pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.25257 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-28 · ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn

From wake dynamics to energy consumption in free-swimming biohybrid robotic jellyfish: a multiscale analysis

Simon R. Anuszczyk , Kyra Phaychanpheng , John O. Dabiri This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 15:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn
keywords biohybrid jellyfishenergy consumptionwake dynamicsfree swimmingparticle image velocimetryhydrodynamicsmarine roboticsmetabolic rate
0
0 comments X

The pith

Free-swimming biohybrid jellyfish consume 2.5 times more energy than confined ones because higher speeds and absent boundary effects raise hydrodynamic costs.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper sets up biohybrid jellyfish with onboard electronics to hold pulse rate constant and then compares their energy use when allowed to swim freely in a large tank versus when held in small chambers. It shows that the free-swimming animals expend substantially more energy, a result that lines up with stronger wake losses measured by 3D imaging and with the higher speeds they reach without walls. This difference matters because most lab measurements of marine-animal metabolism still rely on confined chambers that may systematically understate the power needed for open-water locomotion. The work therefore supplies a concrete route to revise estimates of how much energy jellyfish and similar swimmers actually burn in nature.

Core claim

Free-swimming, electrically stimulated jellyfish consume 2.5 times more energy than similarly stimulated animals held in a constrained environment. The increase matches observed differences in wake energy loss (2.9-fold higher posterior wake energy when stimulated) and in swimming speed, both arising once boundary effects and recirculation are removed in a 6-meter tank that permits continuous swimming over 2.55 km. Volume changes tracked non-invasively are converted to metabolic energy via elemental analysis, providing the first direct multiscale link between pulse-level hydrodynamics and whole-animal energy consumption in free-swimming biohybrid jellyfish.

What carries the argument

Onboard microelectronic swim controllers that fix pulse frequency, combined with 3D particle-image velocimetry of the wake and non-invasive 3D volume tracking converted to energy by elemental analysis.

If this is right

  • Confined-chamber studies of marine swimmers underestimate true energy use once boundary layers and flow recirculation are removed.
  • Higher pulse rates and altered stroke kinematics produced by electrical stimulation increase wake energy dissipation by nearly threefold.
  • Continuous free swimming against flow can be maintained over kilometer scales with tracking-based feedback without tank-size limits.
  • Non-invasive morphology tracking supplies a practical alternative to sealed-chamber respirometry for long-duration energy measurements.
  • Hydrodynamic drag on freely moving animals is large enough to dominate the difference between confined and open-water energy budgets.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same confinement bias likely affects metabolic estimates for other free-swimming animals such as fish or cephalopods studied in small tanks.
  • Robot designers using similar electrical drive could improve efficiency by tuning stroke patterns specifically for open-water rather than tank conditions.
  • Ecological models that rely on lab-derived jellyfish costs may need upward revision to reflect higher open-ocean demands.
  • Repeating the experiment at different tank sizes or with live rather than biohybrid jellyfish would test how much the observed factor of 2.5 depends on the specific setup.

Load-bearing premise

Volume changes measured without feeding can be turned into accurate metabolic energy values by elemental analysis, and the 6-meter tank removes essentially all wall effects.

