Measurement of the Liquid−Deposit Interface Temperature during Solids Deposition from Wax−Solvent Mixtures under Static Cooling Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The liquid−deposit interface temperature for solids deposition was measured under static cooling (i.e., without any induced shear stress) from prepared mixtures of a petroleum wax (C 20 −C 40 ) and a multicomponent paraffinic solvent (C 9 −C 16 ) at different coolant temperatures. Two designs for the cooling of wax−solvent mixtures were developed for monitoring the temperature at fixed radial locations in a cylindrical vessel. The wax−solvent mixture was cooled from a temperature higher than its wax appearance temperature (WAT), and the movement of the liquid−deposit interface was obtained from the rate of change of temperature at different radial locations. The deposit-layer thickness increased more rapidly with a larger heat-transfer area and a lower coolant temperature. The interface temperature was observed to be equal to the WAT of the wax−solvent mixture, and it decreased slightly when the liquid-region temperature became less than the WAT of the original mixture (causing the precipitation of wax crystals). The results of this study support the constant-interface-temperature assumption made in the heat-transfer approach for modeling solids deposition from waxy mixtures, but not the increasing-interface-temperature assumption in the molecular-diffusion approach.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".