Selection and experimental evaluation of low-cost porous materials for regenerator applications in thermoacoustic engines

This paper aims at evaluating three selected low-cost porous materials from the point of view of their suitability as regenerator materials in the design of thermoacoustic travelling wave engines. The materials tested include: a cellular ceramic substrate with regular square channels; steel “scourers”; and stainless steel “wool”. Comparisons are made against a widely used regenerator material: stainless steel woven wire mesh screen. For meaningful comparisons, the materials are selected to have similar hydraulic radii. One set of regenerators was designed around the hydraulic radius of 200 μm. This included the ceramic substrate, steel “scourers”, stainless steel “wool” and stacked wire screens (as a reference). This set was complemented by steel “scourers” and stacked wire screens (as a reference) with hydraulic radii of 120 μm. Therefore six regenerators were produced to carry out the testing. Initial tests were made in a steady air flow to estimate their relative pressure drop due to viscous dissipation. Subsequently, they were installed in a looped-tube travelling-wave thermoacoustic engine to test their relative performance. Testing included the onset temperature difference, the maximum pressure amplitude generated and the acoustic power output as a function of mean pressure between 0 and 10 bar above atmospheric. It appears that the performance of regenerators made out of “scourers” and steel “wool” is much worse than their mesh-screen counterparts of the same hydraulic radius. However cellular ceramics may offer an alternative to traditional regenerator materials to reduce the overall system costs. Detailed discussions are provided

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Funder: laura and john arnold foundationBACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). METHODS: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. RESULTS: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care

Design and experimental validation of looped-tube thermoacoustic engine

The aim of this paper is to present the design and experimental validation process for a thermoacoustic looped-tube engine. The design procedure consists of numerical modelling of the system using DELTA EC tool, Design Environment for Low-amplitude ThermoAcoustic Energy Conversion, in particular the effects of mean pressure and regenerator configuration on the pressure amplitude and acoustic power generated. This is followed by the construction of a practical engine system equipped with a ceramic regenerator — a substrate used in automotive catalytic converters with fine square channels. The preliminary testing results are obtained and compared with the simulations in detail. The measurement results agree very well on the qualitative level and are reasonably close in the quantitative sense

Selection and experimental evaluation of low-cost porous materials for regenerator applications in thermoacoustic engines

This paper aims at evaluating three selected low-cost porous materials from the point of view of their suitability as regenerator materials in the design of thermoacoustic travelling-wave engines. The materials tested include: a cellular ceramic substrate with regular square channels; steel " scourers" ; and stainless steel " wool" Comparisons are made against a widely used regenerator material: stainless steel woven wire mesh screen. For meaningful comparisons, the materials are selected to have similar hydraulic radii. One set of regenerators was designed around the hydraulic radius of 200 μm. This included the ceramic substrate, steel " scourers" , stainless steel " wool" and stacked wire screens (as a reference). This set was complemented by steel " scourers" and stacked wire screens (as a reference) with hydraulic radii of 120 μm. Therefore six regenerators were produced to carry out the testing. Initial tests were made in a steady air flow to estimate their relative pressure drop due to viscous dissipation. Subsequently, they were installed in a looped-tube travelling-wave thermoacoustic engine to test their relative performance. Testing included the onset temperature difference, the maximum pressure amplitude generated and the acoustic power output as a function of mean pressure between 0 and 10. bar above atmospheric. It appears that the performance of regenerators made out of " scourers" and steel " wool" is much worse than their mesh-screen counterparts of the same hydraulic radius. However cellular ceramics may offer an alternative to traditional regenerator materials to reduce the overall system costs. Detailed discussions are provided

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care