Mixing time in an agitated multi‐lamp cylindrical photoreactor using electrical resistance tomography
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND: There is scarce information on the application of electrical resistance tomography (ERT) in UV photoreactors, in which mixing and mass transfer are important. Therefore, the feasibility of an ERT system in an agitated multi‐lamp UV photoreactor was investigated to monitor the mixing process. RESULTS: The locations of the UV tubes had a significant impact on the mixing time, particularly at the lower impeller speeds (45 and 150 rpm). Also, at the higher impeller speeds (250, 350, and 500 rpm) and the same radial position ( r ), changing the angle θ from 15 to 45°, resulted in only a slight variation of the mixing time. Finally, the maximum mixing time occurred when UV tubes were positioned at r = 13 cm ( r / R = 0.68) and θ = 0°, while minimum mixing time occurred at location r = 16 cm ( r / R = 0.83) and θ = 45°. CONCLUSION: The experimental results demonstrated the feasibility of the ERT system to monitor the mixing process in the UV photoreactor. The ERT results also indicated that the locations of the UV tubes had a significant effect on the mixing performance of the photoreactor. Furthermore, the mixing time varied inversely with the rotational speed, and this effect was more pronounced at lower speeds. Copyright © 2008 Society of Chemical Industry
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it