Magnetic interference testing method for an electric fixed-wing unmanned aircraft system (UAS)
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
One of the barriers preventing unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) from having a larger presence in the geophysical magnetic surveying industry is the magnetic interference generated by the UAS and its impact on the quality of the recorded data. Detailed characterization of interference effects is therefore needed before remedial solutions can be proposed. A method for characterizing magnetic interference is demonstrated for a 21 kg, 3.7 m wingspan, 6 kW electric fixed-wing UAS purposely built for magnetic surveying. It involves mapping the spatial variations of the total magnetic intensity resulting from the interference sources on the UAS. Dynamic tests showed that the motor should be engaged and the aircraft control surfaces levelled prior to mapping. Experimental results reveal that the two strongest sources of magnetic interference are the cables connecting the motor to the batteries, and the servos. Combining three factors to assess the level of magnetic interference — the total magnetic intensity, 4th difference and vertical magnetic gradient — an index overlay shows that the magnetic sensor(s) should be located at least 50 cm away from the wingtips or tail to ensure an interference level of <2 nT, a 4th difference of <0.05 nT, and a gradient of <10 nT/m.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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