Cold model testing of a re‐circulating fluidised bed reactor working in alternate aeration— fuel burning cycles for chemical looping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A re‐circulating fluidised bed (RCFB) reactor is proposed here for gaseous fuel combustion using chemical‐looping combustion (CLC). A single RCFB reactor was operated in alternate oxidation and reduction cycles for simulating the interconnected reactors arrangement for CLC. For this, a Perspex made transparent, concentric, semicircular cold model of RCFB reactor was used with three grades of Indian Standard sand. Operational parameters like bed inventory, pressure drop, particle size, suspension density, solid circulation rate, bed voidage and fluidisation gas velocity were studied to how they affect the performance of the RCFB reactor. The solid circulation rate has been found to increase with the increase in the bed inventory. Proper solid circulation rate is very much required for proper heat and mass transfer in an interconnected fluidised bed reactors system. The bed voidage is observed to be high during the aeration cycle and low during the reduction cycle. A high bed voidage during the oxidation cycle is appropriate for the fast oxidation reaction of the metal oxides. However, a low bed voidage is required for proper heat transfer for an endothermic reduction reaction in the fuel reactor. Suspension density in the downcomer of the RCFB reactor has been found to be increasing with bed inventory for both the oxidation and reduction cycles, which is good for the bed‐to‐wall heat transfer. A good observed solid circulation rate, operating voidage and suspension density add to the capability of RCFB to run CLC.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".