What would settle it

Direct comparison showing identical energy consumption between free-swimming and confined jellyfish under the same stimulation, obtained by an independent method such as oxygen respirometry in an open flume.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25257 by John O. Dabiri, Kyra Phaychanpheng, Simon R. Anuszczyk.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Optical parameters were changed slightly. The laser view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Measuring energy consumption of marine organisms often requires enclosing the animal in a small, sealed chamber to quantify changes in oxygen concentration of the surrounding water. This can limit measurements of free-swimming organisms by introducing recirculation effects and movement restrictions. We experimentally investigate free-swimming jellyfish energy consumption at two scales: individual pulses and multi-day swimming. Prescribing pulse frequency using onboard microelectronic swim controllers enables comparison of wake energetics across stroke frequencies while allowing continuous swimming. On the microscale, we quantified pulse wake hydrodynamics using three-dimensional Particle Image Velocimetry. Electrical stimulation increased posterior wake energy loss 2.9 times compared to unstimulated jellyfish due to higher pulse rates and altered kinematics. On the macroscale, we used a 6-meter, 13,600-liter tank and tracking-based feedback control to enable continuous swimming against flow over 2.55 km without encountering tank limits. A non-invasive technique quantified changes in 3D morphology without feeding, and volume changes were converted to energy consumption using elemental analysis. Free-swimming, electrically stimulated animals consumed 2.5 times more energy than similarly stimulated animals in a constrained environment, consistent with hydrodynamic and behavioral differences including increased speed and reduced boundary effects. These results suggest hydrodynamic drag may be underrepresented in confined experimental studies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a multiscale experimental investigation of wake hydrodynamics and energy consumption in free-swimming biohybrid robotic jellyfish controlled by onboard microelectronic swim controllers. At the microscale, 3D particle image velocimetry shows that electrical stimulation increases posterior wake energy loss by a factor of 2.9 relative to unstimulated animals due to higher pulse rates and altered kinematics. At the macroscale, a 6 m, 13,600 L tank with tracking-based feedback enables continuous swimming over 2.55 km; non-invasive 3D morphology measurements are converted to energy consumption via elemental analysis, yielding a 2.5-fold increase in energy use for stimulated free-swimming animals compared with similarly stimulated animals in a constrained environment. The difference is attributed to higher speeds and reduced boundary effects.

Significance. If the volume-to-energy conversion is shown to be reliable, the work provides direct evidence that confined-chamber protocols can substantially underestimate metabolic costs in free-swimming marine organisms, with implications for bio-inspired robotics, comparative physiology, and hydrodynamic modeling. The combination of prescribed pulse-frequency control, large-scale free-swimming capability, and multiscale measurements (PIV plus long-distance tracking) is a notable experimental strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and macroscale energy quantification description] The central 2.5× energy-consumption claim rests on converting non-invasively measured 3D volume changes (without feeding) into metabolic energy via elemental analysis. No calibration against simultaneous respirometry, bomb calorimetry, or oxygen-consumption measurements on the same animals under identical stimulation is described, nor is the conversion factor derived or validated for the stimulated morphology. This leaves open the possibility that volume changes include osmotic, structural, or non-metabolic contributions, directly undermining the quantitative ratio reported in the abstract and macroscale results.
  2. [Macroscale experimental setup and results] The 6 m tank is stated to eliminate boundary effects sufficiently to represent true free swimming, yet no quantitative metrics (e.g., residual recirculation velocity, wall-induced kinematic changes, or comparison of flow fields near the animal versus far-field) are provided to support that the observed speed increase and energy difference are free of tank artifacts. This comparison is load-bearing for the claim that confined studies underestimate drag.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract reports the 2.9× and 2.5× ratios without accompanying uncertainty estimates, sample sizes, or statistical tests; these should be added to the quantitative claims.
  2. [Methods] Full protocols for the non-invasive 3D morphology reconstruction, data exclusion criteria, and the exact elemental-analysis conversion procedure are not summarized; these details are needed for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which help clarify the strengths and limitations of our multiscale analysis. We respond to each major comment below and indicate revisions to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central 2.5× energy-consumption claim rests on converting non-invasively measured 3D volume changes (without feeding) into metabolic energy via elemental analysis. No calibration against simultaneous respirometry, bomb calorimetry, or oxygen-consumption measurements on the same animals under identical stimulation is described, nor is the conversion factor derived or validated for the stimulated morphology. This leaves open the possibility that volume changes include osmotic, structural, or non-metabolic contributions.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation on the energy quantification method. The non-invasive 3D morphology measurements enable tracking of volume changes in free-swimming animals, which are converted to energy using elemental analysis of C, H, and N content combined with standard biochemical energy equivalents for organic biomass. This approach avoids the confinement artifacts inherent to respirometry chambers and is appropriate for low-metabolism organisms like jellyfish. However, we acknowledge that the manuscript does not include direct calibration on the same individuals or explicit validation against potential non-metabolic volume contributions. In revision, we will add a dedicated subsection deriving the conversion factor from literature values, discussing assumptions and limitations (including osmotic and structural effects), and comparing the resulting energy estimates to published jellyfish metabolic rates. This will better support the reported 2.5-fold difference. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The 6 m tank is stated to eliminate boundary effects sufficiently to represent true free swimming, yet no quantitative metrics (e.g., residual recirculation velocity, wall-induced kinematic changes, or comparison of flow fields near the animal versus far-field) are provided to support that the observed speed increase and energy difference are free of tank artifacts.

