Laval Tube Design of Yarn Suction Gun for Fully Drawn Yarn
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to demonstrate the effect of Laval tube structure of yarn suction gun on the yarn suction performance, throat diameter and throat length of the Laval tube were determined by theoretical analysis of the fluid field in the gun. 12 Laval tubes were designed, and yarn suction force (F) and mass flow rate of compressed air (G) were determined. Thereafter, yarn suction efficiency () was analyzed, where =F/G. The rational geometrical parameters were obtained: converging angle of Laval tube =90 and diverging angle of Laval tube =6. The results indicated that there was a benefit to the airflow acceleration in the converging part of Laval tube and the formation of strong swirling flow by choosing the proper , finally resulting in the improvement of . The increase of super-sonic swirling airflow in the diverging section of Laval tube and the decrease of running resistance between the airflow and the yarn could be found when the reasonable was selected, which also improved . However, normal shock wave appeared in advance, the kinetic energy lost and the acceleration of airflow stopped due to the over-large , leading to the decrease of .
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".