The Effect of Pore Size on the Heat Transfer Between a Heated Finned Surface and a Saturated Porous Plate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An investigation was performed to examine the effect that the pore size in a porous plate had on the heat transfer between a heated finned surface and a saturated porous plate at different gap distances between the surfaces. Experiments were performed for a porous plate with a nominal pore size of 50μm and the results were compared with previous results for a pore size of 200μm (Schertzer et al., 2006, “The Effect of Gap Distance on the Heat Transfer Performance Between a Finned Surface and a Saturated Porous Plate,” Int. J. Heat. Mass Transfer, 4, pp. 4200–4208). The plate with the smaller pore size performed better at small and intermediate gaps but not at large gaps. The maximum heat transfer coefficient was similar for both plates when compared in terms of the ratio between the gap distance and the pore size. However, the temperature distributions on the heated foil and their evolution with heat flux were dissimilar when compared in terms of the gap distance or the gap to pore ratio, suggesting that the boiling dynamics within the gap does not scale with either parameters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".