MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151426822 · doi:10.1002/prep.200700041

A Simple Analytical Model for Reactive Particle Ignition in Explosives

2007· article· en· W2151426822 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Tanguay, Andrew Higgins, Fan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenuePropellants Explosives Pyrotechnics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergetic Materials and Combustion
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetonationIgnition systemMechanicsExplosive materialParticle (ecology)Flow (mathematics)Field (mathematics)NitromethanePhysicsClassical mechanicsThermodynamicsChemistryMathematicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A simple analytical model is developed to predict ignition of magnesium particles in nitromethane detonation products. The flow field is simplified by considering the detonation products as a perfect gas expanding in a vacuum in a planar geometry. This simplification allows the flow field to be solved analytically. A single particle is then introduced in this flow field. Its trajectory and heating history are computed. It is found that most of the particle heating occurs in the Taylor wave and in the quiescent flow region behind it, shortly after which the particle cools. By considering only these regions, thereby considerably simplifying the problem, the flow field can be solved analytically with a more realistic equation of state (such as JWL) and a spherical geometry. The model is used to compute the minimum charge diameter for particle ignition to occur. It is found that the critical charge diameter for particle ignition increases with particle size. These results are compared to experimental data and show good agreement.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations18
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePropellants Explosives PyrotechnicsSame topicEnergetic Materials and CombustionFrench-language works237,207