MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210631418 · doi:10.5957/pss-2006-09

Study of Puller Podded Propulsors with Tapered Hub Propellers in Straight Course and Azimuthing Conditions

2006· article· en· W4210631418 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed Islam, Brian Veitch, Neil Bose, Pengfei Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft and Cryogenic Technologies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAzimuthDynamometerPropellerPropulsorThrustTorqueTowingMarine engineeringPropulsionRange (aeronautics)EngineeringAerospace engineeringPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the results of an experimental study on the effects of propeller hub angle and azimuth conditions on the propulsive characteristics of puller podded propulsors in open water conditions. The propulsive performance of two model puller-podded units with different propeller hub geometry was measured using a custom-designed pod dynamometer in a towing tank. The podded units were tested to measure the thrust and torque of the propeller and the forces on the whole unit in three orthogonal directions. The tests were conducted for a range of advance coefficients from 0 to 1.2, combined with the range of static azimuth angles from +20° to -20° with a 10° increment. The dynamometer system consisted of a six-component global dynamometer and a three-component pod dynamometer. The variation in the propulsive pe1formance due to the changes in hub geometry was examined first, followed by a study on the effect of azimuth conditions on the forces and moments on the propulsor. The force and moment measurements are presented as functions of advance coefficient and azimuth angle. The results showed that for the range of azimuth angles tested, the thrust and torque of the propeller and the forces on the whole unit in three orthogonal directions are functions of the azimuth angle for puller propulsors.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpacecraft and Cryogenic TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207