Application of a Wet Resonance Grille in a Ventilating Shaft and a Model for Calculating the Efficiency of Dust Removal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dust-removal processes of a spray, wet resonance grille, and water film are considered in an investigation of factors that affect the efficiency of wet resonance-grille dust-removal technology.The dust removal efficiency of the liquid droplet group is deduced adopting limit trajectory theory.A formula for calculating the efficiency of dust removal by a single resonance grille and water film is obtained employing resonance grille filtering and liquid saturation theory.On the basis of Strauss tandem theory, a mathematical model of the total dust removal efficiency is proposed and numerically calculated.Numerical results show that the grille distance-diameter ratio ranges from 2.0 to 2.5 when the liquid-gas ratio is 0.0263l/m 3 under the condition of low filtration velocity.As the distance-diameter ratio decreases, the filling ratio increases, the grille diameter decreases, and the overall dust removal efficiency increases.The method of calculating the efficiency proposed in this paper can guide engineering practice.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".