MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322235287 · doi:10.2514/6.2008-111

Propagation of Detonation Waves from an Energy Conservation Viewpoint

2008· article· en· W2322235287 on OpenAlexaff
J. A. C. KentŽfield

Bibliographic record

Venue46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetonationEnergy conservationEnergy (signal processing)Conservation of energyPhysicsComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceAcousticsGeographyEngineeringElectrical engineeringExplosive materialArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The work reported here relates to the study of the propagation of selfsustaining detonation waves when such waves are not supported, in a nonsteady flow situation, by a flow of pressurized fluid behind the wave. The latter is the case for normal shock waves, of moderate strength without detonation, or with strong shocks perpetrating combustion when such shocks travel into combustible mixtures. The combustion process is normally of the Rayleigh type and occurs in a relatively thin layer behind the shock or detonation wave. For a self propagating, selfsustaining, detonation wave the work required to compress, progressively, each elemental layer of reactants has to be extracted from expansion, following combustion, of the layer immediately upstream of the layer downstream that has yet to be compressed and ignited by the propagating detonation wave. It is shown that a self-sustaining, self propagating detonation wave produces a situation which is essentially identical to that which would occur following constant volume combustion, of stationary reactants, in the combustion tube. Based on prior work by Foa it was found that the expanded material (products) produced by the detonation wave did not have sufficient energy to keep pace with the detonation wave and hence push the detonation wave to propagate at an even higher velocity than the very high velocity achieved by the detonation process.

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)0.000
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 score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 venue46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and ExhibitSame topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207