Two-phase simulation of nanofluid in a confined single impinging jet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detailed numerical investigations are carried out to study and compare the implementation of single- and two-phase models of nanofluids on the hydrodynamic and heat transfer characteristics of a confined single impinging jet. The effects of Reynolds number (Re = 100–400), jet height ratio (H/W = 0.5–4), and nanoparticle volume fraction (∅=0–4%) on the local and the average Nusselt number are determined. In the present work, a laminar flow was considered with a constant heat flux on the targeted surface. The two-phase model exhibits higher values of local and average Nusselt number with a maximum enhancement of 150% in average Nusselt number at H/W = 4 and ∅ = 4% while single phase model shows twice the pumping power obtained by the two-phase model. Two correlations have been established to predict the ratio of the average Nusselt numbers in the presence and absence of Al2O3-nanoparticles in the working fluid for single and two-phase models, respectively.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".