The Effects of Cross Links on Adiabatic Two-Phase Flow Characteristics in Scaled Microchannel Heat Sinks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of cross-links, introduced in the channel core of an array of parallel scaled microchannels, were investigated by comparison of the flow distribution in six different multichannel configurations. A standard straight channel test section and five other test sections, which incorporated cross-links were used. One case includes two cross-links located at 1/3 and 2/3’s of the channel length, with their width varied by one, two, and three times the channel width. Whereas, four and six cross-links were used for the other case. All test sections had 45 parallel rectangular channels, with a hydraulic diameter of 1.59 mm, and were fabricated from clear acrylic to enhance flow visualization. The flow distribution was monitored at four select channels. The working mixture was air and water with superficial velocities ranging from 0.03 to 9.93 m/s, and 0.04 to 0.83 m/s, respectively. This corresponds to an observed range of flow quality between 0 and 0.25, whereby the mass flux range is from 42 kg/m2s to 834 kg/m2s. The cross-linked designs permit fluid communication between channels, and the results showed that there is a significant impact on flow distribution when compared to the straight channel design. This is due to flow sharing between neighboring channels. Flow patterns were presented in terms of fractional time function, and provided further insight to flow characteristics. Comparing with a single channel flow regime map, the expected intermittent flow regime was observed 84% to 90% of the time for the cross-linked designs, whereas 65% to 80% of that for the straight channel design.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".