Testing and Analysis of an Oscillating Hydrofoils Turbine Concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new concept of hydrokinetic turbine using oscillating hydrofoils to extract energy from water currents (tidal or gravitational) is presented, tested and analyzed in the present investigation. Due to its rectangular extraction plane, this technology is particularly well suited for river beds and shallow waters near the coasts. The present turbine is a 2 kW prototype, composed of two rectangular oscillating hydrofoils of aspect ratio 7 in a tandem spatial configuration. The pitching motion of each hydrofoil is coupled to their cyclic heaving motion through four-link mechanisms which effectively yield a one-degree-of-freedom system driving a speed-controlled electric generator. The turbine has been mounted on a custom-made pontoon boat and dragged on a lake at different velocities. Instantaneous extracted power has been measured and cycle-averaged for several water flow velocities and hydrofoil oscillation frequencies. Results are demonstrated to be self-consistent and validate our extensive 2D flow simulation database. The present data show optimal performances of the oscillating hydrofoils concept at a reduced frequency of about 0.12, at which condition the measured power extraction efficiency reaches 40% once the overall losses in the mechanical system are taken into account. Further measurements of power extraction with a single oscillating hydrofoil have also been performed by taking out the downstream hydrofoil of the tandem pair. Those measurements favorably compare, quantitatively, with available 3D CFD predictions. The 40% hydrodynamic efficiency of this first prototype exceeds expectation and reaches levels comparable to the best performances achievable with modern rotor-blades turbines. It thus demonstrates the promising potential of the oscillating hydrofoils technology to efficiently extract power from an incoming water flow.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".