Heat Transfer During High Temperature Gas Flow Through Metal Foam Heat Exchangers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental study of heat transfer in metal foam heat exchangers fabricated from 10 and 40 pores per inch (PPI) was conducted. Heat exchangers were made by either brazing Inconel sheets to foam or plasma spraying Inconel skins on the foam. A burner test rig was built to produce high temperature combustion gases at either 550 °C or 750 °C that were passed over the exposed surface of heat exchangers that were cooled by passing air through them at rates of up to 200 SLPM. Both pressure drop and temperature rise of the air were measured. Friction factors and volumetric heat transfer coefficients were calculated for air velocities varying from 0.1 to 5 m/s and dimensionless correlations to predict these derived. The heat exchangers with 40 PPI foam were measured to have higher heat transfer rates and larger pressure drop than those with 10 PPI foam. Thermal sprayed heat exchangers were found to perform better than those that were brazed since they had lower thermal contact resistance between the external shell and foam struts. An analytical model was developed assuming local thermal nonequilibrium (LTNE) and predictions from model were found to be in good agreement with experimental results.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".