MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166533727 · doi:10.5139/jksas.2008.36.8.774

Experimental Study on Characteristics of Micro-Supersonic Jet Flows

2008· article· en· W2166533727 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet Flows
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPitot tubeJet (fluid)SchlierenSupersonic speedNozzleReynolds numberMechanicsMach numberFlow visualizationPhysicsChoked flowMaterials scienceFlow (mathematics)TurbulenceThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

마이크로 초음속 제트유동 특성에 관한 실험적 연구가 이루어졌다. 노즐 출구직경이 440 <TEX>${\mu}m$</TEX>인 음속노즐과 노즐 출구직경이 800 <TEX>${\mu}m$</TEX>이고 노즐출구 마하수가 2.0인 Laval 노즐이 파이렉스 관을 이용 제작되어 실험에 사용되었다. 슐리렌 유동가시화와 유동장의 피토압력 분포가 측정되었다. 제트유동의 대표적인 특성인 유동장의 초음속 길이, 제트코어 길이, 속도장의 상사성 및 제트경계의 확산도가 관찰되었다. 실험결과는 보다 높은 레이놀즈수의 초음속 제트유동에 대한 과거 관찰결과와 비교분석 되었으며, 마이크로 제트유동의 전체적인 유동특성은 제트코어 길이와 제트경계 확산특성을 제외하고는 높은 레이놀즈수의 제트유동 특성과 정성적으로 유사함이 확인되었다. An experimental study on the micro-supersonic jet flow fields has been carried out. A sonic nozzle of 440 <TEX>${\mu}m$</TEX>-exit diameter and a Laval nozzle of 800 <TEX>${\mu}m$</TEX> exit diameter with the nozzle exit Mach number 2.0 were fabricated by stretching a micro Pyrex glass tube for the present experiments. Schlieren flow visualization and Pitot pressure distribution of the jet flow field were obtained. Representative characteristics of the jet flow fields such as, supersonic length, jet core length, similarity of the velocity field, and jet spreading rates, have been observed. All the results were compared to previous observations of larger supersonic jets of higher Reynolds numbers, and it was found that overall characteristics of the micro supersonic jet are qualitatively similar as those of the higher Reynolds number jets, except the jet core length and the jet spreading rate.

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 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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space SciencesSame topicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet FlowsFrench-language works237,207