Design and Simulation of Supersonic Swirling Separator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supersonic swirling separator has been developed for natural gas dehydration in recent years. Compared to Twister-I supersonic swirling separator, Twister-II type overcomes the disadvantage of uncontrolled shock and the steady swirling flow field contributes to high efficiency of gas-liquid separation. The design method is discussed. For the Laval nozzle, the contraction section is designed by double cubic curve method, while the method for expansion section is tapered tube method the same as the divergent tube, throat is smooth circular arc; the length of straight swirling pipe section for separation is 3-8 times of the diameter. The paper simulates the applicability of the supersonic swirling separator by Fluent. Studies have shown that the lower environmental temperature, the lower the outlet temperature, the easier water to cool, and the higher the separation efficiency. If the volume flow rate rises, the inlet velocity and the mass flow rate can be effectively improved. We can control the shock location by adjusting the pressure at the outlet of divergent pipe. The shock appears at the inlet in the working condition designed. When the outlet pressure is lower, the shock occurs in divergent tube; on the opposite, it moves forward. Beyond a certain degree, shock occurs at the Laval nozzle, the device fails to work.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".