## 3 Results and Discussion
### Relationship between Wind Resistance and Armature Geometry
Figure 17 presents bar charts of the resistance contributions of different armature segments, with Figure 17a-d representing the armatures without chamfers, armatures with rounded fillet corners, armatures with chamfers, and disc-shaped armatures, respectively. For non-disc-shaped armatures, according to Figure 17a-c, the end portions contributed the largest proportion of the resistance, followed by the sidewall surfaces, with the contributions of both the top and bottom wall surfaces being negligible and not exceeding 1%. Among the end portions, the rounded fillet corner armature had the highest resistance share at (81 \(\pm\) 1)%, followed by the armature with no chamfers at (71 \(\pm\) 1)%, and the share of the chamfered armature with a head portion ranged from 57% to 60%. Regarding the contributions of the sidewall surface to the resistance for non-disc-shaped armatures, the chamfered armature tops the list with a resistance share of approximately (40 \(\pm\) 1)%, followed by the armature with no chamfers, with a sidewall resistance share of around (28 \(\pm\) 1)%, and the armature with rounded fillet corners, which has the smallest contribution  
Figure 15: Vorticity cloud plots for different armature geometries, where (**a**) is the vorticity cloud plot for the non-chamfer model, (**b**) is for the arc angle model, (**c**) is for the chamfer model, and (**d**) is for the round cake model. with a sidewall resistance share of (18 \(\pm\) 1)%. Because the disc-shaped armature lacks end portions, the sidewall surfaces account for approximately 50% of the resistance, whereas the top and bottom wall surfaces each contribute approximately 25% of the resistance. In summary, we found that the disc-shaped armature dramatically reduces resistance because it lacks pressure-resistance components, possesses only frictional resistance, and exhibits a much smaller vorticity in the surrounding fluid flow. The resistance contribution from the sidewall segment of the disc-shaped armature is comparable to the combined contribution from the top and bottom wall segments. For the non-disc-shaped armatures, the ends of the armature contributed the most to the resistance, followed by the sidewalls, with the contributions from the top and bottom walls being incredibly small (less than 1%). The resistance contributions from different segments remained largely unchanged with variations in angular velocity. In the case of a disc-shaped arm under actual implementation, certain issues arise, such as difficulties in casting a solid arm of this shape while maintaining balance as well as challenges in casting and installation. However, we propose considering the use of a disc-shaped shell that simply envelops the existing arm configuration, with an access hatch atop the shell designed for disassembling the hypergravity experimental apparatus. With this approach, the primary concern would be the secure fixation of the shell itself. Therefore, we believe that the solution involving a hollow shell structure is practically feasible. Figure 16: Armature component segments, where (**a**) represents both ends, (**b**) represents the sides, (**c**) represents upper wall, and (**d**) represents lower all.