Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Misalignment - Flexible Coupling - Wrong Definition of a Variable #1130

Open
murilloabs opened this issue Nov 28, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Misalignment - Flexible Coupling - Wrong Definition of a Variable #1130

murilloabs opened this issue Nov 28, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request stale Issues with no activity for a long period

Comments

@murilloabs
Copy link

In misalignment.py, the variable 'fib' is incorrectly defined according to the reference paper.

We must swap the coordinate system using the Y and X axes to implement these calculations of Xia (2019), the reference adopted, on ROSS. So the representation becomes Z {Xia (2019)} = X {ROSS} and Y {Xia (2019)} = Y {ROSS}. This modification was done correctly in other parts of the code. However, I have found a mistake in the 'beta' definition.

According to Xia (2019), the tangent of 'beta' is defined as the fraction between the parallel misalignment in the Z and Y axes. So In ROSS 'beta' should be the arctan(Xmisalignment / Ymisalignment), which has not occurred. It was defined wrongly as arctan(Ymisalignment / Xmisalignment).

The pictures below show the 'beta' definition on the paper and the one presented in ROSS.

Definition in Xia(2019):
image

Definition of ROSS:
WhatsApp Image 2024-11-26 at 16 19 38
image

It's important to ensure that the other variables are correctly defined according to the reference paper and the changes needed.

@ViniciusTxc3 ViniciusTxc3 added bug Something isn't working enhancement New feature or request and removed bug Something isn't working labels Dec 2, 2024
@ViniciusTxc3
Copy link
Collaborator

Thank you for your explanation and contribution to improving the repository.
I'll make this correction and this update will be available soon.

@ross-bott
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi there!
I have marked this issue as stale because it has not had activity for 45 days.
Consider the following options:

  • If the issue refers to a large task, break it in smaller issues that can be solved in
    less than 45 days;
  • Label the issue as wontfix or wontfix for now and close it.

@ross-bott ross-bott added the stale Issues with no activity for a long period label Jan 18, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request stale Issues with no activity for a long period
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants