The Effect of Inlet Orifice on Critical Heat Flux and Flow Boiling Heat Transfer in Single Horizontal Microtube
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flow oscillation is a crucial issue for the development of flow boiling heat transfer in the applications. Inlet orifice has been proven be an option to eliminate the oscillation. However, the effects of inlet orifice on critical heat flux and flow boiling heat transfer coefficient are lack of study. In this work, the effects of inlet restriction on critical heat flux and heat transfer coefficient in single horizontal microtube under uniform heating condition is experimentally investigated using FC-72 as working fluid. A stainless steel microtube with an inner diameter of 889 μm is selected as main microtube. Two smaller microtubes are assembled at the inlet of main microtube to achieve the restriction configurations of 50% and 20% area ratios. The experimental measurement is carried out at mass fluxes ranging from 160–870 kg/m2·s and heat fluxes varying from 6–170 kW/m2. Two saturation pressures, 10 and 45 kPa, are tested. The experimental results of critical heat flux and two phase heat transfer coefficient obtained in the microtube without orifice are compared with the existing correlations. The addition of an orifice does not enhance the normal critical heat flux but increases the premature critical heat flux. In aspect of heat transfer, the orifice shows improvement on heat transfer coefficient at low mass flux and high saturation pressure.
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".