Bibliographic record
Abstract
<strong class="journal-contentHeaderColor">Abstract.</strong> The flow upwind of an energy-extracting horizontal-axis wind turbine expands as it approaches the rotor, and the expansion continues in the vorticity-bearing wake behind the rotor. The upwind expansion has long been known to influence the axial momentum equation through the axial component of the pressure, although the extent of the influence has not been quantified. Starting with the impulse analysis of <span class="cit" id="xref_text.1"><a href="#bib1.bibx12">Limacher and Wood</a> (<a href="#bib1.bibx12">2020</a>)</span>, but making no further use of impulse techniques, we derive its exact expression when the rotor is a circumferentially uniform disc. This expression, which depends on the radial velocity and the axial induction factor, is added to the thrust equation containing the pressure on the back of the disc. Removing the pressure to obtain a practically useful equation shows the axial induction in the far wake is twice the value at the rotor only at high tip speed ratio and only if the relationship between vortex pitch and axial induction in non-expanding flow carries over to the expanding case. At high tip speed ratio, we assume that the expanding wake approaches the Joukowsky model of a hub vortex on the axis of rotation and tip vortices originating from each blade. The additional assumption that the helical tip vortices have constant pitch allows a semi-analytic treatment of their effect on the rotor flow. Expansion modifies the relation between the pitch and induced axial velocity so that the far-wake area and induction are significantly less than twice the values at the rotor. There is a moderate decrease â about 6â% â in the power production, and a similar size error occurs in the familiar axial momentum equation involving the axial velocity.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".