are 200 white dots )
- first the 15 patterns are projected on the horizontal surface
- pictures of these patterns are taken and analysed ( i save the (x,y) coordinates of all the 200 dots for each image )
- adding a bit of sediment on the horizontal plate will result in some changes of the x coordinate of some dots
(only the x coordinate varies because the beamer is positioned in line with the x-axis)
- these changes in x coordinate * factor = vertical change.
The factor can be calculated via a calibration where a inclined plane is used, and patterns are projected. Knowing the slope of the plane it is possible to determine the factor.
Every thing is done while water is present.

While analyzing the data I found out that my calculated bed profiles have a small offset ( slope ). This is due to the fact that the projection angle varies throughout my region of interest. ---------------------------
The problem

Is there an analytical solution the the following problem:
I want to have h=h(x,H,deltax) where h is the height of my sediment layer
H is the water level (constant) and deltax is the difference between position of the projection without sediment & with sediment.
See the image to get an overview of the problem.

So far I have tried several things but I am not able to solve it by hand. (including dummie variables etc)
Maybe someone else can help me by addressing some steps/hints/...

Thanks in advance

Twan
 

Attachments

  • Question 2.jpeg
    Question 2.jpeg
    53.2 KB · Views: 129
  • Question 1.jpeg
    Question 1.jpeg
    75.9 KB · Views: 124
Mathematics news on Phys.org
1) I do not have enough equations to solve for the current number of unknowns.
2) Is there a better ( analytical ) formula for theta i.f.o. x.
 
Hi Twan, welcome to MHB!

To be honest, I'm too lazy too carefully read your post, or to try and understand your problem from the background text, or to try to read a picture that is sideways to begin with.
As no one else has tried to help you yet, I suspect that others may feel the same way.
Can you perhaps break it down a bit, clear if up a bit, or otherwise ask a question that is a bit more specific?
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top