MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329579155 · doi:10.2514/6.2004-3744

Single-Tube Two-Dimensional Evaluation of a Pulse Detonation Engine as a Ramjet Replacement

2004· article· en· W2329579155 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Harris, Robert C. Ripley, Stephen M. Guzik

Bibliographic record

Venue40th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMartec (Canada)Defence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRamjetDetonationTube (container)Pulse (music)Aerospace engineeringMaterials scienceAutomotive engineeringComputer scienceAcousticsMechanical engineeringCombustorEngineeringPhysicsElectrical engineeringCombustionExplosive material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The performance of an idealized pulse detonation engine (PDE), based on a realistic multi-tube system concept, was evaluated through simulations of the behavior of a singletube. Event timing, geometric and valve inflow parameters calculated with the design version of an analytical model were used as input for subsequent performance calculations based on a limit cycle version of the analytical model, a one-dimensional model based on the method of characteristics and a two-dimensional model based on the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code Chinook. The CFD methodology was validated through comparison with analytical ramjet calculations and through reproduction of PDE simulations from the open literature. Factors affecting system performance were then evaluated including the importance of thermodynamic consistency in single-γ simulations, the effect of single-γ models, time-averaged pressure, percentage purge, the combined effect of mass flow rate and percentage purge, and the effect of nozzle expansion ratio and nozzle entrance cone angle.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations13
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue40th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and ExhibitSame topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207