Experimental study of the hydraulic characteristics of a coal log train in a pipe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The pressure distribution around two coal logs in tandem (a coal log train) flowing in a horizontal pipe (inner diameter of 50 mm) is experimentally studied. Experiments are conducted at three water velocities (0.92, 1.10, and 1.50 m/s; corresponding Reynolds numbers 45 771, 54 726, and 74 627, respectively). The hydraulic characteristics of the coal log train are analyzed, and the results are used to calculate the lift and drag forces together with the lift and drag coefficients. The pressure at the faces and surfaces of the coal log train increases at rising water velocity, enhancing the lift and drag forces. The forces acting on the first coal log are the largest, and forces on other coal logs decrease stepwise. The hydraulic characteristics of the first coal log are more complex than that of other coal logs. The lift and drag coefficients decrease with increasing water velocity. Both the lift and drag forces on individual coal logs are smaller than those on a single coal log in a pipe, when the coal logs follow one another. These results show the great difference in hydraulic characteristics between a coal log train and a single coal log in a pipe.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".