Magneto Hydrodynamic Effect on Nanofluid Flow and Heat Transfer in Backward- Facing Step Using Two-Phase Model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Magneto hydrodynamics effects on nanofluid flow in backward-facing step is studied using two-fluid model of Buongiorno. Due to the utilization of two-phase model, variable nanoparticle concentration and nanofluid properties are considered. Thermophoresis and Brownian diffusivities are calculated in particle dispersion. Effects of Reynolds number, particle volume fraction, magnetic field and Hartmann numbers are studied on heat transfer and fluid flow characteristics. It is shown that introduction of nanoparticles as a second phase, pushes reattachment point further into the downstream, while magnetic field has opposite effect and pushes it backward into the upstream. Particles are shown to be migrating from hot to cold regions due to the dispersion mechanisms considered. In comparison to single phase models, there is 3.7% decrease in maximum Nusselt number and more than 40% difference in the reattachment point location. Accuracy of the reattachment point is shown through previous pure fluid studies, the comparison to which show less than 0.8% tolerance with most recent studies. Relative effect of diffusion mechanisms is compared in different flow conditions, which show up to 12.5% difference. Application of magnetic field results in average Nusselt number increase of more than 10% by Hartmann number of 12.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it