MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986240335 · doi:10.1121/1.4899685

The Fessenden Oscillator: The first sonar transducer

2014· article· en· W1986240335 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomaś R. Howarth, Geoffrey Moss

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectromagnetic coilTransducerAcousticsSubmarineUnderwaterSonarPolarization (electrochemistry)Electrical engineeringTelecommunicationsGeologyComputer scienceMarine engineeringPhysicsEngineeringOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When the RMS Titanic sunk in 1912, there was a call placed forth by ship owners for inventors to offer solutions for ship collision avoidance methods. Canadian born inventor Reginald A. Fessenden answered this call while working at the former Boston Submarine Signal Company with the invention and development of the first modern transducer used in a sonar. The Fessenden oscillator was an edge clamped circular metal with a radiating head facing the water on one side while the interior side had a copper tube attached that moved in and out of a fixed magnetic coil. The coil consisted of a direct-current (DC) winding to provide a magnetic field polarization and an alternating-current (AC) coil winding to induce the current into the copper tube and thus translate the magnetic field polarization to the radiating plate with vibrations that translated from the radiating head to the water medium. The prototype and early model versions operated at 540 Hz. Later developments included adaptation of this same transducer for use in underwater communications, obstacle avoidance with WW I retrofits onto British submarines for both transmitting and receiving applications including mine detection. This presentation will discuss design details including a modern numerical modelling effort.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication SystemsFrench-language works237,207