In-situ measurements of the onset of bulk exothermicity in shock initiation of reactive powder mixtures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The shock initiation process was directly observed in different powder mixtures that produce little or no gas upon reaction. The samples of reactive powder were contained in recovery capsules that permitted the samples to be analyzed after being shocked and that allowed the initiation of reaction to be monitored using three different methods. The microsecond time-scale processes were observed via a fast two-color pyrometer. Light intensity detected from the bottom of reactive samples was slightly greater compared to inert simulants in the first 10 μs after shock arrival. However, this light was much less intense than that which would correspond to the bulk of the material reacting. Thus it seemed that only small, localized zones, or hot spots, had begun to react on a time scale of less than 30 μs. Light emissions were then recorded over longer time scales, and intense light appeared at the bottom of samples a few milliseconds to a few hundreds of milliseconds after shock arrival at the bottom of the test samples. Thus it appeared that the bulk of the material reacted as the hot spots spread via convective/diffusive means. This bulk reaction was also observed using thermocouples for a large number of mixtures and incident shock pressures. The delay time for the onset of bulk reaction was found to be not strongly dependent upon shock pressure but seemed to correlate with the burning speed of the mixtures. The shock initiation process appeared to take place via the initiation and growth of hot spots, as in high explosives, except that burning speeds are much slower in reactive powders that produce little gas.
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".