Study of podded propulsors with varied bub angle and configurations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an experimental study on the effects of tapered hub on the propulsive characteristics of puller and pusher podded propulsors in straight course and static azimuthing conditions while operating in open water. The propulsive performance of two model pod units having the same pod-strut shape and propeller blade geometry with different hub shapes were measured using a custom designed pod dynamometer. The dynamometer system consisted of a six-component global dynamometer and a three-component pod dynamometer. The measurements consisted of the forces and moments of the units in the three co-ordinate directions and thrust and torque of the propellers for a range of advance coefficients from 0 to 1.2 combined with the range of static azimuthing angles from +30° to –30° in 15° increments in pusher and puller configurations. The variations in the propulsive performance due to the change in hub geometry in straight ahead conditions were examined first, followed by a study on the effects in different static azimuthing angles. Comparison of the results of the two pod units illustrated that in both pusher and puller configurations, the effect of hub taper angle is more significant at lower advance coefficients while the effects increased with increasing azimuthing angle.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".