MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070346605 · doi:10.2514/2.6075

Thermodynamics of Airbreathing Pulse-Detonation Engines

2002· article· en· W2070346605 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 · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetonationCombustionPropulsionMechanicsThermodynamic cycleShock waveShock tubePhysicsThermodynamicsChemistryExplosive material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An analytical investigation was conducted of the idealized performance potential, from a thermodynamic cycle viewpoint, of airbreathing pulse-detonation engines (PDEs) primarily intended for air-vehicle propulsion. The investigation was restricted to the static operation of PDEs. The detonation-wave model used was of the classical Zel'dovich-von Neumann-Doering type, in which an initiating shock wave is followed by a Rayleigh-type combustion process in a duct, the detonation tube, of uniform cross-sectional area. The results of the analysis indicated that the idealized PDE performance was only slightly better than that of a simple, easily analyzed, constant-volume combustion, Lenoir-type surrogate cycle. The PDE also had the potential of being slightly more efficient, under idealized flight conditions, with induction ramming occurring, than the corresponding surrogate cycle. The corresponding surrogate cycle will advance thermodynamically, due to intake ramming, from a relatively inefficient Lenoir cycle to a more efficient Humphrey, or Atkinson, cycle.

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)0.000
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 score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.198 · 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