MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091465176 · doi:10.1260/0309-524x.38.2.217

The Flutterwing WindPumps: Design, NonLinearities, & Measurements

2014· article· en· W2091465176 on OpenAlexaff
S. P. Farthing

Bibliographic record

VenueWind Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsRemotely Operated Platform for Ocean Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechanicsAmplitudeControl theory (sociology)Leading edgeStall (fluid mechanics)PhysicsEngineeringOpticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A preceding linear stability analysis showed that the pitch and roll flutter of a wing can stop in high winds. The built-in protection and variable stroke motivated development of a flutterwing windpump, because rotors pumping with a fixed stroke usefully convert only 10% of the Betz limit of the wind's annual power. Here the stroke has to be negligible at small roll not to stiffle the start of flutter in the lightest of winds, but ultimately must increase fast to safely limit the roll amplitude by absorbing all the power of the strongest oscillation. It must be largely single-acting, just as for a piston pump down a deep well, to allow a suddenly-becalmed wing to return to vertical and then restart with a new wind. The more non-linear the pump's stroke, the larger its stiffening side effect. Other non-linearities at large amplitude include the apparent wind, the centrifuging effects of roll speed and the saturation of pitch. Smoke observation of light wind flow at full +/−90° tangent pitch shows remarkable stall delay until at the end of the roll swing the leading edge sheds a massive vortex to completely reverse the wing circulation. Such a wide vortex street maximises the swept area in the actuator limit where tangent blades of constant chord keep the circulation constant between stalls. Runaway of frequency and amplitude with wind speed is avoided by static gravity imbalance replacing some dynamic imbalance and the inertia and softening of a gravity pendulum, both as favoured by large scale and low design wind speed. Also helpful are not too high pitch inertia centrifuging and an aircushion on the output pipeline which reduces the stresses and pipe frictional loss as well as the pump stiffening. Then in moderate winds, the pitch can unsaturate and the wing start to feather at lower reduced frequency, containing the power and especially the downwind bending moment. In higher wind the wing then becomes stable just leaning with the wind veer. The niche is pumping as much as the prairie rotary windpumps of diameter equalling the wing length, but with only 1/2 of the mean wind or 1/8 the mean windpower density, and with much less material. Both floating and well bases and pumps have been developed for the same pendulum, wing, and nonlinear pump winch.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWind EngineeringSame topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207