Bibliographic record
Abstract
The critical diameter and failure thickness of both neat liquid nitromethane and a 65% nitromethane/35% nitroethane blend confined by aluminum are determined experimentally. A comparison of these two parameters provides insight into the failure mechanism of detonation in these explosives. If the failure of detonation in a critical charge diameter (or thickness) experiment is due to reaction quenching resulting from expansion losses (wave curvature), then it is expected that the failure thickness should be half the value of the critical diameter. The critical diameter and failure thickness of neat nitromethane confined in aluminum are found to be 2.5 mm and 0.75 mm respectively for a temperature range of 26 ± 1°C. The critical diameter and failure thickness of the 65NM/35NE blend confined in aluminum are found to be 6.2 mm and 1.7 mm respectively for a temperature range of 28 ± 1°C. The ratio of critical diameter to failure thickness for these experiments is found to lie between 3:1 and 4:1 rather than 2:1 as expected from wave curvature theory. By comparing the experimentally determined values of critical diameter and thickness for the test explosives and examining the failure patterns recovered on witness plates, a mechanism of propagation in thin rectangular channels is proposed based on complex wave interactions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".