Two separate decay timescales of a detonation wave modeled by the Burgers equation and their relation to its chaotic dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study uses a simplified detonation model to investigate the behavior of detonations with galloping-like pulsations. The reactive Burgers equation is used for the hydrodynamic equation, coupled to a pulsed source whereby all the shocked reactants are simultaneously consumed at fixed time intervals. The model mimics the short periodic amplifications of the shock front followed by relatively lengthy decays seen in galloping detonations. Numerical simulations reveal a sawtooth evolution of the front velocity with a period-averaged detonation speed equal to the Chapman-Jouguet velocity. The detonation velocity exhibits two distinct groups of decay timescales, punctuated by reaction pulses. At each pulse, a rarefaction wave is created at the reaction front's last position. A characteristic investigation reveals that characteristics originating from the head of this rarefaction take 1.57 periods to reach and attenuate the detonation front, while characteristics at the tail take an additional period. The leading characteristics are amplified twice, by passing through the reaction fronts of subsequent pulses, before arriving at the shock front, while the trailing characteristics are amplified three times. This leads to the two distinct groups of timescales seen in the detonation front speed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".