Experimental Investigation of Flow Boiling Instability in a Single Horizontal Microtube With and Without Inlet Restriction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental study is conducted to investigate the effects of inlet restriction (orifice) on flow boiling instability in a single horizontal microtube. The test-section is composed of a stainless steel tube with an inner diameter of 889 μm, and a length of 150 mm. Experiments are performed for three different orifice configurations with 20%, 35%, and 50% area ratio. Mass flux is varied from 700 to 3000 kg/m2 · s, whereas the heat flux is varied from 6 to 27 W/cm2. The dielectric coolant FC-72 is selected as the working fluid. In the absence of an orifice at the inlet, four oscillation types are observed at the onset of flow instability; it is also noticed that the frequency of the oscillations increases with increasing heat flux, while the amplitude remains constant. The addition of an orifice at the inlet helps stabilizing the flow without generating significant pressure drop at the same operating condition as the microtube without orifice. The 20% area ratio orifice shows better performance at low mass fluxes (<1000 kg/m2 · s). Whereas, at high mass fluxes (>2000 kg/m2 · s), 50% and 35% area ratio orifices are efficient in stabilizing the flow or delaying the onset of flow instability. Therefore, selecting the area ratio of the orifice depends on the operating condition. A small area ratio orifice is preferably used at low mass fluxes, whereas a large area ratio orifice is more suitable for high mass fluxes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".