MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203205956 · doi:10.18273/revuin.v20n2-2021009

Diseño, construcción y prueba estática experimental de un motor-cohete de combustible solido

2021· article· es· W3203205956 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rafael Robayo–Salazar, Julián Portocarrero-Hermann, Juan Meneses-Suta, Jonathan Salgado-Díaz, Sergio Martínez-Riaño, Fernando Delgado, Andrea Gómez-Ruge

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista UIS Ingenierías · 2021
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Science and Environmental Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Este artículo presenta el diseño, construcción y prueba estática de un prototipo de motor cohete propulsado por combustible sólido tipo Candy. El diseño se basó en la metodología SRM (Solid Rocket Motor Design). El motor cohete incluyó el sistema ignitor, la cámara de combustión, el combustible sólido y la tobera. El diámetro interno de la cámara de combustión y la longitud total del motor cohete fueron de 27,67 mm y 230 mm, respectivamente. La tobera del motor cohete fue de tipo Laval convergente-divergente. El combustible sólido se basó en la mezcla de nitrato de potasio (KNO3) (oxidante) y azúcar de alta pureza (o sucrosa: C12H22O11) (combustible), cuya síntesis se logró a través de un proceso de fusión térmica (150-170°C durante 20-25 min). El desempeño del motor cohete fue evaluado mediante una prueba estática de combustión; arrojando como resultados una fuerza de empuje máxima (carga) de 227 N, un impulso total de 98,69 Ns y un impulso especifico de 65,8 s, permitiendo así, su clasificación como un motor cohete clase G. Los resultados obtenidos son considerados de gran importancia en el desarrollo y caracterización de motores cohete de combustible sólido, necesarios para impulsar el campo de la cohetería experimental en Colombia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista UIS IngenieríasSame topicSoil Science and Environmental ManagementFrench-language works237,207