Solids Deposition during “Cold Flow” of Wax−Solvent Mixtures in a Flow-loop Apparatus with Heat Transfer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Cold flow” refers to the pipeline flow of a “waxy” crude oil at a temperature, which is below its wax appearance temperature (WAT) and above its pour point temperature (PPT), whereby precipitated wax crystals remain suspended in the flowing crude oil. It has been suggested as an alternative technology for decreasing solids deposition (Merino-Garcia, D.; Correra, S. Pet. Sci. Technol . 2008, 26, 446). An experimental investigation was undertaken to study solids deposition under cold flow in a flow-loop apparatus, incorporating a small double-pipe heat exchanger. The experiments were performed using 3 and 6 mass % mixtures of a petroleum wax dissolved in Norpar13 (a paraffinic solvent comprising C 9 −C 16 ) at different wax−solvent mixture temperatures, T h, and two flow rates over a deposition time of 1 h. Two sets of deposition experiments were performed: cold flow with {WAT ≥ T h > PPT} and “hot flow” with { T h > WAT}. The deposit mass decreased with a decrease in wax concentration and with an increase in the coolant temperature. However, the deposit mass decreased with a decrease in the mixture temperature, under cold flow, but it increased with a decrease in the mixture temperature, under hot flow. Also, the deposit mass, under cold flow, was not affected by flow rate. Predictions from a pseudosteady-state heat-transfer model were in good agreement with experimental results, indicating the deposition process to be thermally driven. The liquid−deposit interface temperature in all cases was equal to the WAT of the liquid phase. Variations in both the wax content and the carbon number distribution in deposit samples are discussed.
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.
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 it