STUDY ON PROPULSIVE PERFORMANCE OF TWO GEOMETRICALLY SIMILAR PODDED PROPULSORS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the outcome of a research to evaluate the effect of size on the propulsive performance of podded propulsors in cavitating and non-cavitating open water conditions. Two cases are examined, namely: propeller-only case and pod-unit case. In the propeller-only case, a commercial propeller dynamometer is used to measure the thrust and torque of two propellers of different size at the four quadrants of propellers with varied shaft and flow speeds. Also, both propellers are tested at different tunnel pressure to study and compare the behaviour under similar cavitation conditions. In the pod-unit case, two geometrically similar but different sized pod-units are tested using two separate custom-made pod dynamometer systems in two towing tank facilities in straight-ahead and static azimuthing conditions. The study showed that the performance characteristics stabilize at lower Reynolds Number for the smaller propeller than the larger propeller. The propulsive performance of the two propellers was comparable in the four-quadrant experiments. Also, the experiments at the cavitating conditions showed that the cavitation characteristics of the two propellers were consistent at corresponding operating conditions. The experiment results of the two pod-units were also comparable for forces and moments in the three coordinate directions in the straight-ahead and static azimuthing conditions. A brief discussion on the uncertainty assessments for each of the measurements is also presented.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".