Experimental methods to determine the performance of desiccant coated fixed-bed regenerators (FBRs)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Desiccant coated fixed-bed regenerators (FBRs) transfer heat and moisture between two airstreams having different temperature and humidity. The experiments on FBRs are challenging because of their transient nature of operation. Unlike other energy exchangers, FBRs do not attain a steady-state condition; instead, they reach a quasi-steady state where the humidity and temperature of the outlet air continuously vary with time. This paper shows that measuring the temperature and humidity of a time-varying airstream with temperature and humidity sensors may lead to errors in the effectiveness in the order of 15–20%. Meanwhile, the method proposed in this paper reduces errors to ±5–8%, which is comparable to the accepted uncertainties in steady-state test standards. The major contributions of this paper are: (i) development and verification of new experimental methods to determine the effectiveness of desiccant coated FBRs and (ii) verification of the bag sampling method (BSM) for humidity measurements proposed by test standards. The results are verified using a validated numerical model and a correlation from the literature.
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".