MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588130233 · doi:10.1119/1.4973374

New angles on the reverse sprinkler: Reconciling theory and experiment

2017· article· en· W2588130233 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Beals

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsRotation (mathematics)Classical mechanicsMechanicsFictitious forceAsymmetryVortexMechanism (biology)Inertial frame of referenceFlow (mathematics)Moment (physics)Work (physics)GeometryQuantum mechanicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reverse sprinkler problem popularized in Richard Feynman's memoirs has long been a source of interest and controversy. Numerous theoretical and experimental studies have illuminated many important facets of the problem, yet disparities persist between theory and experiment. This work considers, for the first time, the spatial distribution of inertial and pressure forces on the sprinkler arms. Differences in the regions over which internal and external forces act constitute a force-couple with different moment arms consistent with reverse rotation. Two novel sprinkler forms are presented, in principle capable of forward-only and reverse-only rotation, to elucidate specific features of this concept. It is also seen that the resulting flow-field asymmetry developed downstream from the sprinkler-arm bends supports the role of vortices in reverse sprinkler rotation by suggesting a mechanism for generating vortices in a consistent direction. The experimental challenges of isolating specific forces in light of both non-conservative forces and the influence of device design are also discussed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PhysicsSame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207