Influence of Particle Size and Temperature on the Burning Rate of Small Caliber Ball Powder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The performance of a small‐caliber propellant is influenced by many factors. Foremost is the chemical composition, however, other factors such as the physical properties of the propellant, the weapon system, and the operating conditions can also greatly influence the performance of a propellant. In this study, researchers investigated the influence of particle size and temperature on the performance of small caliber, ball powder propellant. Particle size is important as it provides the initial surface area available for a propellant to begin the deflagration process. The geometry of the grain will dictate how the deflagration progresses: progressively, regressively, or neutral. The initial temperature of the propellant also has a direct influence on propellant performance. Evaluations were conducted in a constant volume, a temperature‐controlled closed vessel to obtain pressure‐time data for the various experiments. The data coupled with the propellant thermochemical properties were used to calculate the burning rate coefficient (β) and pressure exponent (α) of the propellant. Dynamic vivacity, relative force, and relative quickness values are also reported.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".