    Authors: The 6 m, 13,600 L tank with flow-tracking feedback was designed to permit continuous swimming over 2.55 km while keeping the animal far from walls relative to its size and observed speeds. The increased speed and energy use are interpreted as resulting from reduced confinement compared with smaller chambers. We agree that explicit quantitative support for negligible boundary effects strengthens the claim. In the revised manuscript, we will include estimates of boundary-layer thickness relative to tank dimensions, analysis of recirculation velocities from flow visualization, and kinematic comparisons from preliminary trials in smaller tanks to demonstrate that wall artifacts do not account for the observed differences. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct experimental measurements and standard conversions

full rationale

The paper reports ratios of energy consumption (2.5x free-swimming vs constrained; 2.9x wake energy loss) obtained from direct 3D PIV measurements of wake hydrodynamics and non-invasive volume tracking converted via elemental analysis. These are empirical observations and established lab protocols with no mathematical derivations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-citations as load-bearing premises, or ansatzes smuggled in. No equations reduce outputs to inputs by construction; the central claims rest on measured data in a 6 m tank setup without self-referential loops.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the domain assumption that non-invasive 3D morphology tracking without feeding provides a valid proxy for energy consumption via elemental analysis, plus standard fluid dynamics assumptions that PIV captures wake energy loss accurately.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Volume changes in unfed jellyfish can be converted to energy consumption using elemental analysis
    Invoked for the macroscale energy quantification in the large tank experiments.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5546 in / 1267 out tokens · 84595 ms · 2026-05-07T15:17:02.970040+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Incorporating otolith-isotope inferred field metabolic rate into conservation strategies

    Valesca A de Groot, Clive Trueman, and Amanda E Bates. Incorporating otolith-isotope inferred field metabolic rate into conservation strategies. 12(1):coae013

    work page

  2. [2]

    Princeton University Press, NED - new edition edition

    Steven Vogel.Life in Moving Fluids: The Physical Biology of Flow - Revised and Expanded Second Edition. Princeton University Press, NED - new edition edition

    work page

  3. [3]

    J. O. Dabiri, S. P. Colin, K. Katija, and J. H. Costello. A wake-based correlate of swimming performance and foraging behavior in seven co-occurring jellyfish species. 213(8):1217–1225

    work page

  4. [4]

    M. J. Lighthill.Mathematical biofluiddynamics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

    work page

  5. [5]

    Costello, Sean P

    John H. Costello, Sean P. Colin, John O. Dabiri, Brad J. Gemmell, Kelsey N. Lucas, and Kelly R. Sutherland. The hydrodynamics of jellyfish swimming. 13(1):375–

    work page

  6. [6]

    eprint: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine- 031120-091442

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-marine-

  7. [7]

    G. E. Elsinga, F. Scarano, B. Wieneke, and B. W. van Oudheusden. Tomographic particle image velocimetry. 41(6):933–947

    work page

  8. [8]

    Adrian and Jerry Westerweel.Particle Image Velocimetry

    Ronald J. Adrian and Jerry Westerweel.Particle Image Velocimetry. Cambridge University Press

    work page

  9. [9]

    Fu, Isabel A

    Matt K. Fu, Isabel A. Houghton, and John O. Dabiri. A single-camera, 3d scanning velocimetry system for quantifying active particle aggregations. 62(8):168

    work page

  10. [10]

    Gemmell, Daniel R

    Brad J. Gemmell, Daniel R. Troolin, John H. Costello, Sean P. Colin, and Richard A. Satterlie. Control of vortex rings for manoeuvrability. 12(108):20150389

    work page

  11. [11]

