MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069934216 · doi:10.2514/1.b35761

Regression Rate Estimation for Swirling-Flow Hybrid Rocket Engines

2015· article· en· W2069934216 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Propulsion and Power · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRocket and propulsion systems research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechanicsPropellantMass flow rateMaterials scienceRocket (weapon)Flow (mathematics)Heat transferConvectionVolumetric flow rateAerospace engineeringEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study, an analytical model based on convective heat feedback is developed for the estimation of the solid fuel surface regression rate of hybrid rocket engines with head-end swirling-flow oxidizer injection. The convective heat transfer between the axial core flow and the burning fuel surface, coupled with the convective heat feedback between the effective tangential flow and the burning fuel surface, is the means by which the fuel regression rate is presumed to be increased by swirl, above that due to the axial mass flux. The representation of the effective boundary layers used in this study includes the influence of transpiration, effective hydraulic diameters (for flows in the axial and tangential direction), and fuel surface roughness. From the literature, a variety of propellant combinations, engine sizes, and flow swirl numbers are evaluated for engines having circular-port fuel grains, with sample model results provided. The predicted fuel regression rates for the most part compare quite well with the corresponding experimental data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it