Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental research was carried out to study the fluid mechanics of underwater supersonic gas jets. High pressure air was injected into a water tank through converging-diverging nozzles (Laval nozzles). The jets were operated at different conditions of over-, full- and under-expansions. The jet sequences were visualized using a CCD camera. It was found that the injection of supersonic air jets into water is always accompanied by strong flow oscillation, which is related to the phenomenon of shock waves feedback in the gas phase. The shock wave feedback is different from the acoustic feedback when a supersonic gas jet discharges into open air, which causes screech tone. It is a process that the shock waves enclosed in the gas pocket induce a periodic pressure with large amplitude variation in the gas jet. Consequently, the periodic pressure causes the jet oscillation including the large amplitude expansion. Detailed pressure measurements were also conducted to verify the shock wave feedback phenomenon. Three kinds of measuring methods were used, i.e., pressure probe submerged in water, pressure measurements from the side and front walls of the nozzle devices respectively. The results measured by these methods are in a good agreement. They show that every oscillation of the jets causes a sudden increase of pressure and the average frequency of the shock wave feedback is about 5–10 Hz.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".