Experiments with Ejector Rocket Entrainment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experimental tests are conducted to evaluate the effect of an annular rocket exhaust pattern on the mixing characteristics of a simple ejector. Rocket exhaust is simulated using pure oxygen while air is entrained from the surroundings at static conditions. Results are compared with an equivalent configuration using traditional circular rocket exhaust nozzles. It is shown that an annular rocket exhaust pattern yields a ratio of entrained air to rocket mass flows over 75% higher than an equivalent circular rocket exhaust pattern over a range of rocket chamber total pressures. It is demonstrated that an annular rocket exhaust pattern within a straight ejector duct with a length-to-diameter ratio of 6 is able to produce entrained air to rocket mass flow ratios up to 10% higher than a straight then expanding ejector configuration twice as long employing a circular rocket exhaust pattern. Exit plane measurements of both total pressure and oxygen concentration are also collected at high and low rocket chamber total pressures. An annular exhaust pattern is shown to yield an average Mach number between 20 and 30% higher than an equivalent configuration using a circular exhaust pattern. Oxygen concentration results indicate that an annular rocket exhaust pattern is better able to mix the entrained air and rocket streams through a more uniform concentration distribution and smaller regions of distinct air and/or rocket species.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".