    Fu, and John O

    Nina Mohebbi, Joonha Hwang, Matthew K. Fu, and John O. Dabiri. Measurements and modelling of induced flow in collective vertical migration. 1001:A50

    work page

  12. [12]

    M. B. S. Svendsen, P. G. Bushnell, and J. F. Steffensen. Design and setup of intermittent-flow respirometry system for aquatic organisms. 88(1):26–50. eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jfb.12797. PNAS Nexus, 2026, Volume XX, Issue x 13

    work page doi:10.1111/jfb.12797 2026

  13. [13]

    Ikeda, J.J

    T. Ikeda, J.J. Torres, S. Hernandez-Leon, S.P. Geiger, Roger Harris, Peter Wiebe, Jurgen Lenz, Hein-Rune Skjoldal, and Mark Huntley.ICES Zooplankton Methodology Manual. Elsevier

    work page

  14. [14]

    Treberg, Shaun S

    Jason R. Treberg, Shaun S. Killen, Tyson J. MacCormack, Simon G. Lamarre, and Eva C. Enders. Estimates of metabolic rate and major constituents of metabolic demand in fishes under field conditions: Methods, proxies, and new perspectives. 202:10–22

    work page

  15. [15]

    Simpkins, Wayne A

    Darin G. Simpkins, Wayne A. Hubert, Carlos Martinez Del Rio, and Daniel C. Rule. Physiological responses of juvenile rainbow trout to fasting and swimming activity: effects on body composition and condition indices. 132(3):576–589

    work page

  16. [16]

    Individual shrinking to enhance population survival: quantifying the reproductive and metabolic expenditures of a starving jellyfish, pelagia noctiluca

    Martin KS Lilley, Amanda Elineau, Martina Ferraris, Alain Thi´ ery, Lars Stemmann, Gabriel Gorsky, and Fabien Lombard. Individual shrinking to enhance population survival: quantifying the reproductive and metabolic expenditures of a starving jellyfish, pelagia noctiluca. 36(6):1585–1597

    work page

  17. [17]

    Food regulation of growth and maturation in a natural population of aurelia aurita (l.)

    Haruto Ishii and Ulf B˚ amstedt. Food regulation of growth and maturation in a natural population of aurelia aurita (l.). 20(5):805–816

    work page

  18. [18]

    Body size reduction under starvation, and the point of no return, in ephyrae of the moon jellyfish aurelia aurita

    Zhilu Fu, Masashi Shibata, Ryosuke Makabe, Hideki Ikeda, and Shin-ichi Uye. Body size reduction under starvation, and the point of no return, in ephyrae of the moon jellyfish aurelia aurita. 510:255–263

    work page

  19. [19]

    Bondyale-Juez, Vanesa Romero-Kutzner, Jennifer E

    Daniel R. Bondyale-Juez, Vanesa Romero-Kutzner, Jennifer E. Purcell, Ico Mart ´ ınez, Theodore T. Packard, and May G´ omez. Wind drifting vs. pulsating swimming jellyfish: Respiratory metabolism and composition differences in physalis physalis, velella velella, aurelia aurita, and pelagia noctiluca. 9

    work page

  20. [20]

    New method for rapid 3d reconstruction of semi-transparent underwater animals and structures

    Joost Daniels, Giovanna Sainz, and Kakani Katija. New method for rapid 3d reconstruction of semi-transparent underwater animals and structures. 5(1):obad023

    work page

  21. [21]

    Academic

    Roger Harris.ICES zooplankton methodology manual. Academic

    work page

  22. [22]

    Tills, X

    O. Tills, X. Sun, S. D. Rundle, T. Heimbach, T. Gibson, A. Cartwright, M. Palmer, T. Rudin-Bitterli, and J. I. Spicer. Reduced pH affects pulsing behaviour and body size in ephyrae of the moon jellyfish,Aurelia aurita. 480:54–61

    work page

  23. [23]

    T. M. Dillon. Effects of acute changes in temperature and salinity on pulsation rates in ephyrae of the scyphozoan aurelia aurita. 42(1):31–35

    work page

  24. [24]

