Laminar Fully Developed Flow in Periodically Converging–Diverging Microtubes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Laminar fully developed flow and pressure drop in linearly varying cross-sectional converging–diverging microtubes have been investigated in this work. These microtubes are formed from a series of converging–diverging modules. An analytical model is developed for frictional flow resistance assuming parabolic axial velocity profile in the diverging and converging sections. The flow resistance is found to be only a function of geometrical parameters. To validate the model, a numerical study is conducted for the Reynolds number ranging from 0.01 to 100, for various taper angles, from 2 to 15 degrees, and for maximum–minimum radius ratios ranging from 0.5 to 1. Comparisons between the model and the numerical results show that the proposed model predicts the axial velocity and the flow resistance accurately. As expected, the flow resistance is found to be effectively independent of the Reynolds number from the numerical results. Parametric study shows that the effect of radius ratio is more significant than the taper angle. It is also observed that for small taper angles, flow resistance can be determined accurately by applying the locally Poiseuille flow approximation. Acknowledgments The authors are grateful for the financial support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada and the Canada Research Chairs Program.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it