Deposition under Turbulent Flow of Wax−Solvent Mixtures in a Bench-Scale Flow-Loop Apparatus with Heat Transfer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A flow-loop apparatus, incorporating a co-current double-pipe heat exchanger, was developed for investigating the deposition of solids from solutions of a multicomponent wax in a paraffinic solvent under turbulent flow. The deposition experiments were performed at Reynolds numbers of 10 000−31 000 with 7, 10, and 15 mass % wax−solvent mixtures at different hot and cold stream temperatures. In all experiments, the deposit was formed rapidly such that a thermal steady state was attained within 20−30 min. The deposit mass decreased with an increase in the Reynolds number, the wax−solvent mixture temperature, and the coolant temperature. The data were analyzed with a steady-state heat-transfer model, which confirmed the deposit mass to depend upon the relative magnitudes of the thermal resistances in series as well as the fractional temperature drop across the deposit layer. The estimated liquid−deposit interface temperature was shown to be close to the wax appearance temperature of each wax−solvent mixture. The average thermal conductivity of the deposit was estimated to be 0.35 W m - 1 K - 1 . The gas chromatograph analysis of deposit samples showed their wax content and carbon-number distribution to vary with the deposition time and Reynolds number. Overall, the results of this study confirm that the deposition process from “waxy” mixtures is primarily thermally driven under both laminar and turbulent flow.
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".