Pressure potential and stability analysis in an acoustical noncontact transportation
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
Near field acoustic traveling wave is one of the most popular principles in noncontact manipulations and transportations. The stability behavior is a key factor in the industrial applications of acoustical noncontact transportation. We present here an in-depth analysis of the transportation stability of a planar object levitated in near field acoustic traveling waves. To more accurately describe the pressure distributions on the radiation surface, a 3D nonlinear traveling wave model is presented. A closed form solution is derived based on the pressure potential to quantitatively calculate the restoring forces and moments under small disturbances. The physical explanations of the effects of fluid inertia and the effects of non-uniform pressure distributions are provided in detail. It is found that a vibration rail with tapered cross section provides more stable transportation than a rail with rectangular cross section. The present study sheds light on the issue of quantitative evaluation of stability in acoustic traveling waves and proposes three main factors that influence the stability: (a) vibration shape, (b) pressure distribution and (c) restoring force/moment. It helps to provide a better understanding of the physics behind the near field acoustic transportation and provide useful design and optimization tools for industrial applications.
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