I have a problem. Measurements show the opposite of what convention assumes.
I test soil specimens. We try to decode how much deformation a certain loading (force) sequence will generate.
After 6 years of testing, I noticed reaction force behaves as a function of deformation. Not the way convention tries to describe it.
It's a big problem. All software is designed to midel deformation as a function of force applied. But in reality, the stiffness hysteresis loops behave such, that force (reaction) is a function of deformation.
The observations, empirical evidence, pointed to an abandoned theory from 40 years ago (strain space plasticity, by P. J. Yoder). His theory seems to be not only compatible with the observed physical properties, but also GPU - parallel computation compatible.
So, we have something that is both:
1. Potentially more physically cotrect
2. For the first time - super computer compatible.
I am stuck building robots for industrial projects. Which are meant to provide "quick profit" to faculty. Research is not financed. All observations were made in spare time. At times - using life savings...
When experts are shown the test results, they become red in the face, angry, and say "have not seen anything like it". After an hour of questions - vannot find any flaws in the testing machines. And.. Leave. Never to hear from again.
The theory of P. J. Yoder was defended in public defenses multiple times in the 80's. No one found flaws in it. Did not prove it wrong. But... Forgot, ignored and abandoned.
Industry asks for code compatible with existing software (return of investment)... And I alone can not code a full software package. Frankly, I would rather keep testing, try to prove my assumptions wrong. But the more I test, the mote anomalies and paradoxes are observed, exposed and resolved on the topic..
Is
Science moves forward and updates itself occasionally as understanding grows but folks are comfortable in what they know and often won't change thinking even in the light of a better theory.
I don't know much about soil testing but have done a bit of software in my time. If you have a better way of performing calculation of your area of science then go ahead and show it to the world. How's about using the traditional experimental form of a blind trial ? Code the calculation both ways and give to a colleague to test between methods X & Y without knowing which is which. He then gets to test the calculation against observations and choose the better method.
Write a journal paper and submit results.
Code a module for an existing package ( if one exists ) and sell it.
Try to go public. Write a paper, it would be great to make a freely available preprint here on RG. Explain there everything from the first principles. Provide all necessary software openly. When you are right, the truth will be found by some other people.
Share your observations on conferences that have links on industry. There might be a company that is desperately searching for your solution.
In your efforts, avoid specialized terminology. Try to be as clear as possible and use common terms to explain the core of your observations and discovery. Sooner or later someone who is having a related problem, without being aware of terminology, will find your solution.
It might be that you can disrupt many carriers by your observations. The inertia of research is caused by avoiding people to learn new things, preferring to keep to charted areas, grants & positions protection, etc.
A simple software program, Python is OK, that demonstrates your new theory would be the best to promote your idea. Just make the core engine and do not care about fancy stuff around input, output, etc.
Test your software against known calibrating data.
After a fast check of your research. Do you know the sand-pile model and Per Back's self-organized criticality? He wrote a book about it.
It seems to be close to your own research. My first research project was on dynamic recrystallization. It happened that I explained the non-linearity of stress-strain curves by a very primitive program theoretically (see my PhD and open software that was rewritten into C++ and Qt by Jakub) for the first time. The reaction of my colleagues was a total refusal. Now, it became the standard.
Research gate is weird.. .what kind of "discussion" is this, if I can't reply to comments directly? It's like some Reddit post, at best..
We just had a huge meeting of geotechnicians at the faculty. All the "teachers", teaching 250 year old theories, complaining about how "stupid" their students are for raising questions regarding "Coulomb circles". Those "teachers"... I just want to punch them. Also some heads of "top" universities, expressing joy at failed projects in "competition" - where the failures were caused by industrial "partners" refusing to spend time testing, and using blind theoretical assumptions - simplified "buckling" analytics losing hundreds of millions of euros in the process. Retarded degenerate idiots (excuse my language. I just don't feel sorry).
I've seen a guy who shows simulations where the friction angle (strength parameter) converges to 1/2 of the original during cyclic loading. This has never been observed empirically. And then, he applies the standard 2x safety (another 1/2) coefficient on top of his cyclic load simulations. And man is he successful. Became a leader of a department in a big company, apparently. Never touched not a single real specimen. But a super rich expert. The papers showing the "sea floor will liquefy due to waves"... hallucinations... theoretical absurdities - published, and praised.
Regardless... I do love to talk with studens. God bless them. They go to the lab, and start complaining: "wtf! The soil does not behave the way as was taught!!!"... god bless them. Gives me hope these young people. They laugh at the absurdity of publications, "publish or parish", after reading the papers: Oxford... year 1 - testing a stick of 2m long... year 5 testing - a stick 8m long... year 10 - testing a stick 16m long... same load, same soil each time. Nothing new ever. Each time a lot of papers - same loads, same soil, same result. And shit tones of money, financing, royal titles... it's kind of funny. And sad. At the same time.
It's almost like if you survive in this absurd context - you're a bad person, done something bad. Scratched someone's back. Complimented - instead of asking for testing. Hiding data... I just don't get it. How can a student observe the absurdity, the short comings of theory - in first day, but "an expert" doesn't?
So many people talking about vacations, flexible working hours, comfort... God bless these students who have IQ and virtue. They teach me much more than I do. Empirically. Showing me things I had never seen - using my robots. It is amazing. God bless those young people (I had a beer between presentations).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics