DynamisLab/docs/JFM_WYQ/ROUND4_TOP_DOWN/SECTION_09_EXPERIMENT.md

Section 9 — Qualitative open-loop experiment

Status, authorship and scope

Status: author-interface; R5 permits explicit author-field placeholder TeX only. This is not agent-authored manuscript prose, not a promoted experimental result, and not a section freeze. Author: Frank owns the substantive account, especially apparatus design, trial observations and final wording. Provisional reader title: Qualitative open-loop experiment. Placement: short main-text subsection near the end, following Section 8 and before the conclusion.

Purpose and evidence ceiling. Reserve a compact interface for physical deployment and selected qualitative morphology observations. The present author-described materials are one apparatus schematic, one steady single-frame experimental/CFD pair, and several Illusion single-frame experimental/CFD pairs. Until exact files, trial identities, conditions, processing and permissions are supplied and audited, all remain author-supply/provenance-gated. A retained single frame may support only a named visible morphology observation. It cannot establish shedding frequency or any other temporal change, velocity, PIV, force, field matching, CFD validation, registration, quantitative agreement, robustness or repeatability. No experiment equation or quantitative results table is warranted.

Section 8 exports only a boundary: synchronized quantitative experiment would be needed to cross the CFD evidence boundary. This section cannot repair the mechanism, closure or validation limits stated there.

Frank's author slots

Supply only recoverable facts; mark unavailable fields explicitly rather than estimating them.

• Apparatus design: [AUTHOR: functional schematic narrative; why the isolated test section, carriage, actuation and imaging path were designed this way].
• Facility and geometry: [facility/test-section dimensions and boundaries; water state/preparation; cylinder diameter, spacing, span, blockage and coordinates; carriage travel and towing direction/speed; experiment-specific Re_D definition if supported].
• Open-loop execution: [software entry point actually used; command source; action units, body order/sign, physical conversion, ramp/start/stop timing; commanded versus measured motion; what was synchronized].
• Trial/case identities: [steady reference/controlled trial IDs; selected Illusion trial IDs and named conditions; dates/setup version; repeat count; exclusion and frame-selection rule].
• Image provenance and observations: [raw filename/hash, camera/view, scale, exposure, frame index/time, dye injection, crop/enhancement, permission; one exact morphology-only sentence per retained pair].
• Known limits/confounds: [background/blank state, settling and repeat information; any calibration or synchronization absent]. Keep the full hardware/calibration inventory supplementary unless it changes how a shown image must be read.

Two–three paragraph job scaffold — Frank to write

1. Purpose, apparatus and execution boundary. [In one paragraph, state why physical deployment is included; describe the apparatus by evidentiary function—facility/carriage, rotating pinball, command path and image acquisition—and identify open-loop execution. Do not turn this into a construction diary or import CFD performance values.]
2. Selected named morphology observations. [For the steady pair and only the selected Illusion pair(s), identify condition, trial, frame and processing before describing visible streakline/wake morphology. Keep experimental and CFD views as corresponding named-condition images, not registered pairs. Do not state or imply that shedding frequency changed: a single frame contains no temporal estimator.]
3. Immediate ceiling and next test. [State that these are qualitative open-loop, single-frame observations. Name the synchronized, calibrated, repeated force/PIV or declared image-sequence estimator needed for quantitative or temporal claims, then bridge to the short conclusion.]

Paragraphs 1 and 3 may be compressed around one observation paragraph. No invented connective prose is supplied here.

Exact user-home CelerisLab inventory

Inspection was read-only; no CFD, hardware, rendering or data generation was executed.

Exact path	What exists / actual capability	What it can inform	What it cannot establish
/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/README.md	Python CUDA-LBM API with runtime sim.set_body(..., omega=...), action upload on sim.run(...), and force/torque/sensor readback.	Generic CFD control-loop and body-action software path.	The physical apparatus execution path, a Raspberry Pi/motor deployment, or acquired/calibrated experiment telemetry.
/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/tests/postproc/experiment.ipynb	Executed CFD notebook containing experiment-coordinate action sign conversion, three-body action ordering, analytic action generation, direct action upload, particle-streakline and vorticity rendering; embedded output is computational.	Candidate CFD counterpart workflow and sign/body-order questions Frank must reconcile.	Hardware control, physical trial provenance, or an experimental image. Notebook content/output is not a deployment script.
/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/tests/specs/exp_ctrl_matrix.md	Recorded no-control, steady/stealth, and several deceit analytic signal-feature sets (means, cosine frequencies, amplitudes and phases).	Candidate identities for CFD named-condition counterparts after author mapping.	That these exact commands were played on the apparatus, or that repository slugs equal manuscript Illusion identities.
/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/tests/postproc/run_exp_ctrl_matrix_vorticity.py	CFD batch runner: constructs the three-cylinder geometry, analytically evaluates the control matrix, applies a 5-s ramp, converts surface-speed commands to lattice angular velocity, swaps rear-body action mapping, runs simulation, and writes vorticity/checkpoint summaries.	Potential CFD counterpart generation path and explicit action playback logic in simulation.	Physical deployment/execution, policy playback, experiment matching, or a publication-ready counterpart. Do not run without authorization.
/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/tests/postproc/run_exp_ctrl_matrix_streakline.py	CFD batch runner using the same analytic actions; continuously releases particles from step 20,000, samples velocity every 50 steps, renders at steps 40k/60k/80k/100k, and clears particles between early windows.	Potential single-frame CFD streakline counterpart generation and its sampling/render contract.	Dye physics, a registered experimental pair, temporal frequency measurement, or validation. Do not run without authorization.
/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/src/CelerisLab/common/streakline/{_streakline.py,_config.py,_integrate.py,_render.py}	Passive particle streakline library: point/line/strip release; injection between sampled velocity frames; bilinear space and linear time interpolation; RK4 substeps; optional random-walk diffusion; domain/solid filtering; age-weighted density binning and Gaussian blur.	How a CFD streakline-like image is numerically produced and which processing fields must appear in a caption.	A calibrated dye concentration model, quantitative image estimator, experiment processing, or morphology agreement.
/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/docs/validation_specs/streakline_notes.md	Design note distinguishing streaklines from streamlines/path-history plots and describing online/offline concepts and rendering choices. Some implementation-path examples use older filenames and must be checked against current package paths.	Terminology and disclosure of release, integration, diffusion and rendering choices.	Validation of the current experimental images or proof that offline replay/current output exists.
/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/tests/postproc/run_kan99b_streakline.py	Online single-cylinder CFD streakline demonstration with configurable release/integration settings.	General test/example of the library.	A three-cylinder experiment counterpart or physical evidence.
/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/src/CelerisLab/body/action_smoother.py	Generic linear/exponential action scaling utility.	Possible software concept for ramp disclosure.	Evidence that this utility was used in experiment or in the control-matrix scripts (which implement their own cosine ramp).
/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/tests/output/exp_ctrl_matrix_streak_nx1500/manifest.json	Manifest records C0–C6 computational streakline PNG paths and four render steps per case; the referenced PNGs were not present in the inspected tree, while summaries/manifest remain.	Historical generated-output provenance and candidate regeneration route.	Located/audited image assets, experiment counterparts, or figure readiness.
/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/tests/output/exp_ctrl_matrix_vort_nx1500/manifest.json	Manifest records C0–C6 computational vorticity PNG/checkpoint paths; the referenced PNG/HDF5 files were not present in the inspected tree, while summaries/manifest remain.	Historical CFD counterpart provenance.	Available publication assets or any experimental comparison.
/home/frank14f/CelerisLab/tests/output/stealth_steady_sweep_nx1500/manifest.json	Manifest records a computational steady action sweep and streakline/vorticity/checkpoint paths; referenced assets were not present in the inspected tree.	Candidate steady CFD context after exact author mapping.	The author-described steady pair, experimental provenance, or agreement.

