Micro Cavitation Bubbles on the Movement of an Experimental Submarine: Theory and Experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To understand the nature of movement of submarine, micro cavitation bubbles were systematically diffused around the exterior of a test body (tube) fully submerged in a water tank. The primary purpose was to assess the feasibility of applying micro cavitation as a means of depth control for underwater vehicles, mainly but not limited to submarines. Ideally, the results would indicate the use of micro cavitation as a more efficient alternative to underwater vehicle depth control than the conventional ballast tank method. The current approach utilizes the Archimedes' principle of buoyancy to alter the density of the object affected, making it less than, or greater than the density of the surrounding fluid. However, this process is too slow for underwater vehicles to react to sudden obstacles inherent in their environment. Rather than altering its internal density, this experiment aimed to investigate the response that would occur if the density of its environment is manipulated instead. In theory, and in a hydrostatic fluid, diffusing micro air bubbles from the top surface of the submarine would dilute the column of water above it with air cavities, thus lowering the density of the water. The resulting pressure differential would then cause the submarine to gain buoyancy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".