A Study on the Reactivation of Five Fly Ashes from Commercial Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB) Boilers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five different fly ashes and their carbon-free derivatives from commercial-scale circulating fluidized-bed combustion (CFBC) boilers were hydrated with liquid water or steam, to determine whether hydration would improve sorbent utilization in the samples under fluidized-bed combustion conditions. After hydration by water, for one fly ash (FA1) and two carbon-free fly ashes (FA2-A and FA3-A), the capacity of the ashes for taking up SO 2 showed limited improvement; however, hydration was not effective in reactivating the remaining samples. Generally, for these fly ashes, reactivation by hydration with either liquid water or steam seemed to be less promising than that for bed ashes, which have been shown to exhibit significant improvement in sulfur capture during resulfation. Hydration, whether by steam or liquid water, is not recommended for fly ash, which has a very limited residence time in the boiler, because of its small particle size. This paper recommends alternative strategies.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".