Execution/deployment finding. No Raspberry Pi, GPIO, serial, motor-driver, carriage/towing, or hardware-deployment script was located in the inspected /home/frank14f/CelerisLab tree or targeted user-home filename/content searches. The located execution code is CFD-side analytic action playback. Therefore the physical software execution path remains an author slot; code capability must not be reported as evidence that a given physical trial was executed.

Current material and figure interface

• Apparatus schematic: author-described as existing; exact file not located. Role: configuration context only.
• Steady experimental/CFD single-frame pair: author-described as existing; exact files not located/audited. Role ceiling: named visual morphology after provenance.
• Several Illusion experimental/CFD single-frame pairs: author-described as existing; exact files not located/audited. Select only the pair(s) needed for the argument; all need case/trial/frame binding. Role ceiling: named visual morphology only.
• CFD manifests: computational output records exist at the exact CelerisLab paths above, but referenced image assets were absent from the inspected tree. They are not automatically the author's corresponding CFD images.

Detailed textual production plan: ../FIGURE_PLANS/SECTION_09_EXPERIMENT.md.

Integrated JFM style identities and reporting principles

Literature supplies presentation practice only; it establishes no DynamisLab apparatus, observation or readiness. The former Style 09 selected these exact identities and read levels:

1. Soumarup Bhattacharyya, Izhar Hussain Khan, Shivam Verma, Sanjay Kumar & Kamal Poddar, “Experimental investigation of three-dimensional modes in the wake of a rotationally oscillating cylinder”, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 950, A10 (2022), DOI 10.1017/jfm.2022.792, full-PDF.
2. Izhar Hussain Khan, Puja Sunil, Soumarup Bhattacharyya, Rahul Yadav, Kamal Poddar & Sanjay Kumar, “Flow past two rotationally oscillating cylinders”, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 969, A16 (2023), DOI 10.1017/jfm.2023.549, full-PDF.
3. Lukasz Klotz, Karol Bukowski & Konrad Gumowski, “Influence of porous material on the flow behind a backward-facing step: experimental study”, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 998, A31 (2024), DOI 10.1017/jfm.2024.639, full-PDF.
4. Yu Zhou, Dewei Fan, Bingfu Zhang, Ruiying Li & Bernd R. Noack, “Artificial intelligence control of a turbulent jet”, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 897, A27 (2020), DOI 10.1017/jfm.2020.392, full-PDF.

Use the compact sequence purpose/boundary → apparatus, actuation and acquisition → named visual comparison → local measurement limit → next quantitative test. Organize apparatus by evidentiary function. Give visualization its own contract (tracer, illumination, camera/view, field of view, frame selection and processing). State comparator and held conditions before morphology. Disclose when experimental and CFD views are separate realizations. Captions carry condition, view, frame, scale/calibration status and processing. Stronger temporal, field or force statements require a separate calibrated estimator. Main text selects representative comparisons rather than every condition; omit media if provenance fails.

Ownership, imports, exports and omissions

Imports: Section 2 definitions only where Frank can bind experiment-specific geometry/action units; Section 7 supplies named Illusion terminology but no metric or positive SR claim; Section 8 supplies only the quantitative-boundary bridge. Computational results do not validate the apparatus.

Owns: Frank's apparatus account, physical open-loop execution, trial/media provenance, exact morphology observations, local confounds, figure selection and the next experimental threshold.

Exports: no result at present. If Frank later supplies a provenance-passing qualitative observation, the coordinator may decide after a new targeted provenance audit and explicit coordinator reopening decision whether one bounded qualitative sentence enters Section 10 D3 or C1; it may contain no number, agreement or validation wording. Otherwise omit experimental observation from Section 10.

Omit/prohibit: shedding-frequency change from single frames; time-resolved-video claims; quantitative image estimator; CFD values; L2/DTW; PIV/velocity/vorticity inference from dye; force reduction; registered overlays; agreement/validation language; closed-loop experimental control; policy validation; mechanism, stability, optimum, robustness or generality. Keep brands, complete hardware/calibration tables and recoverability details supplementary unless needed to read a retained panel.

