Global vorticity shedding for a vanishing wing
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
Abstract If a moving body were made to vanish within a fluid, its boundary-layer vorticity would be released into the fluid at all locations simultaneously, a phenomenon we call global vorticity shedding. We approximate this process by studying the related problem of rapid vorticity transfer from the boundary layer of a body undergoing a quick change of cross-sectional and surface area. A surface-piercing foil is first towed through water at constant speed, $U$ , and constant angle of attack, then rapidly pulled out of the fluid in the spanwise direction. Viewed within a fixed plane perpendicular to the span, the cross-sectional area of the foil seemingly disappears. The rapid spanwise motion results in the nearly instantaneous shedding of the boundary layer into the surrounding fluid. Particle image velocimetry measurements show that the shed layers quickly transition from free shear layers to form two strong, unequal-strength vortices, formed within non-dimensional time ${t}^{\ensuremath{\ast} } = 0. 03$ , based on the foil chord and forward velocity. These vortices are connected to, and interact with, the foil’s tip vortex through additional streamwise vorticity formed during the rapid pulling of the foil. Numerical simulations show that two strong spanwise vortices form from the shed vorticity of the boundary layer. The three-dimensional effects of the foil removal process are restricted to the tip of the foil. This method of vorticity transfer may be used for quickly introducing circulation to a fluid to provide forcing for biologically inspired flow control.
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 | 0.001 | 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