Comparability of Hot-Wire Estimates of Liquid Water Content in SLD Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Future compliance to FAA 14 CFR Part 25 and EASA CS-25 Appendix O conditions has required icing wind tunnels to expand their cloud simulation envelope, and demonstrate accurate calibration of liquid water content and droplet particle size distributions under these conditions. This has led to a renewed community interest in the accuracy of these calibrations, and the potential inter-facility bias due to the choice of instrumentation and processing methods. This article provides a comparison of the response of various hot-wire liquid water content instruments under Appendix C and supercooled large droplet conditions, after an independent similar analysis at other wind tunnel facilities. The instruments are being used, or are under consideration for use, by facilities collaborating in the ICE GENESIS program. For droplet median volume diameters (MVDs) between about 15 and 250 μm, cylindrical hot wire LWC sensors were found to consistently and increasingly under-read measurements from conical and trough TWC sensors as MVD increased, and were not considered further. Of the remaining TWC sensors, the specific instruments investigated were found to agree within about ± 20% of their average test point response for the range of conditions tested, but systematic scale differences between instruments were found to reach about a factor of 1.4. Sensitivity to increasing droplet MVD was concluded to be similar amongst different instruments given the uncertainties, except for two that exhibited notable roll-off with MVD relative to the others.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".