MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109476240 · doi:10.3390/nano4040844

A Novel Method to Determine the Thermal Conductivity of Interfacial Layers Surrounding the Nanoparticles of a Nanofluid

2014· article· en· W2109476240 on OpenAlexafffund
Rajinder Pal

Bibliographic record

VenueNanomaterials · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanofluid Flow and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNanofluidThermal conductivityMaterials scienceHeat transferViscosityNanoparticleComposite materialNanofluidicsLayer (electronics)ThermalThermodynamicsNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nanofluids are becoming increasingly popular as heat transfer fluids in a variety of industrial applications, due to their enhanced heat transfer characteristics. The thermal conductivity of nanofluids is usually found to be much larger than that predicted from the classical models, such as the Maxwell model. The key mechanism of enhancement of thermal conductivity of dilute nanofluids is the solvation of nanoparticles with a layer of matrix liquid. As of now, little is known quantitatively about the thermal conductivity of the interfacial layers surrounding the nanoparticles. In this article, a novel method is presented to determine the thermal conductivity of the interfacial layers of the nanoparticles. The proposed method allows the estimation of the thermal conductivity of interfacial layers based on the combined measurements of the intrinsic viscosity and intrinsic thermal conductivity of a bulk nanofluid. From the measured intrinsic viscosity of the nanofluid, the thickness of the interfacial layer is estimated. Using the known interfacial layer thickness along with the measured intrinsic thermal conductivity of the nanofluid, the thermal conductivity of the interfacial layer is estimated. The proposed method is validated by simulation and experimental results.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanomaterialsSame topicNanofluid Flow and Heat TransferFrench-language works237,207