    McHenry and Jason Jed

    Matthew J. McHenry and Jason Jed. The ontogenetic scaling of hydrodynamics and swimming performance in jellyfish (aurelia aurita). 206(22):4125–4137

    work page

  25. [25]

    Xu and John O

    Nicole W. Xu and John O. Dabiri. Low-power microelectronics embedded in live jellyfish enhance propulsion. 6(5):eaaz3194

    work page

  26. [26]

    Anuszczyk and John O

    Simon R. Anuszczyk and John O. Dabiri. Electromechanical enhancement of live jellyfish for ocean exploration. 19(2):026018

    work page

  27. [27]

    Ruiz, Robert W

    Lydia A. Ruiz, Robert W. Whittlesey, and John O. Dabiri. Vortex-enhanced propulsion. 668:5–32

    work page

  28. [28]

    Li and Leah Mendelson

    Derek J. Li and Leah Mendelson. Volumetric measurements of wake impulse and kinetic energy for evaluating swimming performance. 64(3):47

    work page

  29. [29]

    Kakani Katija and John O. Dabiri. A viscosity-enhanced mechanism for biogenic ocean mixing. 460(7255):624–626

    work page

  30. [30]

    Software techniques for two- and three-dimensional kinematic measurements of biological and biomimetic systems

    Tyson L Hedrick. Software techniques for two- and three-dimensional kinematic measurements of biological and biomimetic systems. 3(3):034001

    work page

  31. [31]

    P. G. Saffman.Vortex Dynamics. Cambridge Monographs on Mechanics. Cambridge University Press

    work page

  32. [32]

    Oxford [Eng.] Clarendon Press

    Louis Rosenhead.Laminar boundary layers; an account of the development, structure, and stability of laminar boundary layers in incompressible fluids, together with a description of the associated experimental techniques. Oxford [Eng.] Clarendon Press

    work page

  33. [33]

    G. K. Batchelor.An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics. Cambridge Mathematical Library. Cambridge University Press

    work page

  34. [34]

    Uye and H

    S. Uye and H. Shimauchi. Population biomass, feeding, respiration and growth rates, and carbon budget of the scyphomedusa aurelia aurita in the inland sea of japan. 27(3):237–248

    work page

  35. [35]

    Size dependent respiration and growth of jellyfish, aurelia aurita

    Kristian Toft Frandsen and Hans Ulrik Riisg˚ ard. Size dependent respiration and growth of jellyfish, aurelia aurita. 82(4):307–312. eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/00364827.1997.10413659

    work page doi:10.1080/00364827.1997.10413659 1997

  36. [36]

    Dabiri, Sean P

    John O. Dabiri, Sean P. Colin, and John H. Costello. Fast- swimming hydromedusae exploit velar kinematics to form an optimal vortex wake. 209(11):2025–2033

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    Faking giants: The evolution of high prey clearance rates in jellyfishes

    Jos´ e Luis Acu˜ na,´Angel L´ opez-Urrutia, and Sean Colin. Faking giants: The evolution of high prey clearance rates in jellyfishes. 333(6049):1627–1629

    work page

  38. [38]

    Gemmell, John H

    Brad J. Gemmell, John H. Costello, Sean P. Colin, Colin J. Stewart, John O. Dabiri, Danesh Tafti, and Shashank Priya. Passive energy recapture in jellyfish contributes to propulsive advantage over other metazoans. 110(44):17904–17909

    work page

  39. [39]

    Fundamentals concerning wave loading on offshore structures

    James Lighthill. Fundamentals concerning wave loading on offshore structures. 173:667–681

    work page

  40. [40]

    Fluid-dynamic drag

    Sighard F Hoerner. Fluid-dynamic drag

    work page

  41. [41]

    Garcia and Louis I

    Herncin E. Garcia and Louis I. Gordon. Oxygen solubility in seawater: Better fitting equations. 37(6):1307–1312

    work page

  42. [42]

    Mechanics and energetics of medusan jet propulsion

    Thomas Daniel. Mechanics and energetics of medusan jet propulsion

    work page

  43. [43]

