Experimental Performance of a Two-Phase Ejector: Nozzle Geometry and Subcooling Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of an experimental study on a two-phase ejector. The main objective is to assess the effects of the nozzle’s divergent and the throat diameter on performance under various working conditions. Under the same conditions, ejector operation with a convergent nozzle, results in higher critical primary mass flow rate and lower critical pressure than with a convergent-divergent nozzle version. Experiments show as well that the flow expansion is higher in the convergent-divergent nozzle. The throat diameter turns out to have an important impact only on the amount of the critical mass flow rate. The nozzle geometry has no impact on its optimal position in the ejector. Globally, the ejector with the convergent-divergent nozzle provides a higher entrainment ratio, due to a reduced primary mass flow rate and an increased secondary flow induction. Tests also show that the ejector with a lower throat diameter provides a higher entrainment ratio, due to better suction with less primary flow. Unlike the convergent-divergent nozzle, the convergent nozzle permits an entrainment ratio almost insensitive to a wide range of primary inlet sub-cooling levels. Primary and secondary mass flow rates increase proportionally with the subcooling level and result in a quasi-constant entrainment ratio.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".