Multipin EHD dryer: Effect of electrode geometry on charge and mass transfer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrohydrodynamic (EHD) drying is considered as energy-efficient nonthermal technology suitable for dewatering of heat-sensitive materials. This technology relies on the ionic discharge from the vertical pin or fine horizontal wire, impinging wet material deposited on the plate electrode of opposite polarity. The critical issue for the scaling of EHD dryer is the geometry of a multipin/wire discharge and collecting electrodes, in particular the spacing between pins/wires and the gap between discharge electrode and material surface. This paper presents the results of experimental study and mathematical simulation of multipin discharge current to maximize total charge and mass transfer at the material surface. A mathematical model for discharge current based on Poisson’s and Warburg fundamental equations was developed and validated in experiments with multipin electrodes of different spacing (1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 cm) and gaps from 2 to 4 cm. It was demonstrated that linear relationship between total electric current and drying rate is valid for any spacing and any gap with the range from 2 to 4 cm. It was experimentally documented that the judiciously selected geometry of the multipin discharge electrode could mitigate adverse effect of interference between neighboring ionic jets and bring the concept of EHD dryer to industrial practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".