MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2468501244 · doi:10.1615/atomizspr.2015012108

EFFECT OF SINGLE- AND MULTI-HOLE BUBBLE BREAKERS ON THE EFFERVESCENT ATOMIZATION PROCESS

2015· article· en· W2468501244 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAtomization and Sprays · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBubbleCircuit breakerMechanicsMaterials scienceFlow (mathematics)Range (aeronautics)CombustionChemistryPhysicsMechanical engineeringComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effervescent atomization technique is used in many industrial applications such as gas turbines, internal combustion engines, furnaces and burners, and pharmaceutical sprays. The present study is focused on investigating the influence of a new type of bubble breaker on the two-phase flows inside and outside an effervescent atomizer. Different configurations (size and number of holes) of the new bubble breaker were considered over a range of gas to liquid flow rates ratios (GLRs) from 0.001 to 0.022. High-speed imaging was used to visualize and quantify bubble and spray characteristics. The results showed that the two-phase flow regime and bubbles' size inside the effervescent atomizer, and the spray droplets' size and velocity outside the atomizer are strongly influenced by the bubble breaker. The results demonstrated that the bubble breaker effectively fragments large bubbles into smaller ones. Furthermore, the results illustrate that the diameter and numbers of holes of the bubble breaker affect the bubble size inside the mixing zone as well as the droplet size and velocity.

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.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.211 · 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