MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025563022 · doi:10.1115/1.2780189

Discussion “Pressure Drop During Refrigerant Condensation Inside Horizontal Smooth, Helical Microfin, and Herringbone Microfin Tubes” (Olivier, J. A., Liebenberg, L., Kedzierski, M. A., and Meyer, J. P., 2004, J. Heat Transfer, 126(5), pp. 687–696)

2008· article· en· W2025563022 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed M. Awad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Heat Transfer · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat Transfer and Boiling Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPressure dropRefrigerantThermodynamicsMaterials scienceExponentPhysicsMathematicsHeat exchanger

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the paper “Pressure Drop During Refrigerant Condensation Inside Horizontal Smooth, Helical Microfin, and Herringbone Microfin Tubes” (Olivier, J. A., Liebenberg, L., Kedzierski, M. A., and Meyer, J. P., 2004, J. Heat Transfer, 126(5), pp. 687–696), there are some errors in equations. The errors will be summarized first. After that, a general expression for the liquid-only friction factor fLo will be presented because the general form presented in this paper, Eq. (16), is not valid for helical microfin tubes.Equation (4) for the momentum pressure drop Δpm must be written as follows:4Δpm=G2{[(1−x)2ρL(1−ε)+x2ρVε]out−[(1−x)2ρL(1−ε)+x2ρVε]in}The error in Eq. 4 is clearly a typographical error considering that the exponent a is not in the Nomenclature and the parameter a is not used elsewhere in the manuscript. In addition, the model will faithfully predict the measurements given in the original paper once all of the other corrections have been incorporated.In Eq. 7, for the definition of the Froude rate, it is better to use the subscript V not v for vapor to use a consistent style of writing the parameters in the whole paper7Ft=[G2x3(1−x)ρV2gDi]1∕2The line after Eq. (9) must be written as “with the two-phase multiplier being that of Souza et al. [16].” Reference [16] is Souza, A. L., Chato, J. C., Wattelet, J. P., and Christoffersen, B. R., 1993, “Pressure Drop During Two-Phase Flow of Pure Refrigerants and Refrigerant-Oil Mixtures in Horizontal Smooth Tubes,” ASME Heat Transfer With Alternate Refrigerants, HTD, 243, pp. 35–41.Equation (10) is applicable only for the range FrL>0.7, where the Froude number is defined asFrL=G2ρL2gDiEquation (12) for helical microfin tubes must be written as follows:12fLo=0.046ReL−0.2(DiDe)−1(AAn)−0.5(secβ)−0.75where13AAn=1−4entπDi2cosβEquation (14) for herringbone microfin tubes must be written as follows:14fLo=0.046ReL−0.2(DiDe)−1(AAn)−0.5(2secβ)−1.1where15AAn=1−2entπDi2cosβThe general form of Eq. (16) is not valid for helical microfin tubes because the term ent is multiplied by 1 in Eq. (16), while the term ent is multiplied by 4 in Eqs. (12) and (13).Based on Eqs. (12)–(15), the following general form for helical microfin tubes and for herringbone microfin tubes is presented asfLo=0.046ReL−0.2(DiDe)−1(1−4entπDi2Xcosβ)−0.5(Xsecβ)−YFor helical microfin tubes,X=1Y=0.75For herringbone microfin tubes,X=2Y=1.1The term 4∕X in the general form for helical microfin tubes and for herringbone microfin tubes can be written in different ways, such as 23−X, 6−2X, or 3!−2X.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Heat TransferSame topicHeat Transfer and Boiling StudiesFrench-language works237,207