EFFECT OF THE DISTANCE FROM THE WALL OF A BELOW-WINDOW HOT AIR FLOOR VENT ON THE CONVECTIVE HEAT TRANSFER FROM A COLD WINDOW FITTED WITH A TOP-DOWN BOTTOM-UP PLANE BLIND SYSTEM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In building heating systems hot air from a floor-mounted vent located below a window often flows over the cold window. The vent flow, in general, affects the rate of convective heat transfer to the window. The distance of the hot-air floor vent from the wall containing the window may affect the rate of convective heat transfer to the window and this possibility has been investigated here. The window heat transfer rate will also depend upon the type of blind system being used. A top-down bottom-up plane blind system in which the blind can both be lowered at the top and raised at the bottom has been considered here. The window has been represented by a plane isothermal section recessed into the wall. This window section is colder than the room air far from the window. The plane blind is assumed to be in the same plane as the surface of the wall in which the window is mounted. The flow is assumed to be steady and situations involving laminar, transitional, and turbulent flow have been considered. Fluid properties are assumed constant except for the density change with temperature that gives rise to the buoyancy forces; this was dealt with using the Boussinesq approach. Radiant heat transfer effects have been neglected. The governing equations have been solved using the commercial CFD code ANSYS FLUENT©. The k-epsilon turbulence model with buoyancy force effects fully accounted for was employed. Results have been obtained for a Prandtl number of 0.74 which is effectively the value for air. The effects of the dimensionless distance of the wall side of the hot-air vent from the wall and of the dimensionless top and bottom blind openings on the window Nusselt number have been studied for various Reynolds and Rayleigh numbers.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".