Fig. 10 shows the distributions of

Fig. 10 shows the distributions of the scalar quantity of NEV*
normalized by the mean velocity (convection velocity) at each CV at
the hypothetical boundaries aa0 and bb0 (Fig. 1), presented as the
ratio of the NEV* to the convection velocity, the mean velocity, at
that position. A value of 1.0 indicates that the NEV* and convection
velocity were perfectly the same at that CV or point. A deviation
from 1.0 reflects the contribution of diffusion flux (see Equation (3))
to contaminant transport. A value higher than 1.0 indicates that the
direction of the diffusion flux and convection flux were the same,
increasing contaminant transport due to the contaminant concentration
gradient and turbulent diffusion. The normalized NEV*s
at the hypothetical boundaries in both cases were smaller than 1.0.
Thus, contaminant transport by convection was diminished by
counter-diffusion. The normalized NEV* at the hypothetical
boundary aa0 (the wider side of the hood) was smaller than that
along the boundary bb0 , because the contaminant concentration
gradient along the wider boundary was larger and diffusion of the
contaminant was easier. In the both cases, the normalized NEV*
was smallest 0.3e0.6 m above the kitchen counter and reached a
minimum atw0.45 m, 0.83 for Case K1 and 0.49 for Case K2. These
values indicate that 17% of the convection flux producing effective
contaminant transport in Case K1 and 51% of that in Case K2 was
diminished by diffusion.

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 2:

Fig. 10 Shows The Distributions of The scalar Quantity of NEV *.
normalized by The mean Velocity (Convection Velocity) at Each CV at.
The hypothetical boundaries AA0 and Bb0 (Fig. 1), Presented As The.
ratio of The NEV * to The Convection Velocity, The. Velocity mean, at
that position. A value of 1.0 * Indicates that The NEV and Convection.
Velocity or CV that were perfectly at The Same Point. A deviation
from 1.0 reflects The contribution of Diffusion Flux (See Equation (3)).
to contaminant Transport. A value Indicates that The Higher than 1.0.
Direction of The Diffusion Flux and Flux Convection were The Same,.
Increasing contaminant Transport Due to The contaminant Concentration.
gradient and turbulent Diffusion. The normalized NEV * S
at The hypothetical boundaries in Both Cases were Smaller than 1.0.
Thus, contaminant Transport by Convection was diminished by.
counter-Diffusion. The normalized NEV * at The hypothetical.
BOUNDARY AA0 (The wider Side of The Hood) was Smaller than that.
Along The BOUNDARY Bb0, Because The contaminant Concentration.
Along The gradient was larger and wider BOUNDARY The Diffusion of.
contaminant was Easier. The in Both Cases, The normalized NEV *.
was The Smallest 0.3e0.6 m above a kitchen counter and reached.
Minimum Atw0.45 m, 0.83 for Case K1 and K2 twelve forty-nine a.m. for Case. These
values ​​indicate that 17% of The Effective Convection Flux producing.
contaminant Transport in Case K1 and K2 was 51% of that in Case.
diminished by Diffusion.