{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02948885976408912, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01310615989515072, 'mean_word_length': 5.132530120481928, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A note on turbulence measurements with a laser velocimeter

In recent comparative measurements using a burst-counter type laser velocimeter and a hot-wire anemometer to assess the capabilities of the velocimeter (e.g. Barnett & Giel 1976; Lau, Morris & Fisher 1979), it was found that the laser velocimeter held good promise as an instrument for turbulence research, especially in high speed, high temperature flows where a hot-wire cannot be used. The axial mean velocities obtained with the LV compared very well with hot-wire measurements. Similarly, the characteristic shapes of the spectra and probability density distributions of the velocity fluctuations were faithfully reproduced. The trends in the distributions of the various turbulence characteristics (e.g. turbulence intensity, velocity covariances, skewness and kurtosis) in a given flow field were identical to those obtained with hotwires. The one significant difference between LV and hot-wire results was the magnitudes of the turbulence level. Since the LV results were obtained with the help of the latest validation and discrimination techniques (Asher 1973), which have now become standard equipment (Durst, Melling & Whitelaw 1976), such a discrepancy was unexpected. The reason for the discrepancy is now fairly clear and a method has been suggested by Whiffen, Lau & Smith (1978) on how to eliminate the error. But the approach is lengthy and time-consuming. This paper describes a method which effectively accomplishes the same end with less effort.