Dynamics of Emerging Water Droplet Subjected to Sidewall with Different Wettabilities in a Fuel Cell Cathode Channel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract On‐site experiments on low temperature fuel cells revealed that water droplets tend to emerge into the gas channel at the corner. This motivates the present investigation on the effects of the location where water emerges from and the wettability of sidewall on the dynamic behaviour of liquid water in gas channel by numerical simulations that employ the volume‐of‐fluid method. A microchannel with a square cross‐section of 0.25 mm in width and a pore of 0.05 mm in diameter is adopted. The simulation results for different pore locations and wettabilities of sidewall show that the behaviour of water droplet only depends on the wettability of bottom wall when it emerges from the centreline without attaching to the sidewall and gains the highest pressure drop. When the emergence location shifts towards the corner, the water droplet unavoidably attaches to the sidewall and thus the wettability of sidewall is found to have significant effects on its dynamics: hydrophobic sidewall results in droplet detachment and fast removal with the highest pressure drop and the minimal water saturation, whereas hydrophilic sidewall leads to a water film and accumulation with the lowest pressure drop and the minimal water coverage on the bottom wall.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".