MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333616136 · doi:10.2514/6.2009-715

Hypersonic Shock-Induced Combustion Propulsion

2009· article· en· W2333616136 on OpenAlexaff
C. Knowlen, Andrew Higgins, Paul G. Harris, A. P. Bruckner

Bibliographic record

Venue47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerospace engineeringPropulsionCombustionShock (circulatory)AeronauticsHypersonic speedEnvironmental scienceNuclear engineeringAutomotive engineeringPhysicsEngineeringChemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An investigation of the shock-induced-combustion ramjet propulsive cycle was conducted in the 38-mm-bore ram accelerator facility at the University of Washington. Titanium-alloy projectiles were launched into reactive propellants at Mach numbers greater than 5.5 to determine if the combustion process could be shock initiated and stabilized, what levels of thrust can be generated, and what the reactivity of the projectile material is in hypersonic flow. Experiments were carried out in methane- and ethane-based propellants with and without carbon dioxide diluent. Positive acceleration was observed in CH4/O2/CO2 and C2H6/O2 propellants in the Mach range of 5.5-7 (1.7-2.1 km/s) for distances of up to 6 meters. In the majority of cases, the acceleration process was terminated by either unstart, cruise at constant velocity (i.e., thrust equal drag), or wave fall-off. Sustained accelerations greater than 9000 g and average specific thrust 150 N-s/kg were achieved in these experiments.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.260
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace ExpositionSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207