Three-dimensional modeling of the gas field distribution of a high-pressure gas jet used in laser fusion cutting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A three-dimensional mathematical model for investigating theoretically the gas flow field distribution of the free exit gas jet from both subsonic and supersonic nozzles under the regime of high-pressure gas-assisted laser fusion cutting is presented in this article. The influence of the flow nonuniformity in the subsonic nozzle exit upon the field distribution in the free gas jet is considered in this model. The calculated results are in good agreement with those observed by shadowgraphy. The relationships between the inlet stagnation pressure and the flow field distribution, incident shock, and normal shock of a gas jet in free space are established. The processing characteristics of the free space gas jet in the high-pressure gas-assisted laser cutting process for both subsonic and supersonic nozzles are analyzed in detail. Compared with that from the subsonic nozzle, such as the commonly used conical or conical–cylindrical nozzle, the gas jet from the supersonic nozzle (Laval nozzle) possesses good features such as uniform distribution, maximum even momentum thrust, and a parallel jet boundary under the condition of the designed “working pressure.”
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".