Simulating the propulsive capability of explosives loaded with inert and reactive materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The acceleration ability (AA) of explosives diluted with inert (glass) or reactive (aluminum) particles is investigated numerically. Computations are carried out with a multiphase hydrocode to compare the velocity of flyer plates accelerated by rectangular explosive layers, with previous experimental results [1, 2]. The detonation of the explosive phase is modeled by a programmed burn function with the parameters scaled for the neat explosives without particles. The particle phase is assumed compressible and a simplified model for the reaction of the aluminum particles specifies the reaction time and overall particle energy release as two independent parameters. The explosive model employed accurately predicts the flyer velocities at low particle mass loadings (< 16%). At these mass loadings, a substantial amount of the total metal mass reacts on a timescale of tens of microseconds. Nevertheless, for higher particle loadings, calculations overpredict the experimental flyer velocities, suggesting that the explosive model must be scaled with the detonation properties of the non-ideal mixtures.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".