Linear Analysis of Boundary-Layer Instabilities on a Finned Cone at Mach 6
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Boundary-layer instabilities for a finned cone at [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and zero incidence angle are examined using linear stability methods of varying fidelity and maturity. The geometry and laminar flow conditions correspond to experiments conducted at the Boeing Air Force Mach 6 Quiet Tunnel at Purdue University. Where possible, a common baseflow is utilized among the stability computations, and comparisons are made along the acreage of the cone where transition is first observed in the experiment. Stability results utilizing linear stability theory, planar parabolized stability equations, one-way Navier–Stokes, forced direct numerical simulation, and adaptive mesh refinement wavepacket tracking are presented. A dominant three-dimensional vortex instability occurring at [Formula: see text] is identified and correlates well with experimental measurements of transition onset. With the exception of linear stability theory, all of the higher-fidelity linear methods considered in this work were consistent in predicting the initial growth and general structure of the vortex instability as it evolved downstream. Some of the challenges, opportunities, and development needs of the stability methods considered are discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".