Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance tests on a wet type dust collector were made using four different test dusts to determine a relationship between dust collection efficiency, particle size and size-distribution., collector nozzle velocity, and collector geometry. Dust laden air entered the collector and impinged upon a water surface at nozzle velocities in the order of 10,000 fpm. The fraction of dust which penetrated the collector was found to fit the equation [formula omitted] π = collector penetration (100% minus efficiency) ø[subscript]g = Geometric Coefficient of Variation of the test dust [formula omitted] V = collector nozzle velocity in thousands of fpm j = [formula omitted] π was found to vary from 0.121 percent with Corundum dust to 8.68 percent with Alundum dust. The nozzle velocity range was from6840 fpm to 14,130 fpm and the range of J was from 6.85 to 27.4. Corundum dust was found to have a value of ø[subscript]g equal to 0.123 with a geometric mean diamter, [formula omitted] , of 11.9 microns while ø[subscript]g and [formula omitted] for Alundum were calculated to be 0.521 and 4.84 microns respectively. The four test dusts were sized by a sedimentation method. The Function equation fits the experimental results with an uncertainty of ± 12 percent.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".