MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Investigation of Surface Aging Effects on the Repeatability of Saturated Pool Boiling Heat Transfer

2020· article· en· W3084852950 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Elkholy, Roger Kempers

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat Transfer and Boiling Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuperheatingBoilingNucleate boilingMaterials scienceCritical heat fluxRepeatabilityHeat transferNucleationHeat fluxHeat transfer coefficientThermodynamicsChemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surface condition has been shown to be the main parameter impacting pool boiling heat transfer performance, namely heat transfer coefficient (HTC) and the critical heat flux (CHF). Many surface modification methods have been developed and studied to improve boiling heat transfer performance by creating nano/micro-scale surface topologies to induce more nucleation sites that can be activated at lower wall superheat, hence improving the HTC.In the current work, the effect of the boiling surface aging on pool boiling performance enhancement is investigated through a repeatability study. First, the design, development, and calibration of a high-accuracy pool boiling apparatus with a relatively large boiling surface area is detailed. This apparatus was subsequently used to investigate the effect of the surface oxidation and contamination on the pool boiling performance for bare copper surfaces. Tests were performed at the saturated conditions using deionized water at atmospheric pressure. The surfaces were tested seven times which amounted to 40 hours of testing. The experiment results demonstrated that the surface aging had a significant effect on the HTC, which reached up to 22% of improvement compared to the freshly prepared surface. However, its effect on CHF is minimal with at least 25 hours of tests are required to get repeatable results within 5%.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHeat Transfer and Boiling StudiesFrench-language works237,207