MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985797717 · doi:10.4188/jte.56.97

Numerical Simulation of Airflow Characteristics in Air Suction Gun

2010· article· en· W1985797717 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yonggui Li, Yoshiyuki Iemoto, Shuichi Tanoue, Satoshi Takasu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Textile Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Fukui
KeywordsAirflowSuctionMechanicsEnvironmental scienceComputer simulationMeteorologyMarine engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated numerically flow patterns in the air suction gun and dependence of the flow pattern on the supplied air pressure in order to clarify the working mechanism of an air suction gun. The compressed air issued from compressed-air inflow tubes into a yarn passage accelerates with sucked ambient air owing to negative pressure generated by the compressed air, and attains a critical speed near the throat of the de Laval tube and a supersonic speed in the divergent part of the de Laval tube. The supersonic flow generates a normal shock wave and changes into a subsonic flow. Then, the air is discharged into the atmosphere. Since this compressed air has a circumferential component, it forms a helical flow along the wall of the yarn propulsion tube composed of the de Laval tube and the straight tube. Velocity and density of the helical airflow near the wall are larger than those near the centerline. The suction efficiency is promoted greatly owing to this high focusing ability (bias of high speed and density flow toward the vicinity of the wall) and a large yarn length in the helical airflow. Increased supplied air pressure brings about increases in both air density and supersonic flow region, which promotes the yarn suction force.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Textile EngineeringSame topicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics ResearchFrench-language works237,207