MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095499640 · doi:10.1243/095765005x31388

Nucleation of steam in high-pressure nozzle experiments

2005· article· en· W2095499640 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G. Gyarmathy

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part A Journal of Power and Energy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRocket and propulsion systems research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupersaturationSubcoolingNucleationSuperheated steamThermodynamicsNozzleMechanicsMaterials scienceChemistryBoiler (water heating)BoilingPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nucleation characteristics of high-pressure saturated/subcooled steam were studied in Laval nozzles. By using nozzles designed for different expansion rates and varying the inlet stagnation state in wide limits, the Wilson lines and the fog structure (droplet size and number count) were determined between 0.5 and 5 MPa pressure for expansion rates ranging between 10 000 and 200 000 s −1 . The results show that Wilson point nucleation typically occurs in such fast expansions at supersaturated conditions where 3.5-5 per cent moisture would be present in the case of equilibrium flow. Higher expansion rates entail higher supersaturation, causing the formation of smaller, but more numerous, fog droplets. The reported measurements were made in the early seventies and were originally evaluated on the basis of the IFC-67 Steam Tables. The present evaluation uses the new IF-97 equations and reveals significant differences between the old and the new steam tables, leading to severe discrepancies in the value of subcooling at the Wilson point.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.228
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations87
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part A Journal of Power and EnergySame topicRocket and propulsion systems researchFrench-language works237,207