MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802899063 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2001-0021

PART-I HEAT TRANSFER IN THE THIN LAYER PART FOR THE FILM CONDENSATION ON HORIZONTAL LOW FINNED TUBES

2001· article· en· W2802899063 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
I.M.M. El-Moghazy, Hazem Ali Attia

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat Transfer and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCondensationFinTube (container)Surface tensionMechanicsHeat transferMaterials scienceHeat transfer coefficientLayer (electronics)Flow (mathematics)Work (physics)Thin layerThermodynamicsComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The surface area of horizontal low finned tubes in condensers is commonly, based on the physical features of the filmwise condensation process, divided into three regions; unflooded, flooded, and dripped ones. Also, depending on the film thickness of condensate, the condensed regions, i.e. flooded and unflooded regions, can be divided into two parts; thin and thick layers. As it is known, the thin layer part represents the important part of the tube for condensation process. This part covers the fin tip and fin wall side for the unflooded region while, it covers the fin tip only for the flooded region. Thus, a theoretical model was developed to predict the condensing heat transfer coefficient for this thin layer part. In the present work, a two-dimensional model is presended to analyze the combined effect of gravity and surface tension of drained condensate on the fin wall surface upon the heat tranfer characteristics. The model was solved numerically. The effect of condensate flow around the tube (z-direction) is included for comparison with other models. This comparison shows that there is a significant influence of gravity effect in the z-direction, especially for fluids of low-surface tension.

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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicHeat Transfer and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207