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
The contra-torquing Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine (HAWT) is optimised. The two rotor actuator discs are sheets of equal and opposite bound vorticity which induce a swirl crosswind flow between them, halved at the discs and nil outside them. The optimal circulation is constant radially and the power is the Betz limit. Aft at blade speed of 1/3 windspeeed, the optimum apparent wind is straight ahead; the axial velocity change and thrust both reverse; and the product of lift coefficient by solidity is 2. If this aft value is realistically held at 2 for lower speed ratios, then the product climbs to 2 for the front rotor which becomes identical to the optimum single HAWT at zero speed ratio, where the contra combination has 3.56 times the starting torque and zero net thrust. The design lift coefficients that robustly maintain the optimum as the windspeed varies slightly are given for a typical stalling blade section for the single HAWT, as well as the greater ones for the aft contra rotor and smaller for the fore rotor above the 1/3 speed ratio of reversing aft thrust. But the apparent wind difference dominates to make the aft robust design pitch considerably greater than the fore (and single) towards the 1/3 ratio. A contra-torquing stator is shown to best follow a rotor.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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