Talk:Absement

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Hydraulophone

As hydraulophone has no actual keys, there seems to be no component, whose displacement controls the rate of change of anything. The volume is claimed to be proportional to absement – but absement of what? After watching File:UneJeunePucelle par hydraulophone.ogg, my impression is that the hydraulophone behaves more or less like an ordinary organ. Therefore I propose to remove the mention of hydraulophone altogether. Petr Matas 19:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Absement is with respect to the finger on the water jet, or whatever is blocking the water jet. The paper on hydraulophones makes the first published reference to absement. So hydraulophones are the original reason for formulation of concepts of absement. Absement arises from flow of fluids in hydraulophones or other fluid systems. Glogger (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

But AFAIK, we have no secondary sources on this, as in Mann 2006 the author describes his own invention. Furthermore, the response of the hydraulophone is quite non-linear: Let us denote by $x$ the distance of the finger from the jet outlet. The absement of the finger is $\textstyle A=\int (x-x_{0})\,\mathrm {d} t$. However, the integrating hydraulophone's response is something like $\textstyle B=\int (f(x)-g(B))\,\mathrm {d} t$, where $f(x)$ is a non-linear function of $x$ and $g(B)$ is a feedback, which (among others) keeps the response within limits. I think we could approximate $f(x)$ as

$f(x)\approx {ab \over x+b}+c,$

with the constants

$a=f(0)-f(\infty )$ is the increase upon complete blocking of the jet,

$b$ is the distance $x$ at which the increase is $a/2$, i.e. $f(0)-f(b)=f(b)-f(\infty )=a/2,$

$c=f(\infty )$ is the (presumably negative) value for a completely free jet.

It is obvious that absement $A$ is a poor approximation of the response $B$, so saying that the hydraulophone responds to absement is misleading. The quantity $\textstyle \int x^{-1}\,\mathrm {d} t$ called "presement" in the paper is a bit better approximation, but this article is not about that quantity. In fact, the hydraulophone integrates some complicated signal, which depends on the position and the hydraulophone's state; it has little to do with the absement. Petr Matas 19:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Meter second

The units of absement are meter seconds. These are also the units of a temporal plane in spacetime. In fact, the Lorentz transformations of spacetime are those that preserve this unit. Another context is viscosity, where the unit poise is used having kilograms/ meter second. So the units of absement are prominent in kinematics and mechanics, but the term absement is scarce. This article seems promotional for a musical instrument and for a Harvard undergraduate. — Rgdboer (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Dimensional analysis is the context for contemplating units in physics. Percy Bridgman contributed his book on the topic in 1931 and could have addressed absement. In 1962 he contributed A Sophisticate's Primer of Relativity. Bridgman might have noted that the spacetime unit absement occurs as an invariant. See Talk:Percy Williams Bridgman#Force for some development of the fused unit. In fact, force x density = viscosity squared. — Rgdboer (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

rotational counterpart

Sorry for that slightly off-topic question, but does the rotational counterpart of absement (time integral of angle, unit rad*s) also have a serious physical meaning? And does it have a name? --130.83.182.66 (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

These portmanteaux don't make much sense, but shouldn't the absence of angle be called absangle instead of anglement? "anglement" feels like a trivial mistake made by pseudo-scientists that's gonna be amplified by Wikipedia. Doub (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't decide what terms should be used. We just report the terms that are being used "in the wild". If there aren't adequate sources to decide what terminology is correct, then the topic is probably not notable enough for us to cover it.--Srleffler (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

dozer

The ideal model of the discussed experiment assumes that the first falling snowflakes (constant vertical precipitation velocity, constant density) touch the ground at the moment of starting the measurement of the dozer movement (horizontal, uniform rectilinear motion).

Which dozer, under the same conditions, will pick up more snow; the one who traveled 40m in 30s, or the one who traveled 50m in 20s?

The entire experience (with two dozers) repeated at a other snowfall speed will not change which of them will sweep more snow.

Imagine a right triangle against the falling snow. The triangle moves vertically down with the snow. One cathetus is the distance s, the other cathetus - height is proportional to the time t. The movement of the point of intersection of the hypotenuse with the ground line is the movement of the dozer. The precipitation pushing capacity x=st/2 could be a physical quantity, the measurement unit of which would be a meter-second. Mar3435 (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Higher integrals notability

I am not an expert, but I feel the notability of higher integrals such as "absut" may be questionable. A search online finds essentially no results for "absut integral kinematics". If only one paper (Janzen et al 2014) uses these terms, can they really be said to be commonly accepted vocabulary? Additional citations would be helpful. StereoFolic (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the topic is not notable. One ref, not well cited. Mainly a target for silly edits. I will cut this to a sentence. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Image appears to be an exact copy.

The file MotionIntegralsDerivativesAbsementActergy.svg appears to be a copy from

• R. Janzen and S. Mann, "Actergy as a reflex performance metric: Integral-kinematics applications," 2014 IEEE Games Media Entertainment, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2014, pp. 1-2, doi: 10.1109/GEM.2014.7048123.

Johnjbarton (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

deletion

The article needs to be deleted.

reason for deletion: Distance can not be integrated. 94.31.85.138 (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the article could be deleted, but not for that reason. Distance can indeed be integrated, and the quantity here called "absement" is useful in many classes of problem. But the terminology introduced here is non-standard, and includes (especially in the Janzen paper) alternate terms that already have well-established standard forms -- for example Janzen's "Actergy" is just the physical action (time-integral of energy). An un-refereed IEEE proceedings paper is not an authoritative source. Zowie (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)