MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6991287941

Gap effect on performance of podded propulsors in straight and static azimuthing conditions

2007· article· en· W6991287941 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicShip Hydrodynamics and Maneuverability
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPropulsorPropellerThrustTorqueAir gap (plumbing)Range (aeronautics)Transverse plane
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents preliminary results of an experimental study on the effect of gap distance on propulsive characteristics of puller podded propulsors in straight course and static azimuthing open water conditions. The gap distance is the axial distance between the rotating (propeller) and stationary (pod) part of a podded propulsor. The propeller thrust and torque, unit forces and moments in the threecoordinate directions of a podded unit were measured using a custom designed pod dynamometer in puller configurations with varied operating conditions. The model propulsor was tested at the gap distances of 0.3%, 1% and 2% of propeller diameter for a range of advance coefficients combined with the range of static azimuthing angles from +20° to -20° in a 10° increment. The results show that the gap distance does not have significant effect on propeller torque in straight course conditions, but has effects in azimuthing conditions. The propeller thrust and efficiency were influenced by the change of gap distance and the effects were more obvious at high azimuthing angles and high advance coefficient values. The unit thrust and efficiency, transverse and vertical forces, as well as moments in three coordinate directions were not influenced by the gap distance, taking into account the uncertainty in the measurements, both in straight course and azimuthing conditions.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicShip Hydrodynamics and ManeuverabilityFrench-language works237,207