Ejector Recirculation and Entrainment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Confined-jet flow structures were investigated in the context of an ejector ramjet application. An ejector apparatus was constructed with variable mixing chamber diameters and downstream flow restrictions in the form of an orifice plate. The performance of the ejector was characterized by its entrainment and compression ratios for 30 unique geometric combinations. A mixing chamber diameter that was incrementally larger than the orifice plate diameter maximized the entrainment ratio performance of the ejector. Measurements of the wall static pressure, collected by wall pressure taps, were used to determine the relationship between the ejector performance and the confined-jet flow structures within. Experimental wall static-pressure measurements were supplemented by Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes [Formula: see text] shear-stress transport computational fluid dynamics simulations of 18 ejector geometric combinations. The initial static-pressure gradient, axial length of the confined-jet flow, location of the recirculation core, and recirculation eddy separation and reattachment points were investigated for a correlation to the maximum entrainment performance of the ejector. The recirculation eddy size and fully developed location of the confined-jet flow showed little evidence of correlation to the ejector performance.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".