From moving continuous surface flows to jets: a novel perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commons and parallels of the laminar free jets and the flows due to moving continuous surfaces regarding their physical and modelling aspects are reported. The facts such as velocity maximum at their centerline, massive entrainment from the outside the boundary layer, and the absence of pressure gradient provide logical basis for the two flows to form a single family. Famous jet flows such as the planar, radial, and circular jets are shown to have identical behavior to some cases of the stretching sheet, disk, and cylinder, respectively. They serve as limits of these stretching surface flows. Because of the identical behavior and the similar criteria of self-similarity of the two flows, the representation and modelling of free jets due to the corresponding stretching surface flows is reported. Derivation of the plane and radial wall jets from the general self-similar formulation of the corresponding stretching surface flows is advocated. A novel wall jet named as “cylindrical wall jet” is introduced due to the general self-similar formulation of the stretching cylinder case. Analogous to the wall jets in a retarded free stream, wall jets over retardedly moving continuous surfaces are discovered from the general similarity solutions of the plane and axisymmetric stretching surface flows. These serve as novel exact similarity solutions of the boundary layer equations. Common features of the moving surface flows and the jets, distinct from the flows over finite surfaces, are reported. Brief history of the flows due to moving continuous surfaces is presented. Important areas of their technological applications are highlighted.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".