Quasiturbine Rotary Engine Stator Confinement Profile Computation and Analysis
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
Among the most frequent questions asked about the Quasiturbine QT are: Why is a central differential needed? And how is the stator confinement profile calculated? These are strategic elements reluctantly discussed by the inventors in the past 20 years. Many are convinced that computing the correct confinement profile of the Quasiturbine rotor is not simple task, and the purpose of this paper is to help understanding the matter and the underling characteristics. Unaware of the real difficulty, some are reporting elementary solution attempts, but missing ways to control their exactitude, they are so far neither reliable, nor precise enough. Quasiturbine confinement profile is discussed in a USA patent, and exact solutions are graphically presented as the Saint-Hilaire skating rink profile (named after the physicist who first made exact calculations) by analogy to well-known sport skating rink. As a first hint, notice that ellipses are not acceptable solutions, which are far from unique due to undetermined nature of the Quasiturbine rotor. Contrary to circular constraints of piston engine and conventional turbine, the asymmetrical multi degrees of freedom concept of the Quasiturbine offers a wide variety of underlying innovative design options, and working characteristics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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