New Predictive Methodology for the Onset of Flow Instability in Single Horizontal Microtube With an Inlet Orifice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new methodology to predict the onset of flow instability (OFI) in single horizontal microtube with inlet orifice is proposed. The predictive methodology states that OFI occurs as the pumping power under no heating condition is equal to the pumping power under heating condition in the microtube at the same volume rate. Since the pumping power can be simply described as the product of volume rate and pressure drop cross the microtube, the heat flux at OFI is determined as the two-phase pressure drop under heating condition is equal to the single-phase pressure drop under no heating condition at same flow rate. The addition of inlet orifice increases the pumping power under no heating condition. The increased pumping power by orifice delays the onset of flow instability. The predictive methodology is validated by comparing the predicted heat flux at OFI with our previous experimental data in the microtubes with three different inlet restriction ratios. The result shows that the proposed method is capable of prediction of heat flux at OFI with a deviation of 30% and mean absolute error of 13% at mass flux less than 2000 kg/m2·s.
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".