Synchronisation behaviour between two candle flame oscillators with similar and dissimilar amplitudes of oscillations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interactions between a couple of flames often lead to their synchronisation. Flame–flame interaction has recently been linked with thermoacoustic instability in combustors. However, synchronisation caused by the interaction of coupled flames is still not fully understood. Furthermore, the interacting flame oscillators in practical situations often have a slight dissimilarity between them. Here, we systematically study the effects of such dissimilarity on the flame–flame interaction with a simple system consisting of two candle flame oscillators (CFO). The interaction is studied with CFOs having similar and dissimilar amplitudes of oscillations. The distance between the CFOs is parametrically varied. The results indicate that the synchronisation phenomena caused by flame–flame interaction have a complex dependence on the distance between the oscillators. Further, we find the flame–flame interaction to be significantly affected by the dissimilarity of the interacting oscillators. In-phase (IP) synchronisation occurs when the interacting oscillators are separated by a low distance and the oscillators have similar or moderately dissimilar amplitudes of oscillations. On the other hand, for large disparities in the amplitudes of oscillations, lag synchronisation (LS) is observed at a low distance between the CFOs. If the interacting oscillators have similar amplitudes of oscillations, the amplitude death (AD) regime persists throughout the operating range except at a low distance between the CFOs. In contrast, if the interacting oscillators have dissimilar amplitudes of oscillations, different rich dynamical states such as lag synchronisation and partial amplitude death are encountered in addition to amplitude death as the distance between the oscillators is varied. This study might be useful to understand synchronisation due to flame–flame interaction in modern multi-burner turbulent combustors where the constituent burners often have inherent dissimilarities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".