Revival of water table experiments in fluid mechanics courses, part I
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
In a classroom environment, after a comprehensive theoretical discussion of compressible flows, it is beneficial to conduct a visual experiment in which students can observe these flows and some of the features associated with them. Experimental study of compressible fluid dynamics is associated with high equipment costs; therefore, conducting an experiment is not feasible for some colleges. This article describes an experiment implemented at Manhattan College upper division and graduate fluid dynamics courses at a relatively low cost. In the experiment, a water table hydraulic analogy was used. Theoretical considerations of this analogy are explained in this article. An area–velocity relation was used to study the Mach number at the exit of a Laval nozzle. The theory and measurement came within 10% of each other, which is sufficient for a teaching demonstration. This exercise can be conducted in two class sessions: (1) discussing the theoretical considerations and (2) performing the experiment and analyzing data. The overall experience is a good way to help students understand some of the compressible flow features, and further promote their interest in fluid mechanics.
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