Comparing top entry versus side entry agitator performance in low viscosity blending
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The primary purpose of this study was to quantify the difference in performance of side entering versus top entering agitators in low viscosity blending on the lab scale. This study compared the power requirement of top entry versus side entry agitator set ups to yield the same blend time. A 1.22 m diameter clear vessel was used for the testing and several top entry set ups (0.15–0.3D/T with three wall baffles) were compared to a single side entry set up (0.09D/T with no wall baffles). Blend time was recorded for each run using three to four conductivity probes with water as the base fluid and a saturated sodium chloride solution as the tracer. Results show that a side entering agitator requires between three and five times the power to yield the same blend time as a top entering agitator. This ratio of powers is strongly related to the D/T chosen. In the future, additional work will be completed, which will include the effect of multiple side entry agitators on blend time and the effect of viscosity (i.e., lower Reynolds numbers) on blend time.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".