    J Larson

    R. J Larson. Respiration and carbon turnover rates of medusae from the NE pacific. 87(1):93–100

    work page

  44. [44]

    Costello, Sean P

    John H. Costello, Sean P. Colin, Brad J. Gemmell, and John O. Dabiri. Hydrodynamics of vortex generation during bell contraction by the hydromedusa eutonina indicans (romanes, 1876). 4(3):44

    work page

  45. [45]

    Krueger and M

    Paul S. Krueger and M. Gharib. The significance of vortex ring formation to the impulse and thrust of a starting jet. 15(5):1271–1281

    work page

  46. [46]

    Gemmell, John O

    Brad J. Gemmell, John O. Dabiri, Sean P. Colin, John H. Costello, James P. Townsend, and Kelly R. Sutherland. Cool your jets: biological jet propulsion in marine invertebrates. 224(12):jeb222083

    work page

  47. [47]

    R. J. Larson. Costs of transport for the scyphomedusa Stomolophus meleagrisl. agassiz. 65(11):2690–2695

    work page

  48. [48]

    Edwin Demont and John M

    M. Edwin Demont and John M. Gosline. Mechanics of jet propulsion in the hydromedusan jellyfish, polyorchis penicillatus: I. mechanical properties of the locomotor structure. 134:313–332. ADS Bibcode: 1988JExpB.134..313D

    work page

  49. [49]

    Megill, John M

    William M. Megill, John M. Gosline, and Robert W. Blake. The modulus of elasticity of fibrillin-containing elastic fibres in the mesoglea of the hydromedusa polyorchis penicillatus. 208(20):3819–3834

    work page

  50. [50]

    Camille Gambini, B´ ereng` ere Abou, Alain Ponton, and Annemiek J. M. Cornelissen. Micro- and macrorheology of jellyfish extracellular matrix. 102(1):1–9

    work page

  51. [51]

    Edwin Demont and John M

    M. Edwin Demont and John M. Gosline. Mechanics of jet propulsion in the hydromedusan jellyfish, polyorchis penicillatus:II. energetics of the jet cycle. 134(1):333–345. 14 PNAS Nexus, 2026, Volume XX, Issue x

    work page 2026

  52. [52]

    Xu, James P

    Nicole W. Xu, James P. Townsend, John H. Costello, Sean P. Colin, Brad J. Gemmell, and John O. Dabiri. Field testing of biohybrid robotic jellyfish to demonstrate enhanced swimming speeds. 5(4)

    work page

  53. [53]

    Rutledge, S

    Kelsi M. Rutledge, S. P. Colin, Noa Yoder, Simon R. Anuszczyk, Kelly R. Sutherland, Brad J. Gemmell, and John O. Dabiri. Biohybrid robotic jellyfish for swimming- enhanced vertical ocean profiling

    work page

  54. [54]

    Anuszczyk, Noa Yoder, John H

    Simon R. Anuszczyk, Noa Yoder, John H. Costello, John O. Dabiri, Brad J. Gemmell, Kelsi M. Rutledge, and Sean P. Colin. Increasing the reliability and versatility of jellyfish biohybrid vehicles via species selection and rhopalia removal. 10(12)

    work page

  55. [55]

    OpenPIV/openpiv-python: fixed windows conda-forge failure with encoding

    Alex Liberzon, Davide Lasagna, Mathias Aubert, Pete Bachant, jakirkham, ranleu, tomerast, Theo K¨ aufer, Joe Borg, Cameron Dallas, and Boyko Vodenicharski. OpenPIV/openpiv-python: fixed windows conda-forge failure with encoding

    work page

  56. [56]

    flow treadmill

    Richard A Satterlie. Neuronal control of swimming in jellyfish: a comparative story. 80(10):1654–1669. Supplementary info Supplementary methods Laser scanning PIV PIV data of the swimming jellyfish was taken using a three- dimensional, three-component single-camera laser scanning system, shown in Figure 2, first applied to swimming shrimp [8]. This system...

    work page 2026