Separated Flow Discrete Vortex Model for Nano-Scale Hovering Flapping Wings
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A simple and robust 2D vortex panel model has been developed that is capable of modeling separated flow of the type encountered by a very small flapping-wing vehicle when hovering. The model is applied to a standard test case that was based on the wing shape and flapping motions of Mentor, a hovering, flapping-wing vehicle. The panel model has attached-flow and separated-flow modes and solutions from both modes are compared to Navier-Stokes solutions. The model solves quickly and initial work suggests the separatedflow model is applicable over a large portion of the problem space, making it well suited to design optimization routines. Nomenclature c = chord f = flapping frequency h = linear plunge displacement of the point about which airfoil pitches H = plunging amplitude (peak value) of the point about which the airfoil pitches k = reduced frequency = πfc/V∞ St = Strouhal number t = time T = period V∞ = freestream velocity Vref = reference velocity Vtip max = maximum airfoil velocity due to plunging ΓLE = nascent leading edge wake vortex strength δ = phase angle (the angle by which pitching lags plunging) ν = kinematic viscosity ρ = fluid density θ = airfoil rotational displacement Θ = airfoil rotational amplitude (peak value)
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it