Experimental Studies in Investigating the Performance of New Ellipse Shape Savonius Wind Turbine with and without Quarter Cylindrical Rotor House
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper aims to investigate the effect of different rotor hub-shaft materials, number of blades and blade materials on New Ellipse Shape Profile (NESP) with and without Quarter Cylindrical Rotor House (QCRH). To achieve a higher Cp, wind tunnel tests with wind speeds ranging from 4 m/s to 10 m/s were performed. In the present study, the rotational speed under the clockwise rotor houses arrangement that was demonstrated under condition monitoring at previous study was experimentally compared with the rotor height of 0.1 m, rotor diameter of 0.44 m, and H/D=0.227. The use of four-bladed NESP-QCRH was found to increase Cp with 0.126 at 5 m/s and a 306.5% higher value than NESP-NO QCRH. The higher wind speed of 10 m/s had no impact on the enhancement of Cp for NESPQCRH when turbulent caused vortice flow that increased the blockage effect between returning blade, advancing blade, and QCRH. Despite this, it was discovered that using a mild steel shaft and rotor hub had a Cp of 0.126 at 5 m/s, a 35.5% advantage over using an aluminum shaft-rotor hub, which had a Cp of 0.093. The four blades with a mild steel hub-shaft (MS-4B-CFRP) has Cp from 14.8 to 36.1% over ALU-4B-CFRP and 128.2% to 260% of Cp over 2 blades rotor of NESP with QCRH. The improvement between 14.8% to 35.5% of Cp proved that the closed center type of modified SWT for NESP-QCRH with MS-4B-CFRP became the best rotor design due to the inertia effect from the extra mass of 720g of mild steel hub-shaft (MS-4B-CFRP) over aluminum type (ALU-4B-CFRP).
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".