Self-Excited Oscillations of Wiping Air Knives Part II: Suppression of Jet Oscillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Planar jets impinging upon a rigid surface exhibit large-scale oscillations and produce high-intensity tonal noise. These phenomena are due to an aeroacoustic feedback mechanism discussed in the first paper in this three paper series. This paper is part of an experimental investigation into the interaction of multiple impinging planar jets. An experimental facility of two auxiliary planar jets placed at an inclined angle either side of a planar impinging jet is used to examine the effect of auxiliary jet velocity on the aeroacoustic feedback mechanism of the centre jet. It is found that auxiliary jets of sufficiently high velocity can eliminate the oscillations of the planar jet. Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) images and Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (POD) analysis confirm that the auxiliary jets have stabilized the planar jet and eliminated the large vortical structures. Static and dynamic pressure measurements performed in the presence of the auxiliary jets show an increase in the stagnation pressure at the plate along with a reduction in the fluctuating pressure.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".