Microgravity/microscale double-helical fluid containment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Double-helical containment is a novel approach to open containment in microgravity (or at microscale). In contrast to axisymmetric containers, there is no length restriction on properly designed double-helical containers. Use of a double helix permits drainage to zero volume, an uncommon feature in microgravity; near-complete drainage is a key feature for any practically useful container. The fact that double-helical containers are open and tubular makes possible a broad range of applications that rely on accessible fluids. The double-helical fluid containment and the stability of such volumes are examined in detail. Helical supports permit filamentary containers of infinite extent, but only double-helical containers are stable down to zero volume. The base case of symmetric supports (separation angle 180°) is considered in terms of symmetric volumes as well as asymmetric helicatenoid volumes. The distinct symmetric and asymmetric cases are then related by perturbing the angle of separation between the supports. The helicatenoid volumes may combine to form a dual helicatenoid volume. The dual helicatenoid is interesting in that it permits multiphase tube-like geometries. Double-helical behaviours such as drainability are found to vanish at a critical separation angle 246.48°. With larger separation angles, double-helical containers behave like single-helical containers (360°), due to the dominance of the longer-span interface. A second shift in behaviour occurs at the limit angle 209.12°, where the regions of stability including the cylinder and the helicatenoids become more connected. The common structures of DNA appear to coincide with the limiting geometry at 209.12°. The most robust double-helical containers are therefore those with separation angles between approximately 210° and 240°. Experimental results roughly verify the volume maximum for near-symmetry, and more importantly verify stability to zero volume.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".