Coaxial Mixer Hydrodynamics with Newtonian and non‐Newtonian Fluids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The performance of several combinations of a wall scraping impeller and dispersing impellers in a coaxial mixer operated in counter‐ and co‐rotating mode were assessed with Newtonian and non‐Newtonian fluids. Using the power consumption and the mixing time as the efficiency criteria, impellers in co‐rotating mode were found to be a better choice for Newtonian and non‐Newtonian fluids. The hybrid impeller‐anchor combination was found to be the most efficient for mixing in counter‐rotating or co‐rotating mode regardless of the fluid rheology. For both rotating modes, it was shown that the anchor speed does not have any effect on the power draw of the dispersing turbines. However, the impeller speed was shown to affect the anchor power consumption. The determination of the minimum agitation conditions to achieve the just suspended state of solid particles (Njs) was also determined. It was found that Njs had lower values with the impellers having the best axial pumping capabilities.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".