Comparison of plasma development in a dielectric barrier discharge actuator operated using a constant and sinusoidal applied voltage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-1695.vid Simulations of the plasma created by a dielectric barrier discharge actuator operating in pure Nitrogen are presented. The plasma created by a constant applied potential of 1.2 kV is compared to that generated by a sinusoidal applied potential with the same peak to peak potential of 1.2 kV operating at 10 MHz for two cycles. For the constant applied potential the plasma continuously propagates downstream towards the grounded electrode and can be identified by both an area of increased ion density and a high ionization sheath region. For the sinusoidal applied potential the sheath region is observed only during the first half of the cycle and develops at a slower rate than for the instant applied potential case. Furthermore, in the sinusoidal case, the density of free electrons available for ionization in the sheath region is increased at the end of the first cycle, but decreased at the end of the second. The plasma for a sinusoidal applied potential extends further away from the dielectric surface when compared to a constant applied potential case but appears limited in downstream extent by the change in the surface charge developed by the sinusoidal case.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".