Non-Stokesian dynamics of magnetic helical nanoswimmers under confinement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electromagnetically propelled helical nanoswimmers offer great potential for nanorobotic applications. Here, the effect of confinement on their propulsion is characterized using lattice-Boltzmann simulations. Two principal mechanisms give rise to their forward motion under confinement: (i) pure swimming and (ii) the thrust created by the differential pressure due to confinement. Under strong confinement, they face greater rotational drag but display a faster propulsion for fixed driving frequency in agreement with experimental findings. This is due to the increased differential pressure created by the boundary walls when they are sufficiently close to each other and the particle. We have proposed two analytical relations (i) for predicting the swimming speed of an unconfined particle as a function of its angular speed and geometrical properties, and (ii) an empirical expression to accurately predict the propulsion speed of a confined swimmer as a function of the degree of confinement and its unconfined swimming speed. At low driving frequencies and degrees of confinement, the systems retain the expected linear behavior consistent with the predictions of the Stokes equation. However, as the driving frequency and/or the degree of confinement increase, their impact on propulsion leads to increasing deviations from the Stokesian regime and emergence of nonlinear behavior.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".