Thermodynamic Modelling of Supersonic Gas Ejector with Droplets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a thermodynamic model for determining the entrainment ratio and double choke limiting pressure of supersonic ejectors within the context of heat driven refrigeration cycles, with and without droplet injection, at the constant area section of the device. Input data include the inlet operating conditions and key geometry parameters (primary throat, mixing section and diffuser outlet diameter), whereas output information includes the ejector entrainment ratio, maximum double choke compression ratio, ejector efficiency, exergy efficiency and exergy destruction index. In single-phase operation, the ejector entrainment ratio and double choke limiting pressure are determined with a mean accuracy of 18 % and 2.5 % , respectively. In two-phase operation, the choked mass flow rate across convergent-divergent nozzles is estimated with a deviation of 10 % . An analysis on the effect of droplet injection confirms the hypothesis that droplet injection reduces by 8 % the pressure and Mach number jumps associated with shock waves occuring at the end of the constant area section. Nonetheless, other factors such as the mixing of the droplets with the main flow are introduced, resulting in an overall reduction by 11 % of the ejector efficiency and by 15 % of the exergy efficiency.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".