Predicted performance of a two-phase underwater ramjet with a Laval nozzle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To predict engine performance and further instruct the integral engine design, a more reasonable and accurate numerical model of the two-phase underwater ramjet was introduced in this article by considering the bubble formation process. Two-fluid model was used to examine the bubbly flow in the nozzle and its mathematical model was solved by a fourth-order Runge–Kutta method. Subsequently, the influences of vessel velocity, gas mass flow rate, navigational depth, and orifice diameter of the bubble injector on the performance of the engine were discussed. Results show that, compared with convergent nozzle, Laval nozzle is proved to improve the thrust of the engine, especially at relatively high velocity and gas mass flow rate. With the other conditions fixed, there is an optimum vessel velocity for the ramjet, in which maximum thrust is generated. And a smaller orifice diameter always promotes the engine performance, while this promotion is negligible when the orifice diameter is smaller than 1 mm. Besides, increasing backpressure will cause serious performance drop, which means that the the two-phase underwater ramjet is only efficient for shallow depths.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".