Theoretical analysis of mixing in liquid clouds – Part 3: Inhomogeneousmixing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. An idealized diffusion–evaporation model of time-dependent mixing between a cloud volume and a droplet-free volume is analyzed. The initial droplet size distribution (DSD) in the cloud volume is assumed to be monodisperse. It is shown that evolution of the microphysical variables and the final equilibrium state are unambiguously determined by two non-dimensional parameters. The first one is the potential evaporation parameter R, proportional to the ratio of the saturation deficit to the liquid water content in the cloud volume, that determines whether the equilibrium state is reached at 100 % relative humidity, or is characterized by a complete evaporation of cloud droplets. The second parameter Da is the Damkölher number equal to the ratio of the characteristic mixing time to the phase relaxation time. Parameters R and Da determine the type of mixing.The results are analyzed within a wide range of values of R and Da. It is shown that there is no pure homogeneous mixing, since the first mixing stage is always inhomogeneous. The mixing type can change during the mixing process. Any mixing type leads to formation of a tail of small droplets in DSD and, therefore, to DSD broadening that depends on Da. At large Da, the final DSD dispersion can be as large as 0.2. The total duration of mixing varies from several to 100 phase relaxation time periods, depending on R and Da.The definitions of homogeneous and inhomogeneous types of mixing are reconsidered and clarified, enabling a more precise delimitation between them. The paper also compares the results obtained with those based on the classic mixing concepts. >
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.
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 it