Alternating versus direct current in electrohydrodynamic drying
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although DC power is claimed to be more energy-efficient than AC power for EHD drying, experimental studies on this subject are still insufficient. This research compares the efficiency of DC versus AC (60 Hz frequency) power for EHD drying by using 1 × 1 and 2 × 2 multi-pin discharge electrodes. Energy indicators were determined from the measurements of electric power consumption at the corresponding drying rate of the wet tissue paper. The experiments revealed the key benefits of DC drying, such as enhanced drying rate, higher energy efficiency, and lower specific energy consumption. For the comparable drying flux of 0.2 g/(m2 s), the specific energy consumption of DC drying was in the range from 350 J/g (2 × 2) to 750 J/g (1 × 1) as compared with 2000 J/g (2 × 2) to 5000 J/g (1 × 1) for AC. The specific energy consumption of a 2 × 2 discharge electrode was consistently smaller than the 1 × 1 one, indicating the role of emitters spacing in the process efficiency. The specific energy consumption of both electrodes increased with the drying rate.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".