Outdoor Testing of Type I Fluids in Snow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outdoor testing of five SAE Type I ground aircraft deicing fluids were conducted for natural snow in Chicoutimi, Quebec, Canada, between January and March 2002. These tests were performed using aluminum boxes which were shown to be thermodynamically equivalent to a wing leading edge coated with fluid. For these tests, the boxes were coated with 0.5 L of Type I fluid heated to 60C and applied to the test surface by means of a specially made spreader. The objective of this investigation was to conduct outdoor testing and determine the anti-icing endurance times of five Type I deicing fluids under natural snowfall conditions on wing thermodynamic equivalent boxes. Testing was performed on five fluids, three of which were diluted to a 100 buffer with the outside air temperature, according to dilution charts provided by the manufacturer, the other two were premixed fluids and were tested as received, without further dilution. Tests were performed during 18 natural snow events. Most of them occurred at temperatures between -3.5 and -15.0C producing fine snow with stellar and spatial dendrite crystal types in the <1 mm size range. The results showed that, given the scatter of results under natural conditions, all five fluids had relatively similar endurance times; the greatest difference of 40% being observed between fluids with the longest and shortest times, with the same intensity. The prediluted fluids had, in general, longer times by about 20%, as compared to the fluids tested at a 100 buffer with the outside air temperature. Results were compared to those obtained at the APS Aviation site, where events occurred at warmer temperatures, which led to longer endurance times. However, when the temperature differences are taken into consideration, the times are comparable. The data at both sites generated the following holdover times for various temperature ranges.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".