Collision Rates of Cloud Droplets in Turbulent Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Direct numerical simulations of an evolving turbulent flow field have been performed to explore how turbulence affects the motion and collisions of cloud droplets. Large numbers of droplets are tracked through the flow field and their positions, velocities, and collision rates have been found to depend on the eddy dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy. The radial distribution function, which is a measure of the preferential concentration of droplets, increases with eddy dissipation rate. When droplets are clustered there is an increased probability of finding two droplets closely separated; thus, there is an increase in the collision kernel. For the flow fields explored in this study, the clustering effect accounts for an increase in the collision kernel of 8%–42%, as compared to the gravitational collision kernel. The spherical collision kernel is also a function of the radial relative velocities among droplets and these velocities increase from 1.008 to 1.488 times the corresponding gravitational value. For an eddy dissipation rate of about 100 cm2 s−3, the turbulent collision kernel is 1.06 times the magnitude of the gravitational value, while for an eddy dissipation rate of 1500 cm2 s−3, this increases to 2.08 times. Therefore, these results demonstrate that turbulence could play an important role in the broadening and evolution of the droplet size distribution and the onset of precipitation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".