Deposition from Wax−Solvent Mixtures under Turbulent Flow: Effects of Shear Rate and Time on Deposit Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bench-scale flow-loop apparatus, incorporating a double-pipe heat exchanger, was used for investigating the effects of shear rate and deposition time on the deposition of solids, under turbulent flow, from solutions of a multicomponent wax in a paraffinic solvent. The deposit-layer thickness was found to decrease with an increase in the Reynolds number (or shear rate), while it increased asymptotically with the deposition time. Calculations with a steady-state heat-transfer model showed the liquid−deposit interface temperature to be equal to the wax appearance temperature (WAT) and the deposit average thermal conductivity to be 0.35 W m −1 K −1 . Gas chromatography (GC) analyses of deposit samples showed significant changes in the carbon number distribution with shear rate and time. A recently proposed model, involving one-dimensional shear deformation of a cubical cage, was used to express changes in the deposit composition, via the deformation angle (β), as a function of the Reynolds number and deposition time. The time-dependent variations in deposit composition were expressed with a viscoplastic model, in which Reynolds number (or shear rate) influences the initial deposit properties. The proposed viscoplastic model affords a new explanation for the deposit aging phenomenon. The deposition from “waxy” mixtures was confirmed to be primarily a thermally driven process, in which the shear rate and deposition time play important roles by influencing the deposit properties.
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".