Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Foamy oil viscosity is a controversial topic among researchers as to what happens to the apparent oil viscosity when the dispersed gas bubbles start migrating with the oil. For conventional oils, below the true bubble point pressure, the oil viscosity increases as the gas freely evolves from the oil. For foamy oils, it has been suggested that the apparent viscosity of gas-in-oil dispersion remains relatively constant, or perhaps declines slightly, between the true bubble point and a characteristic lower pressure, called pseudo bubble point, which is the pressure at which the gas starts separating from the oil. Below this pressure, the viscosity increases, reaching the dead oil value at atmospheric pressure. However, it is a well known fact in dispersion rheology that the viscosity of dispersion is higher than the viscosity of the continuous phase. Therefore, the concept of foamy oil viscosity being lower than the oil viscosity is counterintuitive. The major difference here is the extreme viscosity of the base liquid phase for foamy oil and how this interacts with the gas phase in a porous medium. The reported results appear to be very oil specific in this area, and are also a very strong function of how rapidly pressure is depleted in a given system. It is also likely that the apparent viscosity for flow of foamy oil in porous media is not the true dispersion viscosity due to the size of dispersed bubbles being comparable to the pore sizes. This study aims to investigate this issue by measuring the foamy oil viscosity under varied conditions. The effect of several parameters, such as shear/flow rate, foaminess and gas volume fraction on foamy oil viscosity was experimentally evaluated. A slim tube packed with sand was used to measure the apparent viscosity of gas-in-oil dispersions. The results show that the apparent viscosity of foamy oils is considerably higher than the live oil viscosity. . The results obtained also showed that the presence of an added foaming agent had only a minor impact on the apparent viscosity of foamy oil, especially at higher expansion factors. Also, at the same expansion factor, the apparent viscosity was higher at higher flow rate. Overall, the presence of a foaming agent resulted in enhanced dispersed flow of gas, as evidenced from the size of bubbles being produced and the observed pressure fluctuations
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".