MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6999885114

Effect of Inlet Temperature on Supersonic Liquefaction Characteristics of Natural Gas

2019· article· en· W6999885114 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicnanoparticles nucleation surface interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInletNozzleLiquefactionNucleationSupersonic speedCondensationMass fraction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To reveal the effect of inlet temperature on the supersonic liquefaction characteristics of natural-gas mixtures, a mathematical model for the supersonic condensation flow of two-component natural gas mixtures was established in this study. The spontaneous condensation process of methane-ethane mixed gas in a Laval nozzle at different inlet temperatures was studied. The results indicate that when the inlet pressure and gas composition of the Laval nozzle remained the same, with the decrease in the inlet temperature, the nucleation position of the mixed gas moved forward; the nucleation rate, droplet radius, droplet number, and liquid mass fraction were all increased; and the liquefaction characteristics was improved. By using the Laval nozzle structure designed in this study, inlet gas pressure of 6 MPa, inlet gas temperature of 265 K, methane content of 90% and ethane content of 10% resulted in maximum nucleation rate of 0.9822×1021 (m3?s)?1 in the Laval nozzle, maximum droplet radius of 4.7194×10?7 m, maximum droplet number of the unit mass of 5.0704×1014 kg?1, and maximum liquid mass fraction of 7.8121%. The liquefaction efficiency of the Laval nozzle sharply decreased when the inlet temperature was higher than 275 K. In an actual production, the liquefaction efficiency of the Laval nozzle can be improved by lowering the inlet temperature and reducing the heat exchange between the Laval nozzle and outside environment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.387 · 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.

Study designObservational
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicnanoparticles nucleation surface interactionsFrench-language works237,207