Evaluation of Pads and Geometrical Shapes for Constructing Evaporative Cooling System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigations were carried out into local materials as cooling pads, and shapes for constructing evaporative coolers. Materials investigated include jute, latex foam, charcoal and wood shavings. Shapes of cooling systems considered were of hexagonal and square cross-sections. Some physical properties of pad materials that could affect the effectiveness of the evaporative coolers were also determined. Results of “No – load” tests carried out on the coolers indicated that the effectiveness of the cooling pads was in the following decreasing order of magnitude - Jute, latex foam, charcoal and wood shavings. The hexagonal shape cooler was found to be more efficient than the square shape. The average cooling or saturation efficiency for hexagonal cooler was 93.5% (jute), 91.4% (latex foam), 91.3% (charcoal) and 91.9% (wood shavings). The maximum temperatures observed were 6.4 (jute pad), 4.9 (latex foam pad), 5.2 (charcoal pad) and 3.6 degree Celsius. The results of this study will assist researchers in their selection of pad materials in the study of evaporative cooling systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".