Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div>Three T-Motor rotors with different diameters but otherwise identical relative geometries were tested in fully edgewise flow at different advance ratios and Reynolds numbers. The objective was to verify whether the existing scaling relationships between rotor size and the aerodynamic forces are applicable to small scale rotors that operate at relatively low chord-Reynolds numbers. The rotors were mounted onto a test stand housed inside a closed loop wind-tunnel where the air speed of the tunnel was varied to achieve different advance ratios. The chord-Reynolds umber at 75% of the radius of each blade were matched for ranges from 39,000 to 117,000. The experimental data was also compared to computational results from a blade element momentum theory-based method. The results showed that the existing coefficient based scaling laws can be used to predict the performance parameters for the thrust coefficient, power coefficient, longitudinal force coefficient, side force coefficient and, rolling moment coefficient for the full range of Reynolds numbers tested. Although for the pitching moment coefficient, a coefficient approach became less applicable for chord-Reynolds number of less than 100,000.</div>
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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".