Effect of Working Fluid on Pulsating Heat Pipe Thermal Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulsating heat pipes (PHPs) are complex heat transfer devices whose thermal performance is governed by a strong thermohydrodynamic coupling. Recently, PHPs have attracted attention as novel electronic cooling devices. In this study, we used a self-rewetting fluid and obtained new experimental results for the improvement of the heat transport efficiency in PHPs. In contrast to the case of common liquids, the surface tension of self-rewetting fluids increases with temperature. Because of the increase in the surface tension at high temperatures, these fluids tend to flow toward the dry spot appearing on a heated surface, and thus, the boiling heat transfer is improved. We constructed PHPs from multiport extruded aluminum tubes with square channels. The PHPs consisted of a heating section, an adiabatic section, and a condensation section with a heat sink. We investigated the effect of the type of working fluid and the fluid fill ratio on the device performance. The working fluids employed were a self-rewetting fluid, water, and ethanol. The thermophysical properties of the working fluid affected the device performance, which also depended strongly on the boundary conditions employed during the PHP operation. In particular, the use of a self-rewetting fluid in the PHPs helped enhance the heat transport efficiency to a considerable extent.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".