Detonations Structure with a Chain-Branching Model Yielding Three Explosion Limits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrogen-oxygen chemistry is characterized by a chain-branching mechanism that yields three explosion limits. An appropriate detailed kinetic scheme should produce the correct chain-branching behavior, but in many circumstances, a simpler yet reasonably realistic model will be warranted. It is also easier to develop a clear understanding of the reaction zone structure using a simpler model, that includes only the key mechanisms. To that efiect, we consider a four step chain-branching scheme that exhibits an explosion behavior with three limits, very similar to hydrogen. We focus in particular on the structure of a detonation wave, using a combination between numerical simulation and analysis. Numerical simulations using the four step scheme show distinctive keystone flgures in the ∞ow fleld, close to observations in hydrogen-oxygen detonation experiments. The steady wave structure is resolved using a perturbation analysis, which clarifles the difierences between explosion and no-explosion regions and allows for an evaluation of the reaction length. The analysis assumes both high activation energy and a slow initiation. Three cases are identifled, respectively with post-shock pressure and temperature located within the explosion region, close to the explosion limit and within the no-explosion region. The induction length is shorter and the reaction rate is faster by several orders of magnitude in the explosion region.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".