Experimental Investigation of the Effect of the Bubble Cone on the Cooling Jets used in the Blown Film Manufacturing Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An experimental investigation was performed to characterize the flow field produced by a dual-lip air ring used in the blown-film manufacturing process for a solid model with a blow-up ratio of 3.5 similar to the shape of a typical LLDPE bubble. Distributions of the static and fluctuating pressure on the model and the flow field above the forming cone were measured for a range of settings on the dual-lip air ring. It was found that the distribution of the pressure on the bubble below the forming cone had many features similar to the measurements for a bubble with a blow-up ratio of 2.5 [1]. In the region above the forming cone, the upper jet appeared to merge with the lower jet rather than entraining the lower jet as was observed for a bubble with a blow-up ratio of 2.5 [1]. This resulted in a smaller local maximum in the normalized fluctuating pressure in the region above the forming cone and would likely result in less heat transfer in this region. It was also found that the initial angle of the upper jet exiting the air ring changed when the height of the bubble cone was adjusted for the bubble with the blow-up ratio of 3.5. This affected the static pressure in the region below the location where the upper jet attaches to the bubble and the pressure fluctuations in the region where the upper jet attaches to the surface. Finally, unlike the bubble with the blow-up-ratio of 2.5 [1], the presence of the bubble cone caused a region of negative gauge pressure in the region above the forming cone that should act to stabilize the bubble against the bubble cone. The pressure in this region and the region below the forming cone both decreased when the porosity of the bubble cone was reduced.
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".