Experimental investigation of forced convection heat transfer over horizontal tube with conical fins for different fin spacings and different inclination angles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research was performed to experimentally study the heat transfer over a horizontal tube with conical fins for different fin spacings and different inclination angles. The air entering the test section first contacts the large surface of the conical fin. Therefore the conical fin both directs the air towards the heating surface and increases the heat transfer surface area. The experiments were conducted for three different inclination angles (45°, 60° and 80°) and three different fin spacings (10, 12, and 15 mm). Water and air were used as hot and cold fluid in these experiments, respectively. The water temperature, which was the heating fluid, was kept fixed at 65 °C. The cold fluid entered the test section at eight different air flow velocities (2–20 m/s). Experimental results indicated that the Nusselt number at each inclination angle for the 10 mm fin spacing was almost the same. Moreover, for the 15 mm fin spacing, the highest Nusselt number was obtained at 80° and lowest at 60° for Re > 5 × 10 4 , while the Nusselt number was almost the same at each inclination angle for Re < 5 × 10 4 . It was determined that the lowest pressure drop was obtained at 80° for both 10 and 15 mm.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".