MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094660611 · doi:10.1175/2009jas2863.1

Effects of Pressure on Collision, Coalescence, and Breakup of Raindrops. Part I: Experiments at 50 kPa

2009· article· en· W2094660611 on OpenAlexaff
Roland List, C. Fung, R. Nissen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Atmospheric Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Surface Properties and Treatments
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreakupDrop (telecommunication)MechanicsBinCoalescence (physics)NozzleMeteorologyMaterials scienceKinetic energyCollisionPhysicsThermodynamicsMathematicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Previous breakup experiments have been carried out at laboratory pressures (∼100 kPa). However, raindrop interactions mainly take place higher up in the atmosphere, even in the supercooled part of a cloud where drops can be initiated by shedding from hailstones. Thus, 50 kPa, corresponding to a height of ∼5.5 km in the atmosphere at a temperature of ∼−20°C, was selected to bracket the region of interest for rain. Six drop pairs were studied at 50 kPa and laboratory temperature (∼20°C), one of them with reduced surface tension. The apparatus consists of drop-producing nozzles, acceleration systems, deflectors, a timing and selection control, a pressure regulator, and a photographic unit, mostly set up in a low-pressure chamber. After acceleration to terminal speed, a smaller drop is blown into the path of the larger one while an electronic timing system selects suitable drop pairs that may collide, thereby triggering eight subsequent flashes with a frequency of up to 100 kHz. The results are displayed in terms of a normalized fragment probability per size bin, ready for parameterization in the Part II of this paper. Five drop pairs were studied in 772 individual events. Overall, 51% resulted in filament breakup, 22% in sheet breakup, 7% in disk breakup, and 20% ended in coalescence. No bag breakups were observed. When compared to the 100-kPa results, the fragment numbers increased at large collision kinetic energies (CKEs) by factors of between 2.64 and 4.37 with pressure decreasing from 100 to 50 kPa, and they remained unchanged at low CKE. Detailed diagrams and tables show the results for the different drop pairs and collision categories. Increasing the sensitivity of the optical measurements from 0.05 to 0.01 cm increased the number of recognized fragments by factors up to 4.4, but only for the two higher-CKE cases. The higher resolution did not increase the fragment numbers detected in the lower-CKE range.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Atmospheric SciencesSame topicPlant Surface Properties and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207