Thrust Calculation for Low-Reynolds-Number Micronozzles
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Micronozzles represent a unique flow regime defined by low Reynolds numbers and supersonic Mach numbers. Currently, the classic method of calculating thrust is used by the micropropulsion community to determine nozzle performance from simulation data. This approach accounts for momentum flux and pressure imbalance at the nozzle exit, and it assumes that the viscous stress tensor’s contribution to thrust is negligible. This assumption, however, can break down at low Reynolds numbers, where viscous forces play a significant role in the flow dynamics. In this paper, an extended method of calculating thrust, which accounts for the force due to the viscous stress tensor, is derived from the Navier–Stokes equation. Computational fluid dynamic simulations are then used to assess and quantify the error produced by the classic method at low Reynolds numbers . Two micronozzle geometries are used as test cases: 1) an truncated planar plug nozzle, and 2) a 30 deg linear-walled planar de Laval nozzle. Results indicate that the accuracy of the classic method begins to break down at , below which there is a significant risk that the classic method will produce erroneous results. Moreover, for , the classic method has the potential to misrepresent the thrust of a simulated micronozzle by 50%.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it