Compact provenance slots and quality gate

For every retained experimental or CFD image bind: [raw exact path/hash] [trial/case and role] [condition/action/body order/sign] [frame index/time or CFD step] [camera/view/FOV/scale] [dye/release protocol] [crop/enhancement/render processing] [selection/repeats] [permission] [missing fields].

Pass only if:

• Frank has written the apparatus/execution and observation text;
• every shown image has exact source, condition, trial/case, frame/step, processing and permission;
• each observation names visible morphology only and its comparator is local;
• no sentence infers frequency or temporal behavior from one frame;
• CFD and experiment are labelled separate, unregistered named-condition views;
• open-loop and no-force/PIV/no-quantitative-estimator limits sit beside the observation;
• absent provenance triggers pair omission, not reconstruction or digitization.

Coverage ledger

State	Material	Use/boundary
read	Round-4 global ledger, display inventory, former Style 09; Round-3 Section 9 interface; Round-4 Section 8 bridge	Architecture, ownership, former style identities and ceilings; read is not independent experiment verification.
read	Exact CelerisLab code/docs/manifests listed above	Software capability and historical computational-output inventory; no execution or artifact regeneration.
mapped	Author-described apparatus schematic and experimental/CFD pairs	Current-material slots only; exact files not located or audited.
not-covered	New CFD/hardware/rendering/data generation; broad project rediscovery; exhaustive home-tree audit	Outside authorization/need; no inference.
unresolved	Physical deployment scripts/logs, raw experiment media, apparatus schematic path, trial linkage, conditions, calibration/synchronization, repeats and permissions	Frank must supply or mark unavailable.

Prior packet memory use: targeted Nowledge recall was used for prior decisions, but the current author correction supersedes recalled frequency wording. At that packet stage, former Style 09's already-read literature identities were integrated without a new search. The dated enrichment below records the later library search and full-PDF reads. No thread recall or Working Memory was used.

Paragraph-level literature/style enrichment — 2026-08-11

Scope of enrichment. This is author-facing reporting guidance only. It neither fills Frank's slots nor supplies an apparatus fact, trial condition, observation, experimental claim or promoted result. Three close JFM experimental papers were read at full-PDF level: S. Bhattacharyya et al., “Experimental investigation of three-dimensional modes in the wake of a rotationally oscillating cylinder”, JFM 950, A10 (2022), DOI 10.1017/jfm.2022.792, full-PDF; I. H. Khan et al., “Flow past two rotationally oscillating cylinders”, JFM 969, A16 (2023), DOI 10.1017/jfm.2023.549, full-PDF; and Y. Zhou et al., “Artificial intelligence control of a turbulent jet”, JFM 897, A27 (2020), DOI 10.1017/jfm.2020.392, full-PDF. Literature establishes reporting practice only, not DynamisLab evidence.

Observed sample-bounded practice

• The experimental narrative runs purpose/question → facility and model → actuation and sensing/acquisition → processing or estimator → declared comparator → morphology or measured result. Apparatus detail is grouped by what supplies, moves, actuates, images or measures rather than by construction chronology.
• Methods use past tense for actions actually performed; figure-led observations and definitions generally use present tense. Visual evidence uses shape/location language (visible, streakline, wake outline, near-wake, downstream, broader/narrower, deflected, separated) while frequency, velocity, circulation and force language appears only after a named estimator or instrument.
• Comparator conditions precede interpretation. The experimental papers separate flow visualization from hot-wire, PIV, spectral or load-cell evidence; quantitative diagnostics corroborate claims that visualization alone does not carry.
• Acquisition and uncertainty information is placed beside the relevant method or result. Captions identify condition, orientation, scale/markers and panel-specific acquisition; body text supplies the inference and its local qualification.
• The close papers often contain much more hardware specification than this short interface needs. That density is an observed option, not a recommendation here; the manuscript should retain only details needed to recover or correctly read the shown evidence.

