Simulation of the submerged energy nozzle-mold water model system using laser-optical and computational fluid dynamics methods

The present work describes quantitative digital particle image velocimetry measurements of a full-scale water model of a thin slab mold. Different casting speeds and two submerged entry nozzles with one and two outlet ports have been investigated. The flow pattern of the single-port nozzle shows a counterclockwise-rotating double vortex that is nearly steady-state but leads to high stationary surface waves. The flow jets out of the two-port nozzle oscillate and produce a transient flow pattern with low wave amplitudes. The amplitudes for the one-port nozzle show a linear variation with the volumetric flow rate. The experimental results lead to a good interpretation of the flow phenomena and are used to validate steady-state numerical simulations with the commercial program, CFX, on the basis of the Reynolds equations. To describe anisotropic turbulence effects, the Reynolds stress model (RSM) is used for the flat single-port nozzle and the standard k-ɛ model for the mold flow. The calculated mean velocities and wave amplitudes, predicted from pressure distribution at the water surface, are generally in the consensus of the experimental data. An erratum to this article is available at .     

Is evidence-based practice diverse enough? Philosophy of science considerations.

In its policy rationale for evidence-based practice in psychology (EBPP), the APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice (see record 2006-05893-001) claims to have constituted itself with "scientists and practitioners from a wide range of perspectives and traditions, reflecting the diverse perspectives within the field" (p. 273). We applaud this attention to diversity but contend that an entire perspective of the debate was omitted in the Task Force's newly approved policy and its underlying report. The failure to consider a philosophy of science perspective led the Task Force to make a number of epistemological assumptions that are not based on evidence or rationale and that thus violate the very spirit of evidence-based decision making. In this comment, we reveal a few of these assumptions and discuss their detrimental consequences. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)