Convective Heat Transfer in a Three-Dimensional Tubular Exchanger Filled with Pure/Hybrid Water-Based Nanofluid and Exposed to the Magnetic Field Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to evaluate, numerically, the effect of different nanoparticle volume fractions, on a heat transfer in a tubular heat exchanger.The main objective is to control this process under the effect of a magnetic field.The nanoparticles used for this analysis include water-based pure (alumina: Al2O3 and copper Cu) and hybrid (Al2O3-Cu) nanoparticles.This work is considered for laminar and stationary conditions in co-current mode flow.The computational analysis is performed under the CFD/Fluent code.The magnetic induction used is around [0.1 to 0.6] Tesla, and is applied in conjunction with the exchanger axis.The comparative study shows that copper nanofluids have a significant effect on heat transfer compared with alumina because: in co-current mode and for B=0T, Re=50 and =1% volume fraction of nanoparticles, the efficiency of copper reached 88.25%, while alumina was 87.12%.In addition, the heat transfer coefficient and the friction factor can be controlled by the magnetic field because curves h(B) and Cf(B) show, under the growth of a magnetic field B, the heat transfer coefficient increases autonomously, while the friction coefficient decreases.
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".