Recommendation by paragraph job

1. Purpose and deployability. Open with the narrow reason for including the physical realization, then state [AUTHOR: what was physically deployed and what open-loop role the trial serves]. Use implemented, commanded, imaged or recorded only after Frank binds each verb to a recoverable source. Do not call the trial a validation, reproduction or closed-loop demonstration.
2. Apparatus by evidentiary function. Order placeholders as [facility and background state] → [moving/holding geometry] → [rotation command and physical conversion] → [image path]. Compress brands and construction history. Place each dimension or setting only where it changes the interpretation of a retained image.
3. Acquisition and provenance. Before any morphology slot, require [trial/case identity] [raw file/hash] [view/FOV/scale] [frame index/time] [dye/release] [exposure] [crop/enhancement] [selection rule/repeats] [permission]. Use past tense only after these fields are supplied. If they remain unavailable, omit the pair rather than soften the provenance language.
4. Local morphology comparator. Write the comparator first: [AUTHOR: experimental condition A versus condition B, or experimental named condition versus separate CFD named-condition view]; then allow one [AUTHOR: directly visible shape/location observation]. Keep corresponding named-condition views and separate realizations; prohibit registered, agrees, matches, reproduces, confirms, suppresses shedding or any frequency-change wording from a retained single frame.
5. Measurement ceiling and next threshold. Put the caveat in the same paragraph as the observation: [AUTHOR: qualitative, open-loop, single-frame ceiling and local confound]. Then name only the measurement threshold required to support a stronger class of claim: synchronized calibrated force/PIV for force or field claims, repeated image sequences plus a declared temporal estimator for frequency claims. This is a local threshold, not a programme of promised results.

Caption/body and bridge controls

• Caption owns: exact condition and role; experiment versus CFD identity; unregistered/separate-realization status; trial/case and frame/step; view, scale/calibration status and orientation; dye or numerical release; crop/enhancement/rendering; selection/repeat status; and any missing provenance that changes readability.
• Body owns: why the physical interface matters; one comparator-led morphology statement per retained pair; the immediately adjacent evidence ceiling; and the consequence for what remains unclaimed. Do not narrate every panel or repeat caption metadata.
• Incoming bridge from Section 8: [INSTRUCTION: move from the CFD evidence boundary to the narrower question of physical command-and-image deployability; do not imply that experiment repairs the theory or validation boundary.]
• Outgoing bridge to Section 10: [INSTRUCTION: close on the exact measurement ceiling and declared next evidentiary threshold. Do not export an observation to Section 10 unless the existing targeted provenance audit and explicit coordinator-reopening gate is later passed.]

Lexicon and anti-patterns

Use after author supply: qualitative open-loop trial, retained frame, visible morphology, separate named-condition view, command path, image acquisition, frame selection, processing disclosed, measurement ceiling, would require.

Avoid: construction diary; equipment catalogue; CFD performance imported into apparatus prose; an observation before its comparator/provenance; appears to validate; single-frame temporal inference; PIV/velocity/vorticity language for dye streaklines; agreement for unregistered views; caveats deferred to the paragraph end or section end; generic proof of feasibility; promises of future validation.

Coverage: memory-recalled — three narrow Nowledge searches; read — current Section-9 packet and controlling Round-4 ledgers; full-PDF — the three exact JFM papers above, each queried for apparatus/acquisition/morphology/caption/caveat practice; mapped — author-described experimental materials only, with no independent audit; not-covered — experiment media, physical deployment logs, new observations, CFD or artifact generation. The literature observations above are sample-bounded; recommendations are manuscript-specific.

Round-5 placeholder decision — 2026-08-11

Frank permits a Section-9 TeX output containing clearly marked AUTHOR FIELD placeholders only. The placeholder may encode the existing paragraph jobs and requested fields but may not assert apparatus facts, execution details, trial identities, command provenance, media provenance, morphology observations or experimental results. This closes only the R5 output-format choice. Every author-supply, command-map, media/provenance, permission and result-import gate remains open; omission remains the fallback.