MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414183259 · doi:10.1002/cjce.70084

A phenomenological study of bubbles from the venturi pipe microbubble generator without and with guitar string insertion

2025· article· en· W4414183259 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anugerah Erlaut, Soen Steven, Pandit Hernowo, Ibnu Maulana Hidayatullah, Neng T.U. Culsum, Intan Clarissa Sophiana, Tulus Sukreni, Mubiar Purwasasmita

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVenturi effectBubbleString (physics)Generator (circuit theory)Liquid bubbleTwo-phase flowVolumetric flow rateFlow (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The phenomena of bubble formation from the venturi pipe microbubble generator were investigated. The air hole sizes were varied at 1, 0.5, and 0.3 mm while the volumetric flow rates were set at 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 LPM. Insertion of a guitar string with a diameter of 0.2 mm into the 0.5 mm air hole size was also performed to examine its effect. The simulation of the bubble shrinkage process in water (sizes of 25, 50, 75, and 100 μm) was held with and without saturated nitrogen at 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 0.875, and 1 atm. The experiment shows that average bubble sizes for air hole sizes of 1, 0.5, and 0.3 mm are 1.37, 1.40, and 1.09 mm, respectively. The flow rate alteration significantly affects the bubble sizes for air hole sizes of 0.5 and 0.3 mm but is not meaningful for 1 mm. In addition, the guitar string insertion also produces spherical bubbles with a size of 1.33 mm for deep depth location. Moreover, simulation results prove that smaller bubble sizes lead to prolonged shrinkage time and a greater mass transfer coefficient in the liquid phase with and without saturated nitrogen.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.164
Teacher spread0.159 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicFluid Dynamics and MixingFrench-language works237,207