MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1600993755

Vertical axis wind turbines - are we any better informed?

2014· article· en· W1600993755 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
AJ Robotham

Bibliographic record

VenueAUT Scholarly Commons · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind powerVertical axisEnvironmental scienceGeologyMarine engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringEngineering drawing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the early years of the modern era of the wind turbine, experimental development of vertical axis wind turbines (VAWTs) was underpinned by an incremental improvement of aerodynamic performance prediction methods; the most advanced being the double actuator disk, multiple streamtube theory devised, quite independently, by David Sharpe in the UK and Ion Paraschivoiu in Canada. Commercially, VAWTs were not successful as the 3-bladed, pitch control horizontal axis turbine became the de facto configuration for the industry, and consequently progress in VAWT development stagnated. However, renewed interest in VAWTS has emerged, prompted by the development of small turbines for use in urban environments, e.g. the helical VAWT from quietrevolution. The objective of this paper will be to review recent third party findings and present the author’s own trade studies of the helical VAWT using the double actuator disk, multiple streamtube theory. Furthermore, initial investigations will be presented of a proprietary CFD software tool, which uses a mesh-less approach to fluid dynamics modelling that makes it an attractive option for dynamic/transient flows, moving bodies, and complex body surfaces. The author concludes that the challenges for predicting the aerodynamic performance remain the same but CFD offers substantial new insights into turbine behaviour

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAUT Scholarly CommonsSame topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207