Influence of inertia and gravity on the stability of filament jet flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interplay between inertia and gravity is examined for a filament jet flow. The velocity is imposed at the tube exit and jet tip downstream. Both linear and nonlinear stability analyses are carried out. The loss of stability coincides with the onset of a Hopf bifurcation. While both inertia and gravity enhance the stability of steady flow, inertia plays a more dominant role regarding critical parameters. In contrast, the disturbance frequency is more sensitive to the effect of gravity. Above criticality, finite-amplitude disturbances are amplified, and sustained oscillation is achieved. It is found that the growth rate increases with velocity ratio, but decreases with inertia and gravity, which suggests that initial transients tend to take longer to die out for a fluid with stronger inertia and gravity. Transient postcritical calculations show that the nonlinearity can be effectively halted by inertia and gravity. The oscillation frequency (jet radius) decreases (increases) with velocity ratio. However, the jet oscillates more frequently but less fiercely with stronger inertia and gravity effects. The rupture of the jet is also examined, and is found to be delayed by inertia and gravity. Although the oscillation amplitude is found to be weakest at the jet tip, it is at this location that the jet tends to rupture first. Finally, comparison is carried out between theory and experiment, leading to good agreement.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".