The effect of fluctuating pressure gradient on the coalescence of Taylor bubble
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The oscillatory coalescence phenomenon of the Taylor bubble flow subjected to the action of a fluctuating pressure gradient in a pulsating heat pipe was investigated using the front tracking method (FTM). The effects of amplitude and frequency of fluctuating pressure, bubble size, Reynolds number (Re), and Weber number (We) on the bubble coalescence process were studied. The results demonstrated that the lower the pulsation frequency, the longer the period of bubble oscillation, which could provide enough time for bubbles to drain and promoted the coalescence of the bubbles. The larger Euler number (Eu) was, the more easily bubbles coalesced. On the contrary, when Eu was small, the bubbles were slow to coalesce. The size of the top bubble and the bottom bubble had different effects on coalescence. An increase of the length of the top bubble (L t ) was beneficial to bubble coalescence while increasing the length of the bottom bubble (L b ) restrained bubble coalescence. Time required for bubble coalescence increased with the increase of Re and decreased with